AMC's The Killing renewed for season 3

[bigdaddy]

The Killing is pretty reviled among critics so they're definitely not bringing it back for quality/critical acclaim.

The critics are no objective arbitor of quality and no one has said that season 2 (at least) was a "critical" success.

But AMC sure as heck wouldn't give it another go unless they thought there was a fair amount of quality there -- and considering this network's track record with one hour dramas, I'd say they are at least as good judges of quality as the critics if not considerably better.

Networks don't keep shows on just because they think it's good. That simply doesn't happen. If it has CRITICAL acclaim then it might be kept on, especially if the channel is interested in that (i.e. HBO). There's nothing wrong with liking the show but to say that it's seen as high quality is simply incorrect.

Yeah, I'd like to know what reason fans of the show think it's coming back for? Maybe it's just because they are fans of the show? There is some weak logic for you.

AMC canceled the show months ago. For some reason Netflix seemed to really like the show, probably the acting, because the writing is shit. So when it got canceled Netflix started talking to people.

Netflix clearly has to pay for the show, or give AMC some money, otherwise AMC wouldn't have brought the show back. You don't cancel the show, just to uncancel it a few months later without some kind of profit being made on the show.

My logic is sound. Be a fan of the show trevanian, but don't question my logic because your love of the show is blinding logic from reaching you.

What I have read about the second season, which I never saw any of, but watched all of the first season, was that it was horrible and dragged the storyline out for no reason.

They should do it like Veronica Mars did between season 1 and 2. Have the storyline end in season 1, but then have it lead into part of the mystery of season 2.

 

[trevanian]

Yeah, I'm sure VERONICA MARS was what AMC was aspiring to, both in plotting and quality.

I hate to be the guy to bring this up, but if you haven't seen the second season (which visually is a thing apart, seriously), why are you even hanging on in this thread?

 

[bigdaddy]

Yeah, I'm sure VERONICA MARS was what AMC was aspiring to, both in plotting and quality.

I hate to be the guy to bring this up, but if you haven't seen the second season (which visually is a thing apart, seriously), why are you even hanging on in this thread?

This is still a forum right? Heaven forbid people who don't agree with you point out the holes in your "logic".

Veronica Mars is, rather sadly, 100,000 times better than The Killing, and they know how to write a joke.

This topic brings back old "fans" of the show. Season 3 will be a fresh start and I hoped that it will be better. The show had promise and never got to a place it should.

And more importantly to fans of TV shows everywhere, I find it interesting Netflix is saving this show. Why this one and not one of the other dozens that they could? I like the new idea for TVs, that there is some hope after death.

 

[gblews]

Umm, so now it has to be the right critics.

I neither said nor implied such an idiotic thing.

trevanian presented the critiques on Metacritic as an example of the show's critical acclaim. You then immediately began explaining why the critical accclaim at Metacritic should be discarded or discounted -- wrong critics.

Now, this may not be what you meant (if not, you're invited to explain why it wasn't), but you couldn't tell that by what you actually wrote.

 

[PsychoPere]

sidious618 recognized without difficulty what I had plainly posted.

Most of those reviews would have been written, posted, and aggregated into a Metascore before the reviewers would have been in a position to see and write about the show's decline in quality.

That's not what was said at all. Critics loved the premiere of the show, as did I, but they universally bashed the show as it continued.

Since you apparently need your hand held through this, I'll go ahead and humor you. The Metascore that trevanian cited in defense of the show was formed based on early reviews - i.e., reviews of episodes before the downturn in quality. Most Metascores are not updated to include midseason and end-of-season reviews, and thus are almost always formed solely upon the strength or weakness of either the premiere episode alone or a small batch of episodes sent early to critics.

Most Metascores are based only on a small snapshot of a given series, rather than being reflective of a whole as they can be in terms of a self-contained reviewed work (movie, video game, etc.). Due to this, yes, I will discount Metascores when applied to television series.

 

[Dream]

Can we all agree that the writers took way too long to solve the main murder mystery?

 

[degra]

I tried to watch it but it was a slog. It was ultimately a plodding bore with bland characters and stale storytelling. And the reveal of the killer was wholly disappointing and dare I say it sucked.

I frankly could care less whether critics loved it or hated it. All that matters is whether I enjoyed it and I hated it. In fact there are plenty of critic darlings I find rather ho hum myself,,,mad men game of thrones the walking dead true blood Nashville etc. I've gotten to the point I don't even bother hearing from so called professional critics.

 

[gblews]

sidious618 recognized without difficulty what I had plainly posted.

Most of those reviews would have been written, posted, and aggregated into a Metascore before the reviewers would have been in a position to see and write about the show's decline in quality.

