Cool! You must be cosjobs' friend. I watched your teaser of Stray a few months ago, and I liked it. I hope you finish the film. Thanks for the heads up, Tommy. I didn't realize season 3 was starting this soon.Some of you have been following my posts about Stray, my indie film I'm trying to finish. I thought it might be worth mentioning here that Annie Corley (Reggi Darnell in the The Killing) has signed on to co-star in my movie! Suffice it to say I'll be watching The Killing tonight!
I liked the first two seasons. If you don't like shows that aren't fast paced, and it rains a lot, and you don't care for the lead female, you probably shouldn't watch the show.I saw a few episodes of season 1, but just never got into it. Does it get better? I generally love all of AMC's series, this one just didn't do it for me. I really disliked the lead female, does she finally leave?
Yes, but obviously something has brought her back.I saw a few episodes of season 1, but just never got into it. Does it get better? I generally love all of AMC's series, this one just didn't do it for me. I really disliked the lead female, does she finally leave?
thanks, ill probably check out this season then.No. Season 3 doesn't require 2watched season 1, hated the ending, skipped season 2. I see season 3 is getting solid reviews, is season 2 essential to understanding season 3?
I did the same thing. Still unsure if I'm gonna give it another shot.watched season 1, hated the ending, skipped season 2. I see season 3 is getting solid reviews, is season 2 essential to understanding season 3?
The nanny (au pair) from Jerry Maquire.the dude in jail is creepy
That was Todd Louiso from High Fidelity. Seward is played by Peter Sarsgaard. He was in Flightplan, An Education, Orphan, a few others.The nanny (au pair) from Jerry Maquire.the dude in jail is creepy
This.That was Todd Louiso from High Fidelity. Seward is played by Peter Sarsgaard. He was in Flightplan, An Education, Orphan, a few others.The nanny (au pair) from Jerry Maquire.the dude in jail is creepy
Overall, I really enjoyed the first episode. I kind of lost interest in the first 2 seasons but muddled through them anyway. Hopefully this season will hold my interest.
You made it through season 1 and have no care about the conclusion (season 2) but now are considering watching season 3. I don't get that. Season 2 was much better than season 1.biggamer3" said:watched season 1, hated the ending, skipped season 2. I see season 3 is getting solid reviews, is season 2 essential to understanding season 3?
I started season 1, when it was good and different than other shows. Then the season starting getting sucky for the most part but I stuck with it to see who killed Rosie, than they had the BS for the ending with no resolution, and I said see ya later to this show.You made it through season 1 and have no care about the conclusion (season 2) but now are considering watching season 3. I don't get that.Season 2 was much better than season 1.biggamer3" said:watched season 1, hated the ending, skipped season 2. I see season 3 is getting solid reviews, is season 2 essential to understanding season 3?
I love it when he starts getting all ghetto with his talk.Dickies said:I thought last night's episode may be the best they've had in all of the seasons. Holder had me
That money goes towards her five pound sweaters.And I guess they didn't spend any of the budget this season either on make-up for Linden.
I agree 100% and I think it's the biggest missed opportunity of the show. She is not a good person. She is selfish and bitter and void of emotional attachment to anyone or anything (although when here kid disappeared in season 1 she did seem to care a bit). It isn't a "she's her own woman, she does what she wants and solves the case!" It's a "she's the kind of person no one would want to know for any reason because she brings nothing to the table at all except disappointing the people who count on her." And that's a missed opportunity. Most of my friends who like Breaking Bad are drawn in for a number of reasons, not the least of which being how much they hate Walter White and want to see what happens to him. Linden and Holder would have been (and maybe eventually will be) the kind of duo where you want to see Holder succeed and can't stand to see Linden on his coat tails. I don't know how it would work, but that would make a more compelling show.The bigger issue I see with Linden is she's pretty much an unredeeming character. She has an affair with a younger coworker, but won't move closer to be closer to her son. When she did have her son, she focused on work and neglected him. She abandoned her vows to her fiance. As her foster ward said in the episode, Linden does what Linden is going to do, and she won't listen to anyone. She regularly got Holder into difficult and compromising situations, even at times, getting his life risked. ( Get out of the car Holder, get out on Indian land where the Chief is basically a mob boss who knows we are gunning for her)
Al Sweargen is a flawed character. Christian Troy is a flawed character. Jamie Lannister is a flawed character. Linden is just a completely lousy human being. I'm not sure she's ever done one unselfish act in the entire series so far. The actress that plays her is horribly miscast, despite the Emmy nomination. There's understated and then there's not present at all. Mirelle Enos is not present at all. She mumbles. There isn't one ounce of life in her character, even under the surface. Nothing to bind the audience to at least relate to her. Joel Kinnamon isn't helping because he's stealing every scene and giving three times the depth with even less dialog and often having to be a secondary character to Linden. Veena Sud really struck out with Enos/Linden. Tragedy doesn't add depth to a character. How a character REACTS to that implied tragedy does. Broken people work for books, you have more time and more traction to create shades of that character, broken doesn't work for TV, the time and classic theme limitations are too arduous to over come.
