# AMC cancels The Killing



## mwhip (Jul 22, 2002)

I gave up after the crappy ending to S1

http://insidetv.ew.com/2012/07/27/killing-canceled/


----------



## kcarl75 (Oct 23, 2002)

That stinks. I really liked the show. I was wondering what they were going to do with season 3. They would have had to replace most of the cast. 

I liked the two leads a lot though.


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

I was pretty satisfied with the resolution of Rosie's murder case, and enjoyed the characters a lot, though they should have done the whole thing in one season. Basically that's what killed the show IMO.

But I don't think I'll miss it all that much.


----------



## DLiquid (Sep 17, 2001)

Bummer, I liked it. I thought, as did pretty much all other viewers, that it should have been a one case per season show. I think the fact that it wasn't is a major contributing factor to its cancellation. Maybe another network will pick it up.

My favorite thing about the show, other than the overall mood, was the Holder character. Most of the other characters tended to annoy me at times. I didn't even realize Joel Kinnaman was (half) Swedish until I just checked his IMDB profile and saw that he's been in mostly Swedish productions. Kind of interesting since The Killing is based on a Danish show. I didn't notice that he had a Swedish accent at all on The Killing. He's playing RoboCop in next year's remake.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

kcarl75 said:


> That stinks. I really liked the show....


Not surprising....disappointing, though. I did like it. Would love another network to pick it up....

Totally disagree with the statement in that story that it was a "misstep" by AMC. I was NEVER under the assumption that the murder would be solved by the end of the first season. Viewers who expected that apparently were dropping acid. Yes, it might be logical to assume that, but, in my opinion AMC really broke the mold by NOT solving it in one season. Unfortunately, most "typical" viewers, I guess, couldn't handle that...


----------



## sharkster (Jul 3, 2004)

That was a show with great promise, IMO. I ditched it after S01 and never even looked back.


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

Bierboy said:


> Not surprising....disappointing, though. I did like it. Would love another network to pick it up....
> 
> Totally disagree with the statement in that story that it was a "misstep" by AMC. I was NEVER under the assumption that the murder would be solved by the end of the first season. Viewers who expected that apparently were dropping acid. Yes, it might be logical to assume that, but, in my opinion AMC really broke the mold by NOT solving it in one season. Unfortunately, most "typical" viewers, I guess, couldn't handle that...




The sky must be a beautiful shade of pink in your world.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

I think the big issue wasn't that they didn't solve the case in S1, but that AMC and the creator of the show were so smug and unapologetic when people cried foul. All the promotions for the show had touted, "Who killed Rosie Larsen?" and then they didn't answer the question and claimed they never intended to before the end of S2. Veena Sud gave several interviews where she showed no understanding or sympathy for the people who felt duped by the promotional campaign. I think it was that attitude that caused a lot of people not to bother with S2.


----------



## robojerk (Jun 13, 2006)

My issue was I thought this was going to be a smart detective show, doing real but "dramatized" police work.
Instead I got the obvious red herrings, lack of real police work, and the writers relying on Linden having good luck and literally running into the big break of the case when on a morning run.
Yes my expectations were very off, and I shouldn't fault the show for them. If season 1 hadn't felt like mostly a time sink I probably would have stuck with it.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

robojerk said:


> My issue was I thought this was going to be a smart detective show, doing real but "dramatized" police work.
> Instead I got the obvious red herrings, lack of real police work, and the writers relying on Linden having good luck and literally running into the big break of the case when on a morning run.
> Yes my expectations were very off, and I shouldn't fault the show for them. If season 1 hadn't felt like mostly a time sink I probably would have stuck with it.


Yes, that was disappointing as well. When the show first premiered, it was billed as being more realistic because they weren't going to solve a murder in an hour, but instead would explore the full process, develop the characters, etc. But instead of having any real character development, they just spent all the episodes chasing after leads that could have been ruled out in minutes with any real police work, or not investingating leads that should have been obvious.


