# The Killing -- "What I Know" OAD 6.17.12 -- Season Finale



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

Say what you will about the merits of this show; the acting was SUPERB. The scene where Terry confesses to killing Rosie was one of the best I've ever seen.


----------



## mrdazzo7 (Jan 8, 2006)

Bierboy said:


> Say what you will about the merits of this show; the acting was SUPERB. The scene where Terry confesses to killing Rosie was one of the best I've ever seen.


I was gonna say the same thing--probably the most gut wrenching scene in the whole show... I think the other one for me was Stan's breakdown at the gas station last season. I think that guy definitely deserves some props. He was great in this scene as well. The whole thing was just horrible to watch. I'm glad the last scene for the Larsen's was them watching Rosie's video... if anyone needed some sliver of positivity it's them.

When they revealed Jaime so early in the episode, I figured there would be another twist to come... I'm ok with how it played out. Terry's always had something going on, and all the pieces seemed to come together ok... Pretty messed up that she knowingly committed a murder in order to be able to finally run away with her boyfriend, having no idea it was her niece in the trunk... twisted!

How come Aames isn't in any trouble? Jaime didn't tell Richmond that Aames was there at the park, but Terry confessed that he was there so I'm guessing the cops will be locking him up for being an accessory, etc. Just weird the way they left it with Richmond taking a meeting with him and Jackson... I'm not sure why the decided to leave Richmond off as a game-playing d-bag though, after two seasons of him trying to be the opposite. Just seemed odd.

Also props to the guy who plays/played Jaime--his was the other performance of the night that knocked it out of the park. Up until now he's only played "weasly" for the most part, but he nailed it that whole scene.

Not sure where the show is gonna go from here... Curious if it'll even come back. Does anyone follow the ratings? I wonder how it tracks against things like Breaking Bad, Walking Dead, and Mad Man.


----------



## avery (May 29, 2006)

Wow. What an episode  really satisfying and emotional. Loved it. Cried. A+ on the acting and the pacing. First episode of this show that I found myself talking to to the screen. The season overall was more than enough compensation for all the misfires of season 1.

Not that surprised Terry was involved. I got a 'guilty/concealing something' vibe from her character last season. Now I know why.

Two questions:

I may have missed the explanation along the way but what is it that Rosie was doing, that put her on the floor under construction in the first place?

Is the show supposed to return next season? [I surprised myself by becoming really attached to Linden and Holder]


----------



## avery (May 29, 2006)

mrdazzo7 said:


> Also props to the guy who plays/played Jaime--his was the other performance of the night that knocked it out of the park. Up until now he's only played "weasly" for the most part, but he nailed it that whole scene.


The actor who played Jamie is Eric Ladin. He also played Betty Draper's brother William on Mad Men.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

avery said:


> I may have missed the explanation along the way but what is it that Rosie was doing, that put her on the floor under construction in the first place?


IIRC, that's where the maids or whatever at the casino went to smoke. Even though Rosie wasn't working that night, she *was* on her way out of the city and from her smoke breaks, she knew that the 10th floor had a great view of the city and she wanted to see the city for one last time.

OK, now here's my question: Supposedly the film that Linden gave to the Larsons was the film from Rosie's camera, right? But that doesn't make sense: the film that the Larsons watched was edited---it didn't come straight from a camera (especially not one that recorded to film instead of video).


----------



## Barmat (Jun 1, 2001)

Amnesia said:


> IIRC, that's where the maids or whatever at the casino went to smoke. Even though Rosie wasn't working that night, she *was* on her way out of the city and from her smoke breaks, she knew that the 10th floor had a great view of the city and she wanted to see the city for one last time.
> 
> OK, now here's my question: Supposedly the film that Linden gave to the Larsons was the film from Rosie's camera, right? But that doesn't make sense: the film that the Larsons watched was edited---it didn't come straight from a camera (especially not one that recorded to film instead of video).


I think Linden might have edited it and sent it to video transfer. She seemed to realy care about the Larsons.


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

I'm thinking that they should have shown some scenes of Rosie and the family from the past sprinkled throughout the series. It would have given her a bigger presence on the show, and we would have cared for her that much more.

But well done episode, I think I can still give myself props for saying it was Jamie after episode 3, even though he technically didn't let the car go into the water, he locked her in the truck.

So I'll give it to myself 

-smak-


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

Barmat said:


> I think Linden might have edited it and sent it to video transfer...


Yes, it was obviously done by Linden since it was a video transfer (film to tape or DVD for the Larsens to watch)...


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

smak said:


> I'm thinking that they should have shown some scenes of Rosie and the family from the past sprinkled throughout the series. It would have given her a bigger presence on the show, and we would have cared for her that much more.
> 
> But well done episode, I think I can still give myself props for saying it was Jamie after episode 3, even though he technically didn't let the car go into the water, he locked her in the truck.
> 
> ...