I thought the opening episode was great, but not because of Linden, it was great despite Linden.
It's for that reason that I do like her character.. she is flawed beyond what is shown in 90% of today's shows.I agree 100% and I think it's the biggest missed opportunity of the show. She is not a good person. She is selfish and bitter and void of emotional attachment to anyone or anything (although when here kid disappeared in season 1 she did seem to care a bit). It isn't a "she's her own woman, she does what she wants and solves the case!" It's a "she's the kind of person no one would want to know for any reason because she brings nothing to the table at all except disappointing the people who count on her." And that's a missed opportunity. Most of my friends who like Breaking Bad are drawn in for a number of reasons, not the least of which being how much they hate Walter White and want to see what happens to him. Linden and Holder would have been (and maybe eventually will be) the kind of duo where you want to see Holder succeed and can't stand to see Linden on his coat tails. I don't know how it would work, but that would make a more compelling show.The bigger issue I see with Linden is she's pretty much an unredeeming character. She has an affair with a younger coworker, but won't move closer to be closer to her son. When she did have her son, she focused on work and neglected him. She abandoned her vows to her fiance. As her foster ward said in the episode, Linden does what Linden is going to do, and she won't listen to anyone. She regularly got Holder into difficult and compromising situations, even at times, getting his life risked. ( Get out of the car Holder, get out on Indian land where the Chief is basically a mob boss who knows we are gunning for her)
Al Sweargen is a flawed character. Christian Troy is a flawed character. Jamie Lannister is a flawed character. Linden is just a completely lousy human being. I'm not sure she's ever done one unselfish act in the entire series so far. The actress that plays her is horribly miscast, despite the Emmy nomination. There's understated and then there's not present at all. Mirelle Enos is not present at all. She mumbles. There isn't one ounce of life in her character, even under the surface. Nothing to bind the audience to at least relate to her. Joel Kinnamon isn't helping because he's stealing every scene and giving three times the depth with even less dialog and often having to be a secondary character to Linden. Veena Sud really struck out with Enos/Linden. Tragedy doesn't add depth to a character. How a character REACTS to that implied tragedy does. Broken people work for books, you have more time and more traction to create shades of that character, broken doesn't work for TV, the time and classic theme limitations are too arduous to over come.
I thought the opening episode was great, but not because of Linden, it was great despite Linden.