----------



## Church AV Guy (Jan 19, 2005)

mwhip said:


> I gave up after the crappy ending to S1


I had a similar reaction, but I tuned in for the finale to see who-done-it. I had invested many hours of my time watching season one after all. Any thoughts on if AMC will reshow it all in one block, without a year in between episodes?


Bierboy said:


> Not surprising....disappointing, though. I did like it. Would love another network to pick it up....
> 
> Totally disagree with the statement in that story that it was a "misstep" by AMC. I was NEVER under the assumption that the murder would be solved by the end of the first season. Viewers who expected that apparently were dropping acid. Yes, it might be logical to assume that, but, in my opinion AMC really broke the mold by NOT solving it in one season. Unfortunately, most "typical" viewers, I guess, couldn't handle that...


If you were never under the assumption that the murder would be solved at the end of season one, then you were in a tiny minority. The amount of anger and frustration expressed over the non-resolution at the end of season one was felt all over by thousands of very vocal viewers!



DevdogAZ said:


> *I think the big issue wasn't that they didn't solve the case in S1, but that AMC and the creator of the show were so smug and unapologetic when people cried foul.* All the promotions for the show had touted, "Who killed Rosie Larsen?" and then they didn't answer the question and claimed they never intended to before the end of S2. Veena Sud gave several interviews where she showed no understanding or sympathy for the people who felt duped by the promotional campaign. I think it was that attitude that caused a lot of people not to bother with S2.


This was my biggest complaint as well. Veena sounded like she didn't care a BIT if the promotion gave a false impression. That was OUR fault.

If it had been give even a little different treatment, it would have gotten a very different reception, and would certainly have been renewed. It was a very good concept, and deserved a real chance. You won''t win ratings points by insulting and disregarding the feelings of your audience.

This is unfortunate, but not surprising to me.


----------



## Cainebj (Nov 11, 2006)

AMC should have just shown the original with sub-titles.


----------



## Big Deficit (Jul 8, 2003)

Mark me down as another who ditched after the disappointing season 1 ending. They totally misjudged their audience.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Big Deficit said:


> Mark me down as another who ditched after the disappointing season 1 ending. They totally misjudged their audience.


I don't think it's that they misjudged their audience. I think it's that they misinformed or misled their audience.


----------



## Big Deficit (Jul 8, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> I don't think it's that they misjudged their audience. I think it's that they misinformed or misled their audience.


OR they misjudged the audiences capacity to swallow their "poo" and come back for more. But misinformed and misled work too!


----------



## WhiskeyTango (Sep 20, 2006)

Called it 6 months ago.



WhiskeyTango said:


> I'll be watching. One thing that pisses me off is what the producer Veena Sud said about the fans reaction to the S1 finale. Essentially she said it's her show, she's going to do it the way she wants, and basically doesn't care what the fans think.





WhiskeyTango said:


> Are you arguing for the sake of arguing? What is it exactly that you don't understand about the relationship between a TV show and viewers. I've already explained why she should care about insulting viewers. Let me simplify. Make fans mad, fans go away. Fans go away, show goes away.
> 
> She doesn't have to care, but she also doesn't have to say as much.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

Church AV Guy said:


> ...If you were never under the assumption that the murder would be solved at the end of season one, then you were in a tiny minority.....


I truly was not under that assumption. I would not have been surprised had they solved it at the end of S1, but I was more pleasantly surprised that they didn't. I had no assumption one way or the other. It was a great way, in my opinion of building anticipation for S2. Perhaps I was in the minority, but that's the way I felt. I enjoyed the show beginning to end, so perhaps that also puts me in the "tiny minority"...guilty as charged.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

WhiskeyTango said:


> Called it 6 months ago.


Your attack on me was ridiculous at the time....and it's still so.


----------



## WhiskeyTango (Sep 20, 2006)

Bierboy said:


> Your attack on me was ridiculous at the time....and it's still so.