He certainly beat the crap out of Rosie...even though technically not murdering her.


----------



## Family (Jul 23, 2001)

Not to open an old wound , but this would have been really good if done in one season. I had forgotten many of the small details that made this a better story.


----------



## sieglinde (Aug 11, 2002)

The disappointment was that the Indian Chief got away scott free.


----------



## crazywater (Mar 7, 2001)

mrdazzo7 said:


> I was gonna say the same thing--probably the most gut wrenching scene in the whole show... I think the other one for me was Stan's breakdown at the gas station last season. I think that guy definitely deserves some props. He was great in this scene as well. The whole thing was just horrible to watch. I'm glad the last scene for the Larsen's was them watching Rosie's video... if anyone needed some sliver of positivity it's them.
> 
> When they revealed Jaime so early in the episode, I figured there would be another twist to come... I'm ok with how it played out. Terry's always had something going on, and all the pieces seemed to come together ok... Pretty messed up that she knowingly committed a murder in order to be able to finally run away with her boyfriend, having no idea it was her niece in the trunk... twisted!
> 
> ...


Richmond did show some hints of being a game-player during the two seasons who was willing do whatever it takes to get elected, just slicker than Adams.

I hope it comes back. My guess would be they would pick the case that put Linden in the nut house the first time. They laid the groundwork for that a few episodes ago revealing that she never believed it was the father that committed the murder.


----------



## dwells (Nov 3, 2001)

I guess I am in the minority, but I enjoyed the whole run of this series. I never understood the &#8206;incredible hatred people had for this show- it has to be one of the most unfairly criticized television &#8206;shows of all time.&#8206;

I get that those who thought they were promised a resolution were upset, but to me, even with its &#8206;flaws, the Killing was still better than the vast majority of what is on TV today. I for one enjoyed both &#8206;seasons.&#8206;

As for the finale, I thought it was excellent- I dont think I would have been satisfied if it had been just &#8206;Jamie, but the Terry twist really made the episode.&#8206;

The one question I had about the resolution is the motive of Jamie for trying to eliminate Rosie. Did he &#8206;even know for sure that Rosie had actually heard (or seen) everything? Even if she had, would she &#8206;have known what in the heck they were talking about? Did she even know who Jamie was?? She was &#8206;just a scared high school kid, was she really that big a threat to their plans?? To me, Jamies reaction &#8206;would have made more sense if he had run into another politician, for example.&#8206;


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

dwells said:


> I guess I am in the minority, but I enjoyed the whole run of this series. I never understood the ‎incredible hatred people had for this show- it has to be one of the most unfairly criticized television ‎shows of all time.‎
> 
> I get that those who thought they were promised a resolution were upset, but to me, even with its ‎flaws, the Killing was still better than the vast majority of what is on TV today. I for one enjoyed both ‎seasons.‎
> 
> As for the finale, I thought it was excellent- I dont think I would have been satisfied if it had been just ‎Jamie, but the Terry twist really made the episode.‎..‎


I have to agree with all of this. I enjoyed the entire two-season run and also feel it was (I believe unfairly at times) vilified...


----------



## brebeans (Sep 5, 2003)

Bierboy said:


> I have to agree with all of this. I enjoyed the entire two-season run and also feel it was (I believe unfairly at times) vilified...


Agree! I think the series was more about character development, different perspectives, the drama involved all around.....rather than a "who dunnit". The Rosie murder was a vehicle to several other stories and perspectives.

I loved both seasons and liked this one even more. A couple of episodes were dragged out a bit, sure, but the acting directing and storyline were all great and compelling.

It will be interesting to see where this goes.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

dwells said:


> The one question I had about the resolution is the motive of Jamie for trying to eliminate Rosie. Did he ‎even know for sure that Rosie had actually heard (or seen) everything?


That's how I felt at first, but I thought that Jamie's explanation to Richmond (self-serving as it was) adequately addressed that. They were meeting in secret. Jaime discovered her and was trying to question her when she attempted to escape. He knocked her down and she hit her head---killing her, or so he thought.

At that point, what was he going to do when she woke up? Just let her go? It's too late for that.


----------



## mm2margaret (Dec 7, 2010)

Bierboy said:


> I have to agree with all of this. I enjoyed the entire two-season run and also feel it was (I believe unfairly at times) vilified...


Can't resist seconding or "thirding" that sentiment. A lot of vilification came here, especially a particular Tivo forum user, who couldn't resist blasting the series episode after episode. Very tiresome. What a jerk.

It was a very good show, and well worth the time! Sure, it had some not so great episodes, and some failings, but what show doesn't? On the whole, it was a terrific series.


----------



## Cainebj (Nov 11, 2006)

OK it appears I am in the minority from the love.

