True Detective (2014 - present)

bondjames

I certainly agree that much of TD is film grade standard @patb. Moreover, it's also true that a lot of prime acting talent is now doing great work on tv.

McConaughey is a perfect example. His character in TD is one of his most celebrated performances, and rightly so. Would he have been able to develop Rust Cohle to the same degree in a 2 hour film? Probably not, and both he and the audience would have been worse off.

Would a film in the style of TD have made money? Or would it have languished, with an off peak release date in the winter? One wonders.

Look at Fincher's own The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo for instance. It's a fantastic film in my view, full of atmosphere, great acting and darkness. However it failed to ignite and Sony scrapped the sequel. Asked another way, would a Stieg Larsson adaptation, with all its mature themes, have worked better in a long form tv format over multiple seasons? I think it might have.

It is true that cinema is increasingly becoming the home of tentpoles. I'm not sure exactly what or who is to blame for that. Production costs, theatre audience tastes (perhaps the older crowd is staying at home while younger folks go to the theatre), industry consolidation and risk mitigation probably have a lot to do with it. As I mentioned on one of the 'controversial' threads yesterday, I don't mind which format we get product in, as long as it gets out one way or another in unfiltered and quality form.

Regarding Bond: I'm not averse to a different distribution medium for it down the road. If it's a choice between that and waiting another five years for the next film, I may be persuadable.

bondsum

100% agree with @bondjames. Nowadays, it's virtually impossible for a movie to try and tell an elaborate story over its 2 hour running time, and deliver the same balance of performance and impact that a television series does. Not that this format works for every TV series. Some are still small stories spun out over the course of a 13 episodic season, with too much unnecessary padding in between. I liked True Detective, but it's not Breaking Bad great, IMO.

I don't recall Manhunter making that much money on its initial release @patb. I followed this movie's progress back in the Eighties because I'd been such a big fan of the book long before Michael Mann decided to make it into a movie. In actual fact, Manhunter only grossed a total of $8,620,929 in the US, making it the 76th highest-grossing film that year. I wouldn't call that a success, personally, and nor would the studio for that matter.

patb

@bondsum @bondjames I am a fan of cinema beyond any genre so while I completely understand the points being made, there is only so much great talent to be had so whilst streaming expands, cinema withdraws.
For me, there is nothing as immersive and dramatic as being in the cinema. The lounge just cant compete.
The other danger is that talented writers see the trend and give up writing for the cinema so we get a downward spiral.

barryt007

It is also better on TV for the simple facts of 'pause & rewind'.

Complictated tales like this one might need re-checking moments or comments,something TV can give you that cinema cant.

That's why i don't think it would work as one whole cinema experience,it would be difficult to hold the attention span in that situation.

TV can break it up into 1 hour episodes which keeps things fresh,and the interest level up.

bondjames

I can relate @patb. I'm a huge theatre goer, even today. I just love the experience of being in a large dark room with fellow cinema lovers experiencing a film for the first time.

Isn't there a saying about tv being a writer's medium and dramatic theatre being the actor's medium, or something along those lines?

I'd say what you're concerned about is already happening. Cinema is withdrawing to a certain type at least - it's becoming an increasingly narrow focus medium, whereas tv is increasingly diverse from a narrative standpoint.

A lot of the writing for cinema, given financial imperatives, has to contend with the requirement to create product that will blast out of the gates with massive first weekend global grosses. This likely relies on more action. Ironically (given Fukunaga's next assignment), B25 may have been a victim of such pressures already, and may have precipitated Boyle's exit. Fukunaga has a reported talent for being able to nicely blend intense and rich characterizations with a certain amount of action, and that balance is probably what's required for a theatrical release to succeed these days, if it's not one of the Disney/Marvel products.
--

barryt007 wrote: »

It is also better on TV for the simple facts of 'pause & rewind'.

Complictated tales like this one might need re-checking moments or comments,something TV can give you that cinema cant.