My attack on you? You've got to be kidding me. Here was our interaction. How did *I* attack *YOU*? Did I say you lived in a dream world or were delusional?



WhiskeyTango said:


> I'll be watching. One thing that pisses me off is what the producer Veena Sud said about the fans reaction to the S1 finale. Essentially she said it's her show, she's going to do it the way she wants, and basically doesn't care what the fans think.





Bierboy said:


> Why should she? How many shows cater to the fans' whim? Not many...





WhiskeyTango said:


> Because the fans are the ones that keep her show on the air. I wouldn't say catering to their whims as much as taking some constructive criticism moving forward. Fans were pissed because the season ended without a resolution. So what do they do? Make everyone wait an entire second season. At least pretend you give a ****.
> 
> I know Lost producers listened to the fans and killed off two characters that were widely panned by fans.





Bierboy said:


> You're living in a dream world if you believe producers listen to fans...and do what they suggest...





WhiskeyTango said:


> Where did I ever say they do what fans suggest? I said the Lost producers listened to the fans and acted accordingly.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Bierboy said:


> And, as I said, she could care less, and I don't blame her. Why should she. They aren't her "customers"....





WhiskeyTango said:


> Are you arguing for the sake of arguing? What is it exactly that you don't understand about the relationship between a TV show and viewers. I've already explained why she should care about insulting viewers. Let me simplify. Make fans mad, fans go away. Fans go away, show goes away.
> 
> She doesn't have to care, but she also doesn't have to say as much.





Bierboy said:


> No, because you're under the delusion that viewers are "customers", that's why.





WhiskeyTango said:


> Really? That's what you're going with. Fine. I'm done. Peace out.


I said the same thing DevDogAZ said in this thread. Yet you haven't responded to him at all but for some reason take great offense to the same statement when I said it. As it turned out, I was right. Veena Sud pissed off the viewers, the viewers left, and the show is no longer on the air. It sucks but it's true. Holder became one of my most favorite TV characters and now it's gone. Right now, I'm completely  as to where your anger towards me is coming from. I made a statement, you responded that it was ludicrous to think as I do. I gave evidence to the contrary and you insulted my mental state. If any independent posters can point out where I was wrong here, I'd love to hear it because I'm just not seeing it. Maybe on top of living in a dream land and being delusional, I am also completely oblivious.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

Your problem (as with several here on TCF) is that you can't accept others' disagreement with your opinion. The fact that a show is canceled doesn't necessarily back up your opinion. There are other factors....and I'm done.


----------



## philw1776 (Jan 19, 2002)

The arrogance and disdain for viewers repeatedly displayed by the show's producer eventually brought her her justly earned reward, unemployment. 

-another irritated former viewer glad this dog won't hunt no mo


----------



## etexlady (Jun 23, 2002)

I have season 2 on the DVR but have not watched it yet. Guess I can watch the last episode and then dump it. They do say who the killer is I hope?


----------



## rrrobinsonjr (Nov 26, 2004)

I won't miss it. Please just don't touch Hell on Wheels AMC!


----------



## mmilton80 (Jul 28, 2005)

Frustrating. I was looking forward to where they were going to go next season. 

But I'm still mad about them canceling Rubicon (it really was going somewhere...eventually).


----------



## rrrobinsonjr (Nov 26, 2004)

mmilton80 said:


> But I'm still mad about them canceling Rubicon (it really was going somewhere...eventually).


lol!


----------



## Church AV Guy (Jan 19, 2005)

Big Deficit said:


> Mark me down as another who ditched after the disappointing season 1 ending. They totally misjudged their audience.


:up:


DevdogAZ said:


> I don't think it's that they misjudged their audience. I think it's that they misinformed or misled their audience.


:up::up:


philw1776 said:


> The arrogance and disdain for viewers repeatedly displayed by the show's producer eventually brought her her justly earned reward, unemployment.
> 
> -another irritated former viewer glad this dog won't hunt no mo


Yeah, that's the way I see it too.


mmilton80 said:


> Frustrating. I was looking forward to where they were going to go next season.
> 
> But I'm still mad about them canceling Rubicon (it really was going somewhere...eventually).