I "liked" it but in the end I was just watching from habit
- I think they failed in so many places.

Most importantly Rosie Larsen all but disappeared as the focal point of the show in season 2 and then in the last couple of episodes they tried to bring her back to the forefront and it was too little too late.

Ultimately for me - I didn't really find a connection and was not emotionally invested in the characters - so during the great breakdown scenes when I should have been floored - eh - I felt not much.

I know I know I know - what I am about to say - 
but this really took a nose dive for me after I watched the original version of the show and ultimately I think this is another example of GREAT television from another country being RE-made by Americans and the American version paling in comparison. 
Which I never understand when they have a brilliant roadmap how they still manage to mess it up? 

They did make some interesting changes from the original plot points including who the killer(s) were but I am not sure it was for the better.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

Interesting finale recap from Slezak at TVLine...

And Sepinwall's view...of course, his hatred of the series is quite evident.


----------



## Family (Jul 23, 2001)

Yeah I wouldn't call it a teriffic series, but it didn't deserve the hate. Holder was a great character and the acting was first rate . 

I just got lost. My wife who said she could follow everything didn't even remember there was a season 1. Both years had merged and she seemed to recall everything. I found it confusing. Wasn't Stan supposed to go on trial for attempted murder? And how would Terry have something over the real estate scum guy if she was the one doing the killing?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

mm2margaret said:


> What a jerk.


Wow, it's hard not to take this personally.

I mean, I'm sorry if you don't agree with my opinions, but...

Really?


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

What made you think that was in reference to you?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Well, I think I speak for all people who became very disappointed in this show when I say that "disagrees with Meagan"&#8800;"jerk."


----------



## robojerk (Jun 13, 2006)

I thought it was directed at me.. I even have "jerK' in my name.


----------



## philw1776 (Jan 19, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Well, I think I speak for all people who became very disappointed in this show when I say that "disagrees with Meagan"≠"jerk."


But wait! Ever had jerk chicken, etc.? It's great!

Unlike this show.

Thanks folks for posting who killed what's-her-name for those of us unable to endure a 2nd season.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Well, I think I speak for all people who became very disappointed in this show when I say that "disagrees with Meagan"≠"jerk."


It seems that some people take it personally when someone expresses dislike for a show that they like. Almost like the person who dislikes the show is somehow insulting people who do like the show. I cannot understand or sympathize with that sort of attitude, but unfortunately it does not seem to be a rare attitude around here.


----------



## tony touch (Jul 16, 2004)

I enjoyed this season. Not as good as Breaking Bad obviously, but still entertaining.

Is this show definitely being renewed for a Season 3? I know the two leads are getting hot as film actors, so I thought it might get cancelled.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

According to The Futon Critic, no official decision has been announced regarding its renewal.


----------



## mm2margaret (Dec 7, 2010)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Wow, it's hard not to take this personally.
> 
> I mean, I'm sorry if you don't agree with my opinions, but...
> 
> Really?


Fine. I apologize. You can disagree as much as you want with me or anyone else. That was not appropriate of me, and I apologize.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

mm2margaret said:


> Fine. I apologize. You can disagree as much as you want with me or anyone else. That was not appropriate of me, and I apologize.


Cool.

It's nice that we can both find shows we enjoy, even if they're not the same ones.


----------



## Regina (Mar 30, 2003)

I thought the ending with the family watching the video was sweet, and I am probably overthinking this, but I thought it was odd that Stan and Mitch would let the kids watch the video without looking at it first-there could have been anything on that video...like I said, probably overthinking....


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

The viewing of Rosie's video made me misty.

I'd given up earlier in the season but wanted to know how things resolved so I watched the last two episodes. I chuckled when it was still raining and Mitch Larsen was still the most miserable person in the universe. I had to resist ffwding through all of her scenes.

The acting on this show was always first rate. It was the constant depressing atmosphere and the miserable Larsen family that I hated. Also, the crime should have been solved in one season.


----------



## rrrobinsonjr (Nov 26, 2004)

SIAP

Didn't Terry find a photo of Rosie in the trunk of the campaign car in Stan's desk a couple of episodes ago? Did I miss something? It seemed like a really odd moment that I had no idea how they would explain.....they didn't....Or did I misinterpret what I was seeing.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

rrrobinsonjr said:


> Didn't Terry find a photo of Rosie in the trunk of the campaign car in Stan's desk a couple of episodes ago?


Yeah, it was a police photograph. I don't think the implication was that Stan was the photographer or anything.


----------



## mostman (Jul 16, 2000)

rrrobinsonjr said:


> SIAP
> 
> Didn't Terry find a photo of Rosie in the trunk of the campaign car in Stan's desk a couple of episodes ago? Did I miss something? It seemed like a really odd moment that I had no idea how they would explain.....they didn't....Or did I misinterpret what I was seeing.