That's why i don't think it would work as one whole cinema experience,it would be difficult to hold the attention span in that situation.

TV can break it up into 1 hour episodes which keeps things fresh,and the interest level up.

This is an excellent point which I was thinking of as well. I did actually replay portions of episodes of TD & TD2 a couple of times upon first viewing to revisit moments and get clarity on something I missed the first time.

Pierce2Daniel

bondjames wrote: »

I personally don't think a 'film' in the style of True Detective would have been as successful as it was as a tv series. It's a concept that requires time to breathe and unfold slowly as the personality layers reveal themselves via flashbacks and past interactions, and the longer running format of a series allows for (and facilitates) that.

I recently revisited it myself and think a lot of the genius is in Nic Pizzolatto's script. Directorially it's certainly very atmospheric, and Fukunaga should be credited for being able to extract such great performances from his cast. It's evident that a lot of thought went into creating the look and feel of the show, which is very distinctive, all enveloping and most importantly, supportive of the narrative. That's a skill, and I look forward to that approach being brought to bear for B25.

I was always more impressed with Fukunaga's handling of the scripts than the actual writing itself.

Pizzolatto is a self-serving writer and his style is so overwrought. In lesser hands (see TD series 2), it feels overworked and too aware of itself.

The great dialogue, alongside the mood, tone, atmosphere and performances is what made TD series 1 resonate. Huge credit goes to Fukunaga for effectively making an 8 hour movie.

These types of shows live in posterity, most people didn't watch TD when it aired weekly in 2014. We watch these things months and years after. In that sense, I see little difference between a show like True Detective (which is a 8 hour film) or something like Zodiac or Se7en (which are just two hour films).

A film is a novella and a great TV show is like a novel, with the episodes forming chapters.

bondjames

Pierce2Daniel wrote: »

bondjames wrote: »

I personally don't think a 'film' in the style of True Detective would have been as successful as it was as a tv series. It's a concept that requires time to breathe and unfold slowly as the personality layers reveal themselves via flashbacks and past interactions, and the longer running format of a series allows for (and facilitates) that.

I recently revisited it myself and think a lot of the genius is in Nic Pizzolatto's script. Directorially it's certainly very atmospheric, and Fukunaga should be credited for being able to extract such great performances from his cast. It's evident that a lot of thought went into creating the look and feel of the show, which is very distinctive, all enveloping and most importantly, supportive of the narrative. That's a skill, and I look forward to that approach being brought to bear for B25.

I was always more impressed with Fukunaga's handling of the scripts than the actual writing itself.

Pizzolatto is a self-serving writer and his style is so overwrought. In lesser hands (see TD series 2), it feels overworked and too aware of itself.

The great dialogue, alongside the mood, tone, atmosphere and performances is what made TD series 1 resonate. Huge credit goes to Fukunaga for effectively making an 8 hour movie.

These types of shows live in posterity, most people didn't watch TD when it aired weekly in 2014. We watch these things months and years after. In that sense, I see little difference between a show like True Detective (which is a 8 hour film) or something like Zodiac or Se7en (which are just two hour films).

A film is a novella and a great TV show is like a novel, with the episodes forming chapters.

I certainly agree that Fukunaga should be appreciated for creating the mood, tone and texture which complemented an excellent Pizzolatto script. I personally think they both deserve credit for that first series success.

I am not as harsh on the 2nd season as many. I think it suffered from perhaps unrealistic expectations. Would a second season under Fukunaga's helmsmanship also have encountered such pressure? Possibly. I guess we'll never know. Perhaps the only way was down after such a lauded first season? Moreover, given it wasn't a direct sequel, I think there was an aspect of confusion in the public's mind about what it was all about. It took a while to get going as well (although that applied to the first season also). I didn't think the casting was as good either, although Vince Vaughn was great.

