THE KILLING -- the official boycott thread (Game of Thrones is back tonight at 9!)

[teamjordan79]

Originally Posted by Mitchellicious

Originally Posted by TeamJordan79

Originally Posted by Mitchellicious


No fair son, I called that 2 or 3 weeks ago. 

not her personally but maybe she was involved, possibly hired someone b/c that was def a dude chasing her in ep 1 in the woods, although they will have to explain why she wanted to completely ruin his election chances when she is in charge of his campaign. Just because he was macking it to rosie? I dunno, but we'll have to wait and see. 

Nah, Jamie is the bloke with blonde hair that works with Richmond. Gwen is his other assistant / lover.

true. Still, why use the campaign care to set ur self up like that? 

 

[mronegative]

[h2]Nine Things That Are Wrong With The Killing — and How to Fix Them for Next Season[/h2]

• 6/16/11 at 4:00 PM

The Killing wraps up its first season on Sunday night, and what a roller coaster it's been. (We're not the only ones who think so.) It started off as an oh-so-promising moody thriller, but then between the rain, the red herrings, and the basic police incompetence, everything got soggy and scatterbrained. Now we're on the cusp of finding out who the murderer is, and we can't get past just how important it is for politically minded prostitute users to silence their e-mail alert system. But if we clear our minds (but how did they miss Rosie's involvement in an escort service?! Okay, deep breath), we can remember our initial feeling about the show: that a multi-narrative, season-long mystery set in atmospheric Seattle sounds like it would make for good viewing. So, in the interest of making the next season ofThe Killing a better one, we've identified nine ways this season went wrong, and how it can be fixed going forward.

1. We don't care about the characters
Linden blew off her own wedding to fart around on a case she barely seemed capable of solving, and her whiny, immature partner smoked fake weed and got rained on. Mitch and Stan wept. The mayoral race ... is a thing. We know next to nothing about Rosie Larsen, the ostensible central character. So far, all we know about her is that she was smartish, secretive, possibly a prostitute, and was once really into the Grand Canyon. That's not a lot to go on. Even grody Aunt Terry mused, "Maybe none of us knew Rosie." That's not a selling point for a character.
How to Fix It: Build more character development into the early episodes. As the show has gone on, Linden and Holder have become a lot more sympathetic and interesting (though the same cannot be said for anyone attached to the mayoral nonsense). Belko eventually got some depth, and Aunt Terry finally had an illuminating conversation — in the penultimate episode. Hunt down fewer red-herring suspects in the early installments and give the characters some clearer wants and needs beyond just the case. As for the victim, how about a cohesive identity? The fragments we know about Rosie don't add up to anything. Her Super 8 movie was a start, but the audience needs a clearer entry into the victim's life so we feel more invested in solving her murder. A diary, perhaps? More examples of what she was like, or how she behaved? More characters who miss her throughout the day, as opposed to just two who can't delegate any of the grieving?

2. If you have thirteen episodes, use thirteen episodes
The selling point of The Killing was that with a whole season dedicated to one case, it was going to be able to dig deep and explore all the nitty-gritty developments glossed over in most procedurals, while developing three-dimensional characters. Sounds great! But it didn't work out quite that way. The pacing has been so off that, in hindsight, you could have watched the pilot and then tuned in for the last three episodes (that's including the episode where Holder and Linden wander around Seattle not working on the case. Character: just as important as plot!) and you would know everything there is to know about the investigation, the murder, and our protagonists. Having thirteen episodes to tell a story shouldn't be an excuse to tell a flabby one. 
How to fix it: Pursue multiple leads concurrently, and make each one seem viable at least for a bit, but preferably longer. Alternately, they could narrow the investigation down to the one real suspect early on, but get a cat-and-mouse story going wherein that person briefly evades arrest due to some kind of dramatic twist. (See: the first season of Dexter.) Make the red herrings lead to something, even if it's just more relevant information for detectives. Looking back over the season, we should be able to watch every episode and answer "Yes" to the question "Do we need this?"