It was supposed to plant a seed that Terry had something to do with it. That was the first time she had seen the result of her actions. I think the actress was trying to look ashamed, guilty, scared, and sad all at the same time.

And yes, it was just the police photo that was taken from Rosies file by Stans mobster buddy.


----------



## mostman (Jul 16, 2000)

mrdazzo7 said:


> How come Aames isn't in any trouble? Jaime didn't tell Richmond that Aames was there at the park, but Terry confessed that he was there so I'm guessing the cops will be locking him up for being an accessory, etc. Just weird the way they left it with Richmond taking a meeting with him and Jackson... I'm not sure why the decided to leave Richmond off as a game-playing d-bag though, after two seasons of him trying to be the opposite. Just seemed odd.


When the chief walked in (and you only saw her) she said "Thanks for dealing with those charges - they were ludicrous" - so Richmond "fixed" her situation for her. Then Ames followed, leaving you to assume he "fixed" his situation as well. Then the look on Gwen's face when she realizes Richmond is just another slimy politician, just like her dad (and JUST as Jamie had accused him). Juxtapose this with the scene where Richmond tells her he is "moving on" and a smile creeped up on her face. She was sure she knew him at that point, but she was proven wrong. Some superb writing and acting. Not much dialog needed when your actors can pull of subtlety like that. Reminds me of The Wire.


----------



## crazywater (Mar 7, 2001)

dwells said:


> I guess I am in the minority, but I enjoyed the whole run of this series. I never understood the ‎incredible hatred people had for this show- it has to be one of the most unfairly criticized television ‎shows of all time.‎


I agree 100%.


----------



## crazywater (Mar 7, 2001)

Cainebj said:


> OK it appears I am in the minority from the love.
> 
> I "liked" it but in the end I was just watching from habit
> - I think they failed in so many places.
> ...


Could not disagree more. I agree with a previous poster that the show used the Rosie Larsen murder as a vehicle to explore the other characters on the show. I felt it was very well done and superbly acted.


----------



## rrrobinsonjr (Nov 26, 2004)

Amnesia said:


> Yeah, it was a police photograph. I don't think the implication was that Stan was the photographer or anything.





mostman said:


> It was supposed to plant a seed that Terry had something to do with it. That was the first time she had seen the result of her actions. I think the actress was trying to look ashamed, guilty, scared, and sad all at the same time.
> 
> And yes, it was just the police photo that was taken from Rosies file by Stans mobster buddy.


Thanks!


----------



## crazywater (Mar 7, 2001)

john4200 said:


> It seems that some people take it personally when someone expresses dislike for a show that they like. Almost like the person who dislikes the show is somehow insulting people who do like the show. I cannot understand or sympathize with that sort of attitude, but unfortunately it does not seem to be a rare attitude around here.


For me personally I do not understand why someone would watch the show religiously for two seasons only to come to this forum to trash it every single week. I know for me if I dislike a show I don't watch it.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

crazywater said:


> For me personally I do not understand why someone would watch the show religiously for two seasons only to come to this forum to trash it every single week. I know for me if I dislike a show I don't watch it.


Maybe they like doing it. Does everyone have to be like you?


----------



## Mikeyis4dcats (Oct 2, 2003)

mostman said:


> It was supposed to plant a seed that Terry had something to do with it. That was the first time she had seen the result of her actions. I think the actress was trying to look ashamed, guilty, scared, and sad all at the same time.
> 
> And yes, it was just the police photo that was taken from Rosies file by Stans mobster buddy.


pretty sure the actress wasn't, as she didn't find out she was the killer until 2 hours before the table read for the episode. It also cracks me u that I have read a lot of people saying they thought she was guilty because of the way she was acting or things she said or did. If the actress had no clue, she obviously wasn't conveying those things to you, and if there was evidence that she was the killer, I would think she'd have caught on. She said she was completely surprised by the revelation, and it made her break down in tears.


----------



## mostman (Jul 16, 2000)

Mikeyis4dcats said:


> pretty sure the actress wasn't, as she didn't find out she was the killer until 2 hours before the table read for the episode. It also cracks me u that I have read a lot of people saying they thought she was guilty because of the way she was acting or things she said or did. If the actress had no clue, she obviously wasn't conveying those things to you, and if there was evidence that she was the killer, I would think she'd have caught on. She said she was completely surprised by the revelation, and it made her break down in tears.


So you don't think the director of the episode instructed her how to act in that scene?


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

mostman said:


> So you don't think the director of the episode instructed her how to act in that scene?


Exactly. To suggest that the actress received little or no direction on how to act in previous scenes as well as the finale is ludicrous. She (Jamie Anne Allman, and most everyone on the show) are excellent actors...