I like her character too. I just think they could really utilize her "character" and Holder with more depth. The entire first season was filled with interesting characters, so much so that I would have been fine if the entire thing had been set up as "we will take SEVEN ENTIRE SEASONS TO SOLVE THE MURDER OF ROSIE LARSON....and you will like it because you will see how this case affects these people and how they live their lives. We are not going to make a crime show with a satisfying ending...."It's for that reason that I do like her character.. she is flawed beyond what is shown in 90% of today's shows.I agree 100% and I think it's the biggest missed opportunity of the show. She is not a good person. She is selfish and bitter and void of emotional attachment to anyone or anything (although when here kid disappeared in season 1 she did seem to care a bit). It isn't a "she's her own woman, she does what she wants and solves the case!" It's a "she's the kind of person no one would want to know for any reason because she brings nothing to the table at all except disappointing the people who count on her." And that's a missed opportunity. Most of my friends who like Breaking Bad are drawn in for a number of reasons, not the least of which being how much they hate Walter White and want to see what happens to him. Linden and Holder would have been (and maybe eventually will be) the kind of duo where you want to see Holder succeed and can't stand to see Linden on his coat tails. I don't know how it would work, but that would make a more compelling show.The bigger issue I see with Linden is she's pretty much an unredeeming character. She has an affair with a younger coworker, but won't move closer to be closer to her son. When she did have her son, she focused on work and neglected him. She abandoned her vows to her fiance. As her foster ward said in the episode, Linden does what Linden is going to do, and she won't listen to anyone. She regularly got Holder into difficult and compromising situations, even at times, getting his life risked. ( Get out of the car Holder, get out on Indian land where the Chief is basically a mob boss who knows we are gunning for her)
Al Sweargen is a flawed character. Christian Troy is a flawed character. Jamie Lannister is a flawed character. Linden is just a completely lousy human being. I'm not sure she's ever done one unselfish act in the entire series so far. The actress that plays her is horribly miscast, despite the Emmy nomination. There's understated and then there's not present at all. Mirelle Enos is not present at all. She mumbles. There isn't one ounce of life in her character, even under the surface. Nothing to bind the audience to at least relate to her. Joel Kinnamon isn't helping because he's stealing every scene and giving three times the depth with even less dialog and often having to be a secondary character to Linden. Veena Sud really struck out with Enos/Linden. Tragedy doesn't add depth to a character. How a character REACTS to that implied tragedy does. Broken people work for books, you have more time and more traction to create shades of that character, broken doesn't work for TV, the time and classic theme limitations are too arduous to over come.
I thought the opening episode was great, but not because of Linden, it was great despite Linden.
It is possible that the case that she can't let go, changed her and as we go forward in this season we will see what happened to make her the "selfish, void of emotional attachment" person that she has become
IMO, I think they are building on that.. At least I hope so. otherwise the lie between them about both quitting smoking, and then showing both having a cigarette in the next scenes makes no sense.I like her character too. I just think they could really utilize her "character" and Holder with more depth. The entire first season was filled with interesting characters, so much so that I would have been fine if the entire thing had been set up as "we will take SEVEN ENTIRE SEASONS TO SOLVE THE MURDER OF ROSIE LARSON....and you will like it because you will see how this case affects these people and how they live their lives. We are not going to make a crime show with a satisfying ending...."It's for that reason that I do like her character.. she is flawed beyond what is shown in 90% of today's shows.It is possible that the case that she can't let go, changed her and as we go forward in this season we will see what happened to make her the "selfish, void of emotional attachment" person that she has becomeI agree 100% and I think it's the biggest missed opportunity of the show. She is not a good person. She is selfish and bitter and void of emotional attachment to anyone or anything (although when here kid disappeared in season 1 she did seem to care a bit). It isn't a "she's her own woman, she does what she wants and solves the case!" It's a "she's the kind of person no one would want to know for any reason because she brings nothing to the table at all except disappointing the people who count on her." And that's a missed opportunity. Most of my friends who like Breaking Bad are drawn in for a number of reasons, not the least of which being how much they hate Walter White and want to see what happens to him. Linden and Holder would have been (and maybe eventually will be) the kind of duo where you want to see Holder succeed and can't stand to see Linden on his coat tails. I don't know how it would work, but that would make a more compelling show.The bigger issue I see with Linden is she's pretty much an unredeeming character. She has an affair with a younger coworker, but won't move closer to be closer to her son. When she did have her son, she focused on work and neglected him. She abandoned her vows to her fiance. As her foster ward said in the episode, Linden does what Linden is going to do, and she won't listen to anyone. She regularly got Holder into difficult and compromising situations, even at times, getting his life risked. ( Get out of the car Holder, get out on Indian land where the Chief is basically a mob boss who knows we are gunning for her)
Al Sweargen is a flawed character. Christian Troy is a flawed character. Jamie Lannister is a flawed character. Linden is just a completely lousy human being. I'm not sure she's ever done one unselfish act in the entire series so far. The actress that plays her is horribly miscast, despite the Emmy nomination. There's understated and then there's not present at all. Mirelle Enos is not present at all. She mumbles. There isn't one ounce of life in her character, even under the surface. Nothing to bind the audience to at least relate to her. Joel Kinnamon isn't helping because he's stealing every scene and giving three times the depth with even less dialog and often having to be a secondary character to Linden. Veena Sud really struck out with Enos/Linden. Tragedy doesn't add depth to a character. How a character REACTS to that implied tragedy does. Broken people work for books, you have more time and more traction to create shades of that character, broken doesn't work for TV, the time and classic theme limitations are too arduous to over come.