You make a good point about tv series gaining traction with time. If critically acclaimed, viewers tend to get to it later and its reputation endures and can even increase. I'm not sure if a film can recover so well if viewers don't catch it in a theatre on the first go around, even if it's shown on tv later (except as a sort of enduring narrow audience 'cult' film). I think that's one more added pressure on a writer for a film to deliver a box office hit at the outset.

Pierce2Daniel

bondjames wrote: »

Pierce2Daniel wrote: »

bondjames wrote: »

I personally don't think a 'film' in the style of True Detective would have been as successful as it was as a tv series. It's a concept that requires time to breathe and unfold slowly as the personality layers reveal themselves via flashbacks and past interactions, and the longer running format of a series allows for (and facilitates) that.

I recently revisited it myself and think a lot of the genius is in Nic Pizzolatto's script. Directorially it's certainly very atmospheric, and Fukunaga should be credited for being able to extract such great performances from his cast. It's evident that a lot of thought went into creating the look and feel of the show, which is very distinctive, all enveloping and most importantly, supportive of the narrative. That's a skill, and I look forward to that approach being brought to bear for B25.

I was always more impressed with Fukunaga's handling of the scripts than the actual writing itself.

Pizzolatto is a self-serving writer and his style is so overwrought. In lesser hands (see TD series 2), it feels overworked and too aware of itself.

The great dialogue, alongside the mood, tone, atmosphere and performances is what made TD series 1 resonate. Huge credit goes to Fukunaga for effectively making an 8 hour movie.

These types of shows live in posterity, most people didn't watch TD when it aired weekly in 2014. We watch these things months and years after. In that sense, I see little difference between a show like True Detective (which is a 8 hour film) or something like Zodiac or Se7en (which are just two hour films).

A film is a novella and a great TV show is like a novel, with the episodes forming chapters.

I certainly agree that Fukunaga should be appreciated for creating the mood, tone and texture which complemented an excellent Pizzolatto script. I personally think they both deserve credit for that first series success.

I am not as harsh on the 2nd season as many. I think it suffered from perhaps unrealistic expectations. Would a second season under Fukunaga's helmsmanship also have encountered such pressure? Possibly. I guess we'll never know. Perhaps the only way was down after such a lauded first season? Moreover, given it wasn't a direct sequel, I think there was an aspect of confusion in the public's mind about what it was all about. It took a while to get going as well (although that applied to the first season also). I didn't think the casting was as good either, although Vince Vaughn was great.

You make a good point about tv series gaining traction with time. If critically acclaimed, viewers tend to get to it later and its reputation endures and can even increase. I'm not sure if a film can recover so well if viewers don't catch it in a theatre on the first go around, even if it's shown on tv later (except as a sort of enduring narrow audience 'cult' film). I think that's one more added pressure on a writer for a film to deliver a box office hit at the outset.

I don't think Fukunaga would have touched the scripts for series 2.

I think Pizzolato was running on the fumes of S1 when writing the second series. I have wince-inducing memories of the maudlin indie singer in the dreary bar singing angsty ballands at the end of the episodes. It was all too self-aware and 'edgy'.

Fukunaga instantly grabbed you in S1 and knew the fundamentally pulp nature of the material and injected it with art-house style and genre thrills.

Here's a great article that pretty much sums up the debate and details the Cary/Nic dispute:
http://www.vulture.com/2015/07/nic-pizzolatto-cary-fukunaga-true-detective-feud.html

bondjames

Pierce2Daniel wrote: »

bondjames wrote: »

Pierce2Daniel wrote: »

bondjames wrote: »

I personally don't think a 'film' in the style of True Detective would have been as successful as it was as a tv series. It's a concept that requires time to breathe and unfold slowly as the personality layers reveal themselves via flashbacks and past interactions, and the longer running format of a series allows for (and facilitates) that.