Also HERE is an interview with Jamie about the finale/series...


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

mostman said:


> So you don't think the director of the episode instructed her how to act in that scene?


Apparently not in such a way that she had a clue what she was doing...


----------



## WhiskeyTango (Sep 20, 2006)

mrdazzo7 said:


> Not sure where the show is gonna go from here... Curious if it'll even come back. Does anyone follow the ratings? I wonder how it tracks against things like Breaking Bad, Walking Dead, and Mad Man.


Season finale ratings:
Breaking Bad - 1.897 million viewers - 1.0 18-49 rating
Walking Dead - 8.991 million viewers - 4.7 18-49 rating
Mad Men - 2.701 million viewers - 0.9 18-49 rating
The Killing - 1.448 million viewers - 0.5 18-49 rating

IMO, The Killing is not likely to be back next year.


----------



## Queue (Apr 7, 2009)

Did they ever explain why Rosie was depositing over $1k a week? At one time we were lead to believe she was involved in the prostitution ring, then it came out that she wasn't.

And would she really make that much money from cleaning?


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

WhiskeyTango said:


> Season finale ratings:
> Breaking Bad - 1.897 million viewers - 1.0 18-49 rating
> Walking Dead - 8.991 million viewers - 4.7 18-49 rating
> Mad Men - 2.701 million viewers - 0.9 18-49 rating
> ...


I'm not so sure about that. It was generally critically acclaimed (even with haters like Sepinwall) and generated a LOT of media buzz. I'd be disappointed if it doesn't get at least one more season...

EDIT: Although these percentages don't portend well for the show...the ratings were down 17 percent from the premiere and down 35 percent from its freshman finale.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

Count me in the minority. I really liked the first third of season 1. Then I became disappointed in the drop in quality but still enjoyed the show. This level of enjoyment continued until this episode. I thought it was the worst episode of the series, by far. The acting was fine and some of the scenes with the Larson family were actually pretty good, but all of the revelations were thin and most of the other characters behaved in seemingly arbitrary ways. My wife was more forgiving of this episode because she thought they might be writing it as a wrap-up for the series. Taken in that light, I guess it did accomplish that goal. Still, I was very disappointed in this episode.


----------



## tiams (Apr 19, 2004)

Queue said:


> Did they ever explain why Rosie was depositing over $1k a week? At one time we were lead to believe she was involved in the prostitution ring, then it came out that she wasn't.
> 
> And would she really make that much money from cleaning?


There were lots of plot holes.
Did they ever explain why Stan's credit card was found in the woods?


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

tiams said:


> There were lots of plot holes.
> Did they ever explain why Stan's credit card was found in the woods?


Wasn't Rosie planning on "running away" (not exactly the right term) to do something related to butterflies? I assumed maybe she grabbed the card as a means of paying for her journey?


----------



## tiams (Apr 19, 2004)

TAsunder said:


> Wasn't Rosie planning on "running away" (not exactly the right term) to do something related to butterflies? I assumed maybe she grabbed the card as a means of paying for her journey?


Yes, she was planning on going away, but it doesn't fit that she would steal her dad's credit card. I guess that's what we are supposed to believe though. Just another instance of bad writing on this show.


----------



## tiams (Apr 19, 2004)

I must say I thought the directing, cinematography and acting were great. But horrible writing.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

tiams said:


> Yes, she was planning on going away, but it doesn't fit that she would steal her dad's credit card.....


 Why not? That would be perfectly logical (aside from revealing where's she would be when using it)...she would need the money if she didn't have enough saved...


----------



## Johnny Dancing (Sep 3, 2000)

Wow. Great final, great acting. I'll really miss this show. Having a new Madmen and The Killing each week was a nice weekly treat of high end TV.


----------



## tiams (Apr 19, 2004)

Bierboy said:


> Why not? That would be perfectly logical (aside from revealing where's she would be when using it)...she would need the money if she didn't have enough saved...


It doesn't make sense because the video she made for her family showed she loved them and wasn't out to hurt them. And she left without telling them so she obviously wanted to break away from them start a new adventure and not be found. She had been planning it for a while. That's why her stealing the credit card is not logical and it is unconvincing writing.


----------



## crazywater (Mar 7, 2001)

john4200 said:


> Maybe they like doing it. Does everyone have to be like you?


Yes they do...


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

tiams said:


> It doesn't make sense because the video she made for her family showed she loved them and wasn't out to hurt them. And she left without telling them so she obviously wanted to break away from them start a new adventure and not be found. She had been planning it for a while. That's why her stealing the credit card is not logical and it is unconvincing writing.


Simply do not agree. She could easily see taking the credit card as not hurting them, but just helping her on her trip. Just another way for her family to provide for her. Frankly, I don't see that taking the credit card would hurt her family unless she abused using it...it's not nearly as illogical and unconvincing as you claim.