I thought the opening episode was great, but not because of Linden, it was great despite Linden.
I think Enos is perfect for the part, and I don't find her character to be a lousy human being. Her character is complex. She always puts the case above herself, which ends up hurting her personally, and sometimes professionally when she is so emotionally involved, but it's also part of what makes her a good detective.GordonGekko said:The bigger issue I see with Linden is she's pretty much an unredeeming character. She has an affair with a younger coworker, but won't move closer to be closer to her son. When she did have her son, she focused on work and neglected him. She abandoned her vows to her fiance. As her foster ward said in the episode, Linden does what Linden is going to do, and she won't listen to anyone. She regularly got Holder into difficult and compromising situations, even at times, getting his life risked. ( Get out of the car Holder, get out on Indian land where the Chief is basically a mob boss who knows we are gunning for her)
Linden is just a completely lousy human being. I'm not sure she's ever done one unselfish act in the entire series so far. The actress that plays her is horribly miscast, despite the Emmy nomination. There's understated and then there's not present at all. Mirelle Enos is not present at all. She mumbles. There isn't one ounce of life in her character, even under the surface.
They both wanted the other to think that they were healthy and doing well.snogger said:otherwise the lie between them about both quitting smoking, and then showing both having a cigarette in the next scenes makes no sense.
exactly.. and you don't do that if there isn't "Something" going on between them that leads to, as Abraham said, " I just think they could really utilize her "character" and Holder with more depth."They both wanted the other to think that they were healthy and doing well.snogger said:otherwise the lie between them about both quitting smoking, and then showing both having a cigarette in the next scenes makes no sense.
I disagree with GG and you. She is not void of emotional attachment to anyone or anything. It's quite the opposite. As simey touched on, she gets too emotionally attached to her cases, to the point where the case totally consumes her. She cares too much about the victims, where it has caused her to have an emotional breakdown. As for GG saying she has never done one unselfish act in the complete series, she just put a cow out of it's misery so it wouldn't suffer. She has put herself in jeaopardy to get justice for the victims. She won't win a mother of the year award, but she does have some redeeming qualities.Abraham said:I agree 100% and I think it's the biggest missed opportunity of the show. She is not a good person. She is selfish and bitter and void of emotional attachment to anyone or anything (although when here kid disappeared in season 1 she did seem to care a bit). It isn't a "she's her own woman, she does what she wants and solves the case!" It's a "she's the kind of person no one would want to know for any reason because she brings nothing to the table at all except disappointing the people who count on her." And that's a missed opportunity. Most of my friends who like Breaking Bad are drawn in for a number of reasons, not the least of which being how much they hate Walter White and want to see what happens to him. Linden and Holder would have been (and maybe eventually will be) the kind of duo where you want to see Holder succeed and can't stand to see Linden on his coat tails. I don't know how it would work, but that would make a more compelling show.The bigger issue I see with Linden is she's pretty much an unredeeming character. She has an affair with a younger coworker, but won't move closer to be closer to her son. When she did have her son, she focused on work and neglected him. She abandoned her vows to her fiance. As her foster ward said in the episode, Linden does what Linden is going to do, and she won't listen to anyone. She regularly got Holder into difficult and compromising situations, even at times, getting his life risked. ( Get out of the car Holder, get out on Indian land where the Chief is basically a mob boss who knows we are gunning for her)
Al Sweargen is a flawed character. Christian Troy is a flawed character. Jamie Lannister is a flawed character. Linden is just a completely lousy human being. I'm not sure she's ever done one unselfish act in the entire series so far. The actress that plays her is horribly miscast, despite the Emmy nomination. There's understated and then there's not present at all. Mirelle Enos is not present at all. She mumbles. There isn't one ounce of life in her character, even under the surface. Nothing to bind the audience to at least relate to her. Joel Kinnamon isn't helping because he's stealing every scene and giving three times the depth with even less dialog and often having to be a secondary character to Linden. Veena Sud really struck out with Enos/Linden. Tragedy doesn't add depth to a character. How a character REACTS to that implied tragedy does. Broken people work for books, you have more time and more traction to create shades of that character, broken doesn't work for TV, the time and classic theme limitations are too arduous to over come.