That's not what was said at all. Critics loved the premiere of the show, as did I, but they universally bashed the show as it continued.

Since you apparently need your hand held through this, I'll go ahead and humor you. The Metascore that trevanian cited in defense of the show was formed based on early reviews - i.e., reviews of episodes before the downturn in quality. Most Metascores are not updated to include midseason and end-of-season reviews, and thus are almost always formed solely upon the strength or weakness of either the premiere episode alone or a small batch of episodes sent early to critics.

Most Metascores are based only on a small snapshot of a given series, rather than being reflective of a whole as they can be in terms of a self-contained reviewed work (movie, video game, etc.). Due to this, yes, I will discount Metascores when applied to television series.

You just reiterated your belief that these were the wrong critics. I don't care the reason you think they're the wrong critics, whether because you think they didn't critique enough of of the show to make their opinions valid or whatever.

The critiques by Metacritic were offered as evidence of the show's "critical acclaim", you followed that by stating why you don't think the critiques at Metacritic are valid -- in other words, you're not accepting their critiques as valid. Thus my statement that (in your eyes) they are the wrong critics.

Now, you let me know if you require any additional handholding.

 

[PsychoPere]

I am most definitely not saying Metacritic aggregated the "wrong critics," particularly since, for the small set of episodes reviewed, I was actually in agreement with the majority of the critics quoted. Many of the critics who were high on the show at the beginning (Alan Sepinwall, Maureen Ryan, Matt Zoller Seitz, and James Poniewozik all come to mind immediately) sharply changed their tone on the show as the season went on, but of course those reviews don't appear on Metacritic.

Look at the dates for the aggregated reviews for season one. Every single one was from a period spanning only from March 31, 2011 to April 7, 2011. The series premiered April 3, 2011, and did not air a second episode until April 10.

The way Metacritic aggregates ratings for television shows is fundamentally flawed because it only takes into account reviews written very early in a season's run, and is rarely if ever updated to take into account reviews written later when a season may diminish or improve. Some progress does appear to have been made since Metacritic aggregates for subsequent seasons, but the problem is exactly the same there as well since those reviews again are taken from only an early batch of episodes.

My problem is not with critics but rather with Metacritic's aggregation. You can continue to falsely claim that I am saying "wrong critics" all you want, but your continued assertions won't make it truth.

I'm not saying these are the "wrong critics" or even that these are the wrong reviews; I'm saying that these aren't enough reviews over a sufficient period of time for an aggregated score to actually say anything meaningful about a show's critical acclaim (or lackthereof).

 

[bigdaddy]

Can we all agree that the writers took way too long to solve the main murder mystery?

By the end of season 1 a lot of the viewers were only watching to see who the killer way. Then they didn't show us that and the the ratings for season two dropped 40-50% in an episode or two.

But during the break the writers came out and said that this was all part of their plan, that the killed would be revealed way before the finale, probably the middle of the season and that a new mystery would start for the last several episode.

That didn't happen and anyone who say that I think realized that the writers were clueless and just making it up, and that didn't help matters.

One season mysteries, that way it's not dragged out, or not have an ending if the show was cancelled. But some people think slow, boring drawn out storylines are awesome.

 

[sidious618]

You just reiterated your belief that these were the wrong critics. I don't care the reason you think they're the wrong critics, whether because you think they didn't critique enough of of the show to make their opinions valid or whatever.

The critiques by Metacritic were offered as evidence of the show's "critical acclaim", you followed that by stating why you don't think the critiques at Metacritic are valid -- in other words, you're not accepting their critiques as valid. Thus my statement that (in your eyes) they are the wrong critics.

Now, you let me know if you require any additional handholding.

That's not what he said at all. How can this be so confusing? Those critics loved the early episodes and those reviews were used for metacritic but those SAME critics disliked the second half of the season. If you look at the second season you'll see a 25 point DROP as critics liked the show less and it would've been an even bigger drop but some critics didn't even bother to come back and review the show.

 

[gblews]

I am most definitely not saying Metacritic aggregated the "wrong critics," particularly since, for the small set of episodes reviewed, I was actually in agreement with the majority of the critics quoted. Many of the critics who were high on the show at the beginning (Alan Sepinwall, Maureen Ryan, Matt Zoller Seitz, and James Poniewozik all come to mind immediately) sharply changed their tone on the show as the season went on, but of course those reviews don't appear on Metacritic.

Look at the dates for the aggregated reviews for season one. Every single one was from a period spanning only from March 31, 2011 to April 7, 2011. The series premiered April 3, 2011, and did not air a second episode until April 10.

The way Metacritic aggregates ratings for