3. It's disrespectful of its audience's innate TV IQ
The beginning of the show set up the premise that mayoral candidate Darren Richmond (or someone on his campaign) might have been involved with the murder. But when they were exonerated and the detectives moved on to other red herrings, we kept in touch with the Richmond camp and their seemingly irrelevant leaks and million-dollar jump shots, even as they were ancillary to the main plot. Anyone with an interest in television knows that this is not how TV works: A show doesn't pay a third of its cast to be irrelevant. Yes, technically Bennett Ahmed's reign as suspect technically affected the campaign, but not in a way that warranted spending this much time with them if they were truly distanced from the crime. So a savvy viewer always knew that by the laws of TV, even if the politicos weren't relevant through Episode 11, they'd eventually be relevant again. And lo, along came Episode 12, making it clear that the killer is from the political realm (though it probably won't be Billy Campbell's Richmond: TV rules also say there always has to be one more twist in the finale). A viewer shouldn't be able to get closer to IDing the real killer by using meta-logic than by following the scripted clues. It's like if you could solve a Sherlock Holmes mystery from the color of the cover. 
How to fix it: All the story lines need to at least appear to be relevant to the investigation throughout the entire run of the show: If the politicians had been "proven" innocent in the middle of the season, as opposed to the beginning, their long-term presence would have made more sense. Or if they hadn't been ruled out entirely, just in all likelihood. Alternately, they should have more characters appearing in every episode even after they've been cleared. If Rosie's friends had kept recurring, even though they'd been deemed innocent, the councilman's continued presence would have seemed less glaringly anomalous.

4.The technology is laughably outdated
Our recapper has been harping on Linden’s phone habits all season, and yes, her absurdly loud flip phone — and inability to put it on vibrate — tops the list of our complaints. But there was also the “Delinquent Kid Forwarding Crime-Scene Photos to His Friends

 

[mronegative]

[h2]Nine Things That Are Wrong With The Killing — and How to Fix Them for Next Season[/h2]

• 6/16/11 at 4:00 PM

The Killing wraps up its first season on Sunday night, and what a roller coaster it's been. (We're not the only ones who think so.) It started off as an oh-so-promising moody thriller, but then between the rain, the red herrings, and the basic police incompetence, everything got soggy and scatterbrained. Now we're on the cusp of finding out who the murderer is, and we can't get past just how important it is for politically minded prostitute users to silence their e-mail alert system. But if we clear our minds (but how did they miss Rosie's involvement in an escort service?! Okay, deep breath), we can remember our initial feeling about the show: that a multi-narrative, season-long mystery set in atmospheric Seattle sounds like it would make for good viewing. So, in the interest of making the next season ofThe Killing a better one, we've identified nine ways this season went wrong, and how it can be fixed going forward.

1. We don't care about the characters
Linden blew off her own wedding to fart around on a case she barely seemed capable of solving, and her whiny, immature partner smoked fake weed and got rained on. Mitch and Stan wept. The mayoral race ... is a thing. We know next to nothing about Rosie Larsen, the ostensible central character. So far, all we know about her is that she was smartish, secretive, possibly a prostitute, and was once really into the Grand Canyon. That's not a lot to go on. Even grody Aunt Terry mused, "Maybe none of us knew Rosie." That's not a selling point for a character.
How to Fix It: Build more character development into the early episodes. As the show has gone on, Linden and Holder have become a lot more sympathetic and interesting (though the same cannot be said for anyone attached to the mayoral nonsense). Belko eventually got some depth, and Aunt Terry finally had an illuminating conversation — in the penultimate episode. Hunt down fewer red-herring suspects in the early installments and give the characters some clearer wants and needs beyond just the case. As for the victim, how about a cohesive identity? The fragments we know about Rosie don't add up to anything. Her Super 8 movie was a start, but the audience needs a clearer entry into the victim's life so we feel more invested in solving her murder. A diary, perhaps? More examples of what she was like, or how she behaved? More characters who miss her throughout the day, as opposed to just two who can't delegate any of the grieving?

2. If you have thirteen episodes, use thirteen episodes
The selling point of The Killing was that with a whole season dedicated to one case, it was going to be able to dig deep and explore all the nitty-gritty developments glossed over in most procedurals, while developing three-dimensional characters. Sounds great! But it didn't work out quite that way. The pacing has been so off that, in hindsight, you could have watched the pilot and then tuned in for the last three episodes (that's including the episode where Holder and Linden wander around Seattle not working on the case. Character: just as important as plot!) and you would know everything there is to know about the investigation, the murder, and our protagonists. Having thirteen episodes to tell a story shouldn't be an excuse to tell a flabby one. 
How to fix it: Pursue multiple leads concurrently, and make each one seem viable at least for a bit, but preferably longer. Alternately, they could narrow the investigation down to the one real suspect early on, but get a cat-and-mouse story going wherein that person briefly evades arrest due to some kind of dramatic twist. (See: the first season of Dexter.) Make the red herrings lead to something, even if it's just more relevant information for detectives. Looking back over the season, we should be able to watch every episode and answer "Yes" to the question "Do we need this?"