I recently revisited it myself and think a lot of the genius is in Nic Pizzolatto's script. Directorially it's certainly very atmospheric, and Fukunaga should be credited for being able to extract such great performances from his cast. It's evident that a lot of thought went into creating the look and feel of the show, which is very distinctive, all enveloping and most importantly, supportive of the narrative. That's a skill, and I look forward to that approach being brought to bear for B25.

I was always more impressed with Fukunaga's handling of the scripts than the actual writing itself.

Pizzolatto is a self-serving writer and his style is so overwrought. In lesser hands (see TD series 2), it feels overworked and too aware of itself.

The great dialogue, alongside the mood, tone, atmosphere and performances is what made TD series 1 resonate. Huge credit goes to Fukunaga for effectively making an 8 hour movie.

These types of shows live in posterity, most people didn't watch TD when it aired weekly in 2014. We watch these things months and years after. In that sense, I see little difference between a show like True Detective (which is a 8 hour film) or something like Zodiac or Se7en (which are just two hour films).

A film is a novella and a great TV show is like a novel, with the episodes forming chapters.

I certainly agree that Fukunaga should be appreciated for creating the mood, tone and texture which complemented an excellent Pizzolatto script. I personally think they both deserve credit for that first series success.

I am not as harsh on the 2nd season as many. I think it suffered from perhaps unrealistic expectations. Would a second season under Fukunaga's helmsmanship also have encountered such pressure? Possibly. I guess we'll never know. Perhaps the only way was down after such a lauded first season? Moreover, given it wasn't a direct sequel, I think there was an aspect of confusion in the public's mind about what it was all about. It took a while to get going as well (although that applied to the first season also). I didn't think the casting was as good either, although Vince Vaughn was great.

You make a good point about tv series gaining traction with time. If critically acclaimed, viewers tend to get to it later and its reputation endures and can even increase. I'm not sure if a film can recover so well if viewers don't catch it in a theatre on the first go around, even if it's shown on tv later (except as a sort of enduring narrow audience 'cult' film). I think that's one more added pressure on a writer for a film to deliver a box office hit at the outset.

I don't think Fukunaga would have touched the scripts for series 2.

I think Pizzolato was running on the fumes of S1 when writing the second series. I have wince-inducing memories of the maudlin indie singer in the dreary bar singing angsty ballands at the end of the episodes. It was all too self-aware and 'edgy'.

Fukunaga instantly grabbed you in S1 and knew the fundamentally pulp nature of the material and injected it with art-house style and genre thrills.

Here's a great article that pretty much sums up the debate and details the Cary/Nic dispute:
http://www.vulture.com/2015/07/nic-pizzolatto-cary-fukunaga-true-detective-feud.html

You'll get no argument from me that Fukunaga deserves a lot of credit for TD S1. That goes without saying. The article you've posted is mainly rumours though. Speculation about what transpired. Perhaps there's more to it?

I also agree that Season 2 wasn't as interesting or impressive directorially or narratively. There was an element of hubris to it. I also didn't like the cast as much (I've never been a Farrell fan). However, I think it would have been very difficult to follow up that first season successfully. I for one was really looking forward to more of the characters from the first season (especially Cohle), rather than brand new ones, although I recognize that the arc was probably complete.

Perhaps the show and writer needed to take a step away for a while. I think we'll see a return to form for S3.

EDIT: I'd like to add that for a complex show like this to work there has to be an element of mystery and intrigue. Something which keeps the viewer hooked and wanting to come back for more despite perhaps not getting all the connections initially. That was there in spades for the first season, along with great atmosphere. The 2nd season played like a basic procedural and the characterizations weren't as interesting.

Torgeirtrap

Pierce2Daniel wrote: »

Cinema is pretty much dead. Studios have over-saturated it with franchises over concerns for bottom line and profitability. The traditional thinking concerning theatrical distribution has changed rapidly in the last few years.