I too loved Rubicon.

Let me be clear, at least for me, if they had not made me BELIEVE that the killer would be revealed at the end of season one, I would not have had this reaction. It was the deception, not the delivery that infuriated me.

I am a little disappointed that it has been cancelled because the probability of them ever showing the whole thing again is greatly diminished. If they would show them all, I might just watch them NOW, knowing that they will be showing the case resolution. If it had been renewed, the chances that it will be reshown would be reasonably high, but not now. Seeing the whole thing in one big block just might work--without the nine-month break.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

I don't know if they promised that Rosie's killer would be revealed at the end of season 1. I just know that I expected them to since the vast majority of shows do. Plus, I was so sick of the depressing Larsen family and rainy, depressing Seattle that I desperately wanted a reboot for season 2. The Larsens were the worst tv family ever.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

cheesesteak said:


> I don't know if they promised that Rosie's killer would be revealed at the end of season 1. I just know that I expected them to since the vast majority of shows do.


I don't think they explicitly said that Rosie's killer would be revealed by the end of S1. However, all of the pre-lauch publicity for the show talked about how unique this show was in that it would take an entire season to solve a single murder rather than the typical crime-of-the-week shows. Add to that the AMC's promos which were based around the slogan, "Who killed Rosie Larsen?" and it was strongly implied that the mystery would be solved by the end of S1.


----------



## Church AV Guy (Jan 19, 2005)

cheesesteak said:


> I don't know if they promised that Rosie's killer would be revealed at the end of season 1. I just know that I expected them to since the vast majority of shows do. Plus, I was so sick of the depressing Larsen family and rainy, depressing Seattle that I desperately wanted a reboot for season 2. The Larsens were the worst tv family ever.


Possible, they are at least in the running for one of the worst. I find it interesting that Michelle Forbes won a supporting actress award for her portrayl of Mitch. Really? She won an award for being a morose, chain-smoking, negligent mother.

Stan almost killed that teacher, and of course, the teacher wasn't guilty.

Definitely a model family.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Church AV Guy said:


> She won an award for being a morose, chain-smoking, negligent mother.


Well, technically she won an award for her skill in playing a morose, chain-smoking, negligent mother.


----------



## billypritchard (May 7, 2001)

I'm glad this is staying near the top of the TV Talk thread. Makes me happy just to see it there.

<--Ditched after watching crappy first season.


----------



## Church AV Guy (Jan 19, 2005)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Well, technically she won an award for her skill in playing a morose, chain-smoking, negligent mother.


Uh, yeah. What you said. I really need to re-read what I write to make sure it says what I really meant to say.


----------



## dwells (Nov 3, 2001)

cheesesteak said:


> I don't know if they promised that Rosie's killer would be revealed at the end of season 1. I just know that I expected them to since the vast majority of shows do. Plus, I was so sick of the depressing Larsen family and rainy, depressing Seattle that I desperately wanted a reboot for season 2. The Larsens were the worst tv family ever.





Church AV Guy said:


> Possible, they are at least in the running for one of the worst. I find it interesting that Michelle Forbes won a supporting actress award for her portrayl of Mitch. Really? She won an award for being a morose, chain-smoking, negligent mother.
> 
> Stan almost killed that teacher, and of course, the teacher wasn't guilty.
> 
> Definitely a model family.


Okay, I have to ask- how did you expect them to act? The entire show was about the murder of a teenage girl and the effect it had on everyone, including her family. To me, the fact that we were sucked into their grief was one of the strong points of the show. When I hear people complain about the show or the Larsen family being too "depressing", I guess I just don't get it- that was the whole point.

I am one of (I guess) the minority that loved the show and had no problem with the resolution taking two seasons. I still just shake my head at the level of unbelievable outrage that many had over this show.