I thought the opening episode was great, but not because of Linden, it was great despite Linden.
I started season 1, when it was good and different than other shows. Then the season starting getting sucky for the most part but I stuck with it to see who killed Rosie, than they had the BS for the ending with no resolution, and I said see ya later to this show. Now I hear season 3 is solid and its a different story, so worth another crack, whats so hard to understand?You made it through season 1 and have no care about the conclusion (season 2) but now are considering watching season 3. I don't get that.Season 2 was much better than season 1.watched season 1, hated the ending, skipped season 2. I see season 3 is getting solid reviews, is season 2 essential to understanding season 3?
I started season 1, when it was good and different than other shows. Then the season starting getting sucky for the most part but I stuck with it to see who killed Rosie, than they had the BS for the ending with no resolution, and I said see ya later to this show. Now I hear season 3 is solid and its a different story, so worth another crack, whats so hard to understand?You made it through season 1 and have no care about the conclusion (season 2) but now are considering watching season 3. I don't get that.Season 2 was much better than season 1.watched season 1, hated the ending, skipped season 2. I see season 3 is getting solid reviews, is season 2 essential to understanding season 3?
I cannot watch a TV program like that. You watched the entire first season and where not intrigued in any way as to the conclusion of the case? You wanted the nice and tidy "CSI" type conclusion (which was never actually promised). I could understand it if you totally gave up on the show. What I don't get is you wanting back in but still having no interest in season 2. You don't care why the lead character is no longer a cop?I started season 1, when it was good and different than other shows. Then the season starting getting sucky for the most part but I stuck with it to see who killed Rosie, than they had the BS for the ending with no resolution, and I said see ya later to this show. Now I hear season 3 is solid and its a different story, so worth another crack, whats so hard to understand?You made it through season 1 and have no care about the conclusion (season 2) but now are considering watching season 3. I don't get that.Season 2 was much better than season 1.watched season 1, hated the ending, skipped season 2. I see season 3 is getting solid reviews, is season 2 essential to understanding season 3?
Not sure if you are trolling me, but I will answer anyway. Like i stated, the show lost me in the latter half of season 1, and with them deceiving the viewers and not showing us anything by seasons end, they had me saying enough to this show.I started season 1, when it was good and different than other shows. Then the season starting getting sucky for the most part but I stuck with it to see who killed Rosie, than they had the BS for the ending with no resolution, and I said see ya later to this show. Now I hear season 3 is solid and its a different story, so worth another crack, whats so hard to understand?You made it through season 1 and have no care about the conclusion (season 2) but now are considering watching season 3. I don't get that.Season 2 was much better than season 1.watched season 1, hated the ending, skipped season 2. I see season 3 is getting solid reviews, is season 2 essential to understanding season 3?>
I started season 1, when it was good and different than other shows. Then the season starting getting sucky for the most part but I stuck with it to see who killed Rosie, than they had the BS for the ending with no resolution, and I said see ya later to this show. Now I hear season 3 is solid and its a different story, so worth another crack, whats so hard to understand?You made it through season 1 and have no care about the conclusion (season 2) but now are considering watching season 3. I don't get that.Season 2 was much better than season 1.watched season 1, hated the ending, skipped season 2. I see season 3 is getting solid reviews, is season 2 essential to understanding season 3?I cannot watch a TV program like that.You watched the entire first season and where not intrigued in any way as to the conclusion of the case? You wanted the nice and tidy "CSI" type conclusion (which was never actually promised). I could understand it if you totally gave up on the show. What I don't get is you wanting back in but still having no interest in season 2. You don't care why the lead character is no longer a cop?I started season 1, when it was good and different than other shows. Then the season starting getting sucky for the most part but I stuck with it to see who killed Rosie, than they had the BS for the ending with no resolution, and I said see ya later to this show. Now I hear season 3 is solid and its a different story, so worth another crack, whats so hard to understand?You made it through season 1 and have no care about the conclusion (season 2) but now are considering watching season 3. I don't get that.Season 2 was much better than season 1.watched season 1, hated the ending, skipped season 2. I see season 3 is getting solid reviews, is season 2 essential to understanding season 3?
This. Really psyched about it. First episode was great.Looks like it could be a good season