----------



## Mikeyis4dcats (Oct 2, 2003)

mostman said:


> So you don't think the director of the episode instructed her how to act in that scene?


"Hey, act all guilty and stuff."

"Ok. So I'm guilty?"

If you read any of the interviews the actress has done, she watched dozens of murder confessions on youtube.


----------



## Mikeyis4dcats (Oct 2, 2003)

mostman said:


> So you don't think the director of the episode instructed her how to act in that scene?


in the confession scene? No, if you read the interviews she's done she watched dozens of murder confession videos on youtube.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

Mikeyis4dcats said:


> "Hey, act all guilty and stuff."
> 
> "Ok. So I'm guilty?"
> 
> If you read any of the interviews the actress has done, she watched dozens of murder confessions on youtube.





Mikeyis4dcats said:


> in the confession scene? No, if you read the interviews she's done she watched dozens of murder confession videos on youtube.


What does that have to do with it? ALL actors receive direction on how to act in TV/movies (regardless of how many "murder confessions they watch on YouTube"...that's why there are people called "directors"...it's just naive to think otherwise.


----------



## tiams (Apr 19, 2004)

Bierboy said:


> Simply do not agree. She could easily see taking the credit card as not hurting them, but just helping her on her trip. Just another way for her family to provide for her. Frankly, I don't see that taking the credit card would hurt her family unless she abused using it...it's not nearly as illogical and unconvincing as you claim.


OK. If it's believable for you and you can ignore the fact that using the credit card would have led her parents right to her then the writers did a good enough job.


----------



## Mikeyis4dcats (Oct 2, 2003)

Bierboy said:


> What does that have to do with it? ALL actors receive direction on how to act in TV/movies (regardless of how many "murder confessions they watch on YouTube"...that's why there are people called "directors"...it's just naive to think otherwise.


Because the actress has said she had NO IDEA, NO INKLING, that she was the killer. It would be impossible for her to be directed to act guilty or suspicious without the actress becoming curious as to why.


----------



## Mikeyis4dcats (Oct 2, 2003)

Bierboy said:


> What does that have to do with it? ALL actors receive direction on how to act in TV/movies (regardless of how many "murder confessions they watch on YouTube"...that's why there are people called "directors"...it's just naive to think otherwise.


When are you talking about?

I commented that it would be impossible for her to "act guilty" all series long as some are claiming to have intuited, since the actress was not in any way portraying her character in that manner.

If you are talking about the confession scene, the actress has stated her performance was based upon dozens of videos she watched for inspiration and method.


----------



## Mikeyis4dcats (Oct 2, 2003)

tiams said:


> OK. If it's believable for you and you can ignore the fact that using the credit card would have led her parents right to her then the writers did a good enough job.


I also agree it would seem to go against type for her character to take the card. More than likely just a red herring thrown out by the writers they hoped would be overlooked, like all the other plot holes.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

Mikeyis4dcats said:


> "Hey, act all guilty and stuff."
> 
> "Ok. So I'm guilty?"


Heh. Well put. :up:


----------



## mrdazzo7 (Jan 8, 2006)

Mikeyis4dcats said:


> Because the actress has said she had NO IDEA, NO INKLING, that she was the killer. It would be impossible for her to be directed to act guilty or suspicious without the actress becoming curious as to why.


I gotta disagree here--on a show like this, during the first season pretty much every single person was a suspect... It seems logical that there were plenty times with just about every actor on the show where a director could have said "Play this ambiguously like you could be hiding something"... The whole point was that we had to try to figure out who killed Rosie so especially early on there were plenty of scenes where people were acting suspicious or shady and it turned out they didn't commit the crime.

With a mystery show like this, I think it's totally plausible for directors to give direction that lends itself to an endgame without giving the endgame away. Plus they shoot every take in several ways to have coverage so the actors could just think it's part of the routine.

So it's completely plausible that people got a suspicious vibe from Terry early on without the actress having been TOLD specifically to play those scenes knowing she was the killer. I don't see how those things are congruent at all.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

mrdazzo7 said:


> I gotta disagree here--on a show like this, during the first season pretty much every single person was a suspect... It seems logical that there were plenty times with just about every actor on the show where a director could have said "Play this ambiguously like you could be hiding something"... The whole point was that we had to try to figure out who killed Rosie so especially early on there were plenty of scenes where people were acting suspicious or shady and it turned out they didn't commit the crime.
> 
> _*With a mystery show like this, I think it's totally plausible for directors to give direction that lends itself to an endgame without giving the endgame away. Plus they shoot every take in several ways to have coverage so the actors could just think it's part of the routine*_.
> 
> So it's completely plausible that people got a suspicious vibe from Terry early on without the actress having been TOLD specifically to play those scenes knowing she was the killer. I don't see how those things are congruent at all.