----------



## getreal (Sep 29, 2003)

dwells said:


> I am one of (I guess) the minority that loved the show and had no problem with the resolution taking two seasons. I still just shake my head at the level of unbelievable outrage that many had over this show.


I'm on your side, dwells.

Although I marathoned through both seasons within a week, I didn't have a problem with the resolution taking two whole television seasons.

The timeline for the characters within the story only spanned about three months from discovery of Rosie's body, through all the red herrings, to the resolution. So that's actually a speedy investigation and resolution.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

getreal said:


> The timeline for the characters within the story only spanned about three months from discovery of Rosie's body, through all the red herrings, to the resolution. So that's actually a speedy investigation and resolution.


You mean three weeks.


----------



## getreal (Sep 29, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> You mean three weeks.


I stand corrected. Thanks!
I just recall that it was pretty quick -- within their timeline.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

getreal said:


> I stand corrected. Thanks!
> I just recall that it was pretty quick -- within their timeline.


Which is part of the problem...in OUR timeline (at least, those of us who watched it live), it was interminable...not a ton happening over a span of more than a year, and much of what DID happen not mattering.

It was a show that was structured like a mini-series, and broadcast over two seasons. The season break was especially egregious...I was completely lost in the early episodes of the second season, which picked up right where the first season had left off almost a year earlier.


----------



## robojerk (Jun 13, 2006)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> It was a show that was structured like a mini-series, and broadcast over two seasons.


I actually wonder why there isn't more mini series being made.


----------



## brebeans (Sep 5, 2003)

Church AV Guy said:


> Possible, they are at least in the running for one of the worst. I find it interesting that Michelle Forbes won a supporting actress award for her portrayl of Mitch. Really? She won an award for being a morose, chain-smoking, negligent mother.
> 
> Stan almost killed that teacher, and of course, the teacher wasn't guilty.
> 
> Definitely a model family.


WHO the family was ( your description of 'negligent", etc.) has nothing to do with the quality of the show, per se.

I loved the fact that this show was not all about a "who dunnit, cop show".
What made the show interesting to me was the fact that it showed that people ARE morose, depressed, angry and possibly, yes, negligent, when they find out their teenage daughter is missing and then dead! Too many other cop/detective shows don't really show the impact on the families and other characters related to a death, who aren't the cops. That's why I thought this show was good. It showed, as depressing as it can be, the potentially real impact on a family.....it tears the family apart.

I did get a bit tired of all the rain/gray skies, etc. And, yes, sometimes it moved too sllowly. But, in my opinion ( I know I'm in the minority, too), this wasn't just a show about who killed Rosie. It was a show about the ripple effect of a murdered child (made for TV, of course)....on the politician that happened to be connected, on the family, on the cops, etc.

I'm not saying it's the best show ever, or even in my top 20, but I did enjoy the character development and being brought in to others' lives who are impacted by this sort of thing.

Oh well.....just a TV show after all. Will now need to get back to Breaking Bad......(another upbeat show!!!


----------



## robojerk (Jun 13, 2006)

brebeans said:


> I loved the fact that this show was not all about a "who dunnit, cop show".


AMC's marketing campaign would argue with you. "Who killed Rosi Larsen?"


----------



## sburnside1 (Jan 28, 2009)

My wife will be sad. She loved this show.

We watched it all in about 2 weeks though, not as it aired. To all the people that skipped season 2, dont just watch the final episode. You need to watch at least the final 2, otherwise you miss a lot. I would actually watch all of season 2 for it to make more sense.

I liked the show as well. I thought season 3 may be about the case that drove Linden crazy the first time. A bit of evidence may come up that would fire that case back up. They built up enough back story for the case in the first 2 seasons.


----------



## billypritchard (May 7, 2001)

I imagine if one watched the two seasons in a short period, some of the frustrations of Season One would be mitigated. But I'd also think that the 'red herring of the week' format would be incredibly tiresome in a condensed format. So that might be a wash.