I never go to the cinema anymore. Don't know about ticket prices elsewhere, but I find going to the theatre throwing money out of the window. Sure, you get a bigger screen and a sound you won't get at home, but you also get the rude people you're seated with, who just can't shut up and/or eat and drink properly.

bondsum

patb wrote: »

@bondsum @bondjames I am a fan of cinema beyond any genre so while I completely understand the points being made, there is only so much great talent to be had so whilst streaming expands, cinema withdraws.
For me, there is nothing as immersive and dramatic as being in the cinema. The lounge just cant compete.
The other danger is that talented writers see the trend and give up writing for the cinema so we get a downward spiral.

Out of curiosity @patb, have you checked out David Fincher's Netflix thriller Mindhunter TV series? It's well worth a look if you haven't.

patb

@bondsum cheers, next on my list,

re cinema versus streaming, I can see that box sets allow more time for character development and more complex plot but, within the history of cinema, great writers have managed to squeeze all we wanted into 2 1/2 hours. Is it not a case of the tech leading the art form rather than the other way around? I hate the idea of the classic movie format becoming a thing of the past. I really hope there is room for both formats to thrive.

4EverBonded

I enjoy good tv series but I find a movie in the theater to be its own art form, immersive, and my favorite of the two (truly different) experiences. TV series of course can be sprawling, has episodes, etc. Even with a large screen, it is not the same as in the theater. For a movie, it is forced to be about 2 hrs, 3 tops. That is a different format, that constraint. I respect both tv series and movies, but I consider them different animals, so to speak. At least different vessels (that is more apt; how they are contained).

I appreciate both. As for Cary, he won an Emmy and I think so much of his talents are on display in True Detective. I am overjoyed that he is helming Bond 25. He can handle it, every aspect of it. His being a good writer is not a small point. We have a great director in him, one who can take a good script and make it better, and he can certainly bring out great performances in all of the cast (not just the lead). This series did relaunch Matthew's career, which was nice.

I enjoyed True Detective series 1 so much I bought the set. If you knew me, you'd realize this is unusual. Although I have always loved detective stories and mysteries, I really do not like very dark horror or shows that have graphic violence. The level of darkness in this series was there, throbbing in every episode and it is unusual for me that I found this so compelling and enjoyable. The acting, cinematography, whole direction and simply great storytelling made this journey very worthwhile for me.

Shardlake

Cinema is just too damn expensive here in the UK for me to throw money at it, I have to be really sold on a film to want to see it at the cinema, I've only seen Sicario 2 on the big screen this year.

Yes the big screen experience is like no other but the prices you pay, I'm happy to wait for most things on Blu ray, Netflix or Amazon Prime.

TD1 was inifintely better than TD2 and yes Fukunaga was a big reason for that. Though TD3 looks like a return to form, very much looking forward to it.

I think Bond is in a very good place with him as our director.

SaintMark

I think that a series lives or dies with its story, TD1 had a better story to tell than TD2. For me the medium can look bloody amazing if the story fails I do switch of.

patb

Finished the first series - just stunning work and a worthy climax. Despite all of the doom and gloom, the overiding theme was the value of friendship. Now for the DVD bonus material.

Creasy47

@Shardlake, that's how I am anymore: too many generic movies and the prices are too high to warrant me rushing to the theater week after week like I used to. I'm very selective these days.

barryt007

I have always been like that,i hardly ever go to the cinema now unless something really intrigues me .
(Or it's Bond of course,although I missed SF due to my marriage shit at that time ! )

4EverBonded

I cannot view it yet - please let me know what you all think. :) It's gotten good notices in previews.

https://twitter.com/TheHimmmm/status/1084523278365061121

Creasy47

It's fantastic so far, I loved both episodes. It hews VERY closely to the style of season one - you can tell that they bluntly learned from their mistakes with season two, and without spoiling anything, you'll see what I mean just from the opening moments of the show. I also applaud just how much is thrown our way in terms of suspects and reasoning - I had about five "I know who it is/what happened" moments just in the first episode alone, and I cannot wait to see the central mystery slowly unveil over the rest of the season. Also, not that it's remotely a surprise these days, but Mahershala Ali is stunning in this.