EXACTLY.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Man, you people must think the actor who plays Terry is a complete idiot...


----------



## mostman (Jul 16, 2000)

mrdazzo7 said:


> I gotta disagree here--on a show like this, during the first season pretty much every single person was a suspect...


Here is an example - the teacher. In order to pull off his character and the misdirection of the plot - he HAD to act guilty. And he did, quite well. So I am supposed to believe the conversation with the director went like this:

D: Act guilty
A: So, I'm guilty
D: Well, no, well, sort of, but, well, never mind.

Come on. Be real. The director(s) of the show tell the actors exactly how to act. Their job isn't to know the plot and "improv" their way through every episode leading their character to the end. They are told the scene, given the script, and instructed on how it should play out. And in this show, the acting (and writing) was phenomenal. Imagine the cast of CSI playing these roles instead of the actors that did. Same show? Not even close.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

So you don't think telling Terry "Act guilty" might not open up in her mind at least the slightest possibility that she might be, y'know, GUILTY?

Because she insists she didn't have a clue.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> So you don't think telling Terry "Act guilty" might not open up in her mind at least the slightest possibility that she might be, y'know, GUILTY?
> 
> Because she insists she didn't have a clue.


And, of course, actors ALWAYS tell the truth....


----------



## tivogurl (Dec 16, 2004)

Bierboy said:


> And, of course, actors ALWAYS tell the truth....


Why would she be lying? What she says makes the writers and/or producers look bad, which is not conducive to future employment.


----------



## robojerk (Jun 13, 2006)

How would one be able to tell if she's lying or not, she's an actress!


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

tivogurl said:


> Why would she be lying? What she says makes the writers and/or producers look bad, which is not conducive to future employment.


She even makes herself look bad..."I did this job for two years, and I didn't have a clue what I was doing!"


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

mostman said:


> Here is an example - the teacher. In order to pull off his character and the misdirection of the plot - he HAD to act guilty. And he did, quite well. So I am supposed to believe the conversation with the director went like this:
> 
> D: Act guilty
> A: So, I'm guilty
> ...


The teacher may have been told to look guilty, because the show wanted him to look guilty at a certain point in the timeline.

The show NEVER wanted the sister to look guilty (Seriously, did anybody anywhere think it was going to go down anything like that?) therefore she wouldn't have been directed to look guilty at any point of the series.

If you tell 10 cast members to play this take looking a little guilty, then they probably all are going to think there's a 10% chance (or whatever) of them being guilty.

I think the fact that she says no such thing should lead us to believe she was never told to act like that.

-smak-


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

smak said:


> The show NEVER wanted the sister to look guilty (Seriously, did anybody anywhere think it was going to go down anything like that?)


Well, yes, I did read someone who predicted it was Terry, and had a lot of evidence to back it up. But he only figured it out a couple episodes before the last.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

I think many of us thought Terry was involved; especially early on with the Ames thing.


----------



## getreal (Sep 29, 2003)

Just completed marathoning my way through both Seasons. Thumbs UP re: the show.
I don't foresee another Season, though. This was perfect. Clear resolution, and a (relatively speaking) happy ending. The case was figured out, Rosie wasn't a parent-hating teen prostitute. Stan didn't kill anyone. He stands trial in a year for the kidnapping/assault charges against the teacher. The family came together (minus Terry, who came apart). Great twists. Time for all to "move on".

I'm glad I didn't follow it week-by-week, being exposed to the poison in the threads by the haters. I could take in the complete story without outside influences, and found it to be compelling from start to finish.


----------



## DLiquid (Sep 17, 2001)

getreal said:


> I'm glad I didn't follow it week-by-week, being exposed to the poison in the threads by the haters. I could take in the complete story without outside influences, and found it to be compelling from start to finish.


I marathoned through the first season before reading the threads here, then I read the threads as I worked my way through the second season over a few weeks. Although I had some problems with the show, I kind of wish I hadn't started reading the threads here. There was a hatred of the show that built up here (and elsewhere), and it had a negative influence on how I viewed the show, even though I was still enjoying it.

The same thing happened with Battlestar Galactica. The show had its ups and downs, but I really liked it. I think I stopped reading the BSG threads on here at some point, because most of the discussion was about how poor the writing was and how the show had no direction. Many of the complaints were valid, but when you're still enjoying a show it's kind of a bummer to read about how badly it sucks week after week.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

I think both with this show and BG, a lot of it has to do with what matters to you. Long-term structure and story are very important to me, and both of those shows are ones that not only don't care about that, but seem actively contemptuous of people who do. If you're into moment-to-moment characterization, acting, directing, etc., then cool. It seems to me that BG and The Killing are both shows whose structures are inherently tied to big-picture storytelling, and obviously the people who wrote those shows disagree with me.