----------



## Church AV Guy (Jan 19, 2005)

billypritchard said:


> I imagine if one watched the two seasons in a short period, some of the frustrations of Season One would be mitigated. But I'd also think that the 'red herring of the week' format would be incredibly tiresome in a condensed format. So that might be a wash.


Not having seen season two, I can't comment on that, but I do believe that if I had watched it all in a relatively short period, knowing that there was going to be a resolution, it would not have resulted in any animosity. The, as you put it, 'red herring of the week' writing style would not have been a problem. That's typical of a lot of shows--except Columbo, he always knew who the killer was from the get-go. He merely had to annoy a confession out of who he knew to be the perp.


----------



## WhiskeyTango (Sep 20, 2006)

Looks like there is a chance The Killing will be UNcancelled.


> it's looking like the crime drama might get back on the air thanks to a new agreement between producers Fox Television Studios, AMC and Netflix.
> 
> The second season solved the show's central mystery of who killed Rosie Larson. According to Deadline, showrunner Veena Sud is still attached and pitched a third season premise that was well received. Stars Mireille Enos and Joel Kinnaman are still on board too. If a deal is struck, The Killing would first window on AMC and then move over to the streaming service.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Saw this on Twitter a little while ago. Such bizarre news. If you asked me to guess what canceled show might be resurrected through a deal with Netflix, of all the canceled shows that have devoted fan bases clamoring to have the show return, this would probably be among the last on my list. Was *anyone* clamoring for this show to come back? Would anyone be interested in watching a third season, especially if Veena Sud is still involved?


----------



## dwells (Nov 3, 2001)

I wasn't clamoring for it to return, but will be happy if it does- I will definitely watch a season 3 if it happens.


----------



## gchance (Dec 6, 2002)

I would think they couldn't afford the two leads anyway. Joel Kinnaman is the next Robocop, and Mirelle Enos is Brad Pitt's wife in the World War Z movie. While they'd be available by the time they'd start Season 3, the $ they can demand has likely gone up.

Greg


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> Would anyone be interested in watching a third season, _*especially if Veena Sud is still involved?*_


No.
Zero.
None.
Nada.
Not. A. Chance. On. Earth.


----------



## dwells (Nov 3, 2001)

gchance said:


> I would think they couldn't afford the two leads anyway. Joel Kinnaman is the next Robocop, and Mirelle Enos is Brad Pitt's wife in the World War Z movie. While they'd be available by the time they'd start Season 3, the $ they can demand has likely gone up.
> 
> Greg


Don't know if it is accurate or not, but the article I read stated that both were already under contract for season 3, which was one of the big reasons for the revival.


----------



## sburnside1 (Jan 28, 2009)

My wife would love if they did a 3rd season. I wouldnt mind it. 

Sometimes I forget about all the anger against this show was about the story that went on forever. In my house first episode to last was like a 2 week time frame.


----------



## DLiquid (Sep 17, 2001)

DevdogAZ said:


> Would anyone be interested in watching a third season, especially if Veena Sud is still involved?


I would definitely watch. I thought it was a good show, even if that was not the general consensus here.

I watched both seasons over a couple of months though. If it comes back, I might watch it all over a short time span again.


----------



## Family (Jul 23, 2001)

I'd watch a third season as well. Still better than most shows and the male lead makes it worth watching.


----------



## Hcour (Dec 24, 2007)

Great news! I loved the second season and thought the show completely redeemed itself from the season one finale debacle. Hope the two lead actors also return.


----------



## brebeans (Sep 5, 2003)

dwells said:


> I wasn't clamoring for it to return, but will be happy if it does- I will definitely watch a season 3 if it happens.


:up: Me, too!
Would be interesting to see in what direction they go, but overall, it was better than a lot of "dramas" on TV and the characters were interesting.


----------



## heberman (Nov 20, 2009)

I hope they bring it back also. I enjoyed the style a lot. Yes it was a slower pace - but that was part of it's charm. That and the rain.


----------