TR007

Really enjoyed the first 2 episodes. The show has won me back on side!

4EverBonded

Great! I appreciate no spoilers as I will see it as soon as I can (don't know when).

TR007

I adored season 1 but season 2 took the shine off the whole show for me.
To be honest, towards the end of season 2 I was hate-watching it, and came to season 3 tonight expecting to do the same (especially seeing as how CF is still no longer part of the show).
Credit where credit is due, I was drawn into the new episodes almost immediately. So engaging and I can’t think of a single fault in it so far. They’re doing a great job. Let’s hope they keep it up!

Creasy47

4EverBonded wrote: »

Great! I appreciate no spoilers as I will see it as soon as I can (don't know when).

I figured as much! Hopefully you can get around to them soon, as I'd love to hear your thoughts since I know you were one of the few around these parts that watched (and wholeheartedly loved) the first season at the same time as I did. Maybe you'll be lucky enough to dodge spoilers and catch it all post-airing, so you aren't punished with that week to week wait.

Creasy47

An exciting development:

https://deadline.com/2022/03/true-detective-night-country-hbo-barry-jenkins-issa-lopez-1234982303/

Creasy47

Jodie Foster has joined S4 as one of the leads, her first foray into a major TV role. Here is the synopsis:

"The series is centered around Detectives Liz Danvers and Evangeline Navarro who are looking to solve the case of six men that operate the Tsalal Arctic Research Station vanishing without a trace, when the long winter night falls in Ennis, Alaska. The pair will have to confront the darkness they carry in themselves and dig into the haunted truths that lie buried under the eternal ice."

Since62

There was a pretty darn good movie with a policewoman solving a mystery amid dangerous circumstances, conditions and people, in an Antarctic station - WHITEOUT, in 2009, with the one and only Kate Beckinsale ! I look forward to this TD4...

Creasy47

Since62 wrote: »

There was a pretty darn good movie with a policewoman solving a mystery amid dangerous circumstances, conditions and people, in an Antarctic station - WHITEOUT, in 2009, with the one and only Kate Beckinsale ! I look forward to this TD4...

I thought about the same exact film when I read this. For what it's worth, I quite enjoyed Whiteout at the time it came out.

Thunderfinger

Creasy47 wrote: »

Jodie Foster has joined S4 as one of the leads, her first foray into a major TV role. Here is the synopsis:

"The series is centered around Detectives Liz Danvers and Evangeline Navarro who are looking to solve the case of six men that operate the Tsalal Arctic Research Station vanishing without a trace, when the long winter night falls in Ennis, Alaska. The pair will have to confront the darkness they carry in themselves and dig into the haunted truths that lie buried under the eternal ice."

I will probably give it a watch, but the seasons have been progressively worse so far. Really only enjoyed the first one. The second was ok. The third poor.

Creasy47

Thunderfinger wrote: »

Creasy47 wrote: »

Jodie Foster has joined S4 as one of the leads, her first foray into a major TV role. Here is the synopsis:

"The series is centered around Detectives Liz Danvers and Evangeline Navarro who are looking to solve the case of six men that operate the Tsalal Arctic Research Station vanishing without a trace, when the long winter night falls in Ennis, Alaska. The pair will have to confront the darkness they carry in themselves and dig into the haunted truths that lie buried under the eternal ice."

I will probably give it a watch, but the seasons have been progressively worse so far. Really only enjoyed the first one. The second was ok. The third poor.

Absolutely. I fully agree there, though I'd swap my assessment of seasons two and three. Three was way better for me but the mystery weaved throughout was incredibly obvious and underwhelming at the end of it. Didn't have the same punch and darkness of the first season. Stellar cast, though.