The reason I kept harping on the shortcomings of The Killing (and, for that matter, BG) was that if you're going to have a show centered on a single over-arching plot, then that over-arching plot should be central to the show. And when the over-arching plot falls short, it's cause for serious disappointment. And when the showrunner publicly expresses contempt for people who expect the show to live up to its format (which happened explicitly with BG, and implicitly with The Killing), then I guess I take it a little personally that they basically tricked me into watching a show under false pretenses ("They have a plan"; "This is a show about a murder investigation") and then tried to blame me for being disappointed when it turned out to be something else.

But if you were looking for something else altogether and were happy with what you found, then good for you. I hope my disappointment doesn't devalue your satisfaction...any more than your satisfaction devalues my disappointment. We obviously had very different experience with this show (these shows), and that's all right, because we're different people. If I've somehow given the impression that I think there's something wrong with you for liking the show, I apologize. But likewise, I hope you'll accept that there's nothing wrong with me for being disappointed.

I think "poison" and "haters," however, are very unfair ways to characterize somebody who honestly disagrees with you.


----------



## getreal (Sep 29, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> ... I guess I take it a little personally that they basically tricked me into watching a show under false pretenses ("They have a plan"; "This is a show about a murder investigation") and then tried to blame me for being disappointed when it turned out to be something else.
> <snip>
> ... I think "poison" and "haters," however, are very unfair ways to characterize somebody who honestly disagrees with you.


First, I wasn't directing my comments towards you, or anyone specific, so ... nothing personal.  I have not read all of the posts throughout the show threads, so I was not aware of your specific complaints about the show.

My use of the term "haters" is just that it has become a common interwebs term. I suppose I could've used "flamers", but that term now seems "so last century".

My use of "poison" is more personal for me, as I mean that when negative (poison) gets into my brain by exposure to outside influences (negative things people say or write), it starts to destroy my "innocence" and infect my thoughts. I couldn't use "viral", as that seems to now have positive connotations -- e.g., you WANT your video to "go viral".

Anyway, as I said, I feel that I got more enjoyment out of this particular series by avoiding the threads until after I could gauge my own unspoiled/unsoiled thoughts about it.

It was indeed about a murder investigation at its core, and how the death of a "nobody*" can have such far-reaching consequences in so many ways.

Each red herring was presented believably, and it was encouraging to see that the central investigators had enough of an open mind to pursue new leads and change their hypothesis of the crime.

Bravo!

* By "nobody", I am referring to Jaime's use of that term while arguing with Ames, just before Terry pushed the car into the lake.


----------



## DLiquid (Sep 17, 2001)

Rob, I often agree with your criticisms, but sometimes the shortcomings being discussed don't take that much away from my enjoyment of the show, at least if I'm not reading the threads. Getreal's description of "poison" is what I sometimes experience too. With the negatives constantly being pointed out each week, it starts to "infect my thoughts" and take away from my enjoyment of the show. It also has a tendency to infect the forum, and the show discussions become less about the story and more about the problems with the show.


----------



## JohnB1000 (Dec 6, 2004)

Just finished the 2nd season after a 4 day marathon. After Episode 8 Entertainment Weekly kindly told me who the killer was so that made my watching of the last 5 episodes quite different. I was very surprised when it appeared to be Jamie and wondered if I misread something (after seeing the headline and a picture and trying to burn it from my memory).

I am admittedly a forgiving TV watcher and I thoroughly enjoyed the whole thing. In a strange way I think my enjoyment was enhanced by knowing who the killer was and trying to figure out how it would end up that way.


----------



## bryhamm (Jun 30, 2004)

Really enjoyed the ending. I was in the same boat as someone else here mentioned ... when Jaime was revealed it was too early and I knew that something else was up, but I just didn't know what.


----------



## MegaHertz67 (Apr 18, 2005)

I liked how the series wrapped up. But I think it will be difficult to come back for a third season for a few reasons.

1. There were a lot of ticked off people after season 1 that didn't come back for season 2. Those that did got a good story, but they came back for the closure. Will they want to start over again with a new story?

2. Other shows with similarly overarching story lines were not able to jump start a new one after the first was done. Twin Peaks comes quickly to mind.

3. While the chemistry between Holder and Linden was wonderful and the most interesting part of the show, it was born of them being thrust together as she was leaving as he was being promoted. I don't know if it's sustainable and interesting going forward.

I will not look at The Killing as 2 seasons where the showrunner lied to us about closure at the end of season 1. I will look at the 26 episodes as 1 good long season of an interesting show that I enjoyed watching. 

Yes there were red herrings that led nowhere and loose ends that didn't tie neatly together at the end, but Lord knows there were enough of those in other shows like Lost, that I was still able to watch and enjoy.


----------