3. It's disrespectful of its audience's innate TV IQ
The beginning of the show set up the premise that mayoral candidate Darren Richmond (or someone on his campaign) might have been involved with the murder. But when they were exonerated and the detectives moved on to other red herrings, we kept in touch with the Richmond camp and their seemingly irrelevant leaks and million-dollar jump shots, even as they were ancillary to the main plot. Anyone with an interest in television knows that this is not how TV works: A show doesn't pay a third of its cast to be irrelevant. Yes, technically Bennett Ahmed's reign as suspect technically affected the campaign, but not in a way that warranted spending this much time with them if they were truly distanced from the crime. So a savvy viewer always knew that by the laws of TV, even if the politicos weren't relevant through Episode 11, they'd eventually be relevant again. And lo, along came Episode 12, making it clear that the killer is from the political realm (though it probably won't be Billy Campbell's Richmond: TV rules also say there always has to be one more twist in the finale). A viewer shouldn't be able to get closer to IDing the real killer by using meta-logic than by following the scripted clues. It's like if you could solve a Sherlock Holmes mystery from the color of the cover. 
How to fix it: All the story lines need to at least appear to be relevant to the investigation throughout the entire run of the show: If the politicians had been "proven" innocent in the middle of the season, as opposed to the beginning, their long-term presence would have made more sense. Or if they hadn't been ruled out entirely, just in all likelihood. Alternately, they should have more characters appearing in every episode even after they've been cleared. If Rosie's friends had kept recurring, even though they'd been deemed innocent, the councilman's continued presence would have seemed less glaringly anomalous.

4.The technology is laughably outdated
Our recapper has been harping on Linden’s phone habits all season, and yes, her absurdly loud flip phone — and inability to put it on vibrate — tops the list of our complaints. But there was also the “Delinquent Kid Forwarding Crime-Scene Photos to His Friends

 

[noskey]

#8 is *@#+@%# dumb. This is the PNW, you dont use umbrellas or raingear out here unless you're a %!@%#.

 

[noskey]

#8 is *@#+@%# dumb. This is the PNW, you dont use umbrellas or raingear out here unless you're a %!@%#.

 

[mronegative]

pretty sure that and the chewing thing were jokes.

 

[mronegative]

pretty sure that and the chewing thing were jokes.

 

[mitchellicious]

Reading that they didn't know who the killer was until about half-way through the season is extremely disappointing. So many wasted episodes and so much filler as well, they should've just done a carbon copy of the Danish version, but switched the killer.

 

[mitchellicious]

Reading that they didn't know who the killer was until about half-way through the season is extremely disappointing. So many wasted episodes and so much filler as well, they should've just done a carbon copy of the Danish version, but switched the killer.

 

[mronegative]

If you're that intense and wanna catch up the whole season's on AMC's website. Most of em are only up until tomorrow, though.

I got no damn clue who it could be. I was sure it was the aunt.

I'll put my money on Gwen's dad, Widmore, because he's the most diabolical looking dude on the planet.

 

[mronegative]

If you're that intense and wanna catch up the whole season's on AMC's website. Most of em are only up until tomorrow, though.

I got no damn clue who it could be. I was sure it was the aunt.

I'll put my money on Gwen's dad, Widmore, because he's the most diabolical looking dude on the planet.

 

[illfrozn]

My vote? Jamie or Tom. However, more people could be connected to it all ...

 

[illfrozn]

My vote? Jamie or Tom. However, more people could be connected to it all ...

 

[monopolyman630]

I'm sticking with my mid season pick, Jamie. Hope it was worth sticking around the whole season.

 

[monopolyman630]

I'm sticking with my mid season pick, Jamie. Hope it was worth sticking around the whole season.

 

[wings90]

I should have kept up with this thread since the beginning.
I'd say it's Jamie. Even though Tom is pretty shady.

 

[wings90]

I should have kept up with this thread since the beginning.
I'd say it's Jamie. Even though Tom is pretty shady.

 

[T0INE]

Looking forward to the finale, hopefully it doesn't dissapoint.

 

[T0INE]

Looking forward to the finale, hopefully it doesn't dissapoint.

 

[cquan05]

Just a few more hours

 

[cquan05]

Just a few more hours

 

[hymen man]

I'll post my thoughts around 1AM since that's what I'll get a chance to watch it, hope it's worth the speculation and you all enjoy it.

 

[hymen man]

I'll post my thoughts around 1AM since that's what I'll get a chance to watch it, hope it's worth the speculation and you all enjoy it.

 

[dimeslikehefner]

I'm still rollin with Mayor Leslie as the killer

 

[dimeslikehefner]

I'm still rollin with Mayor Leslie as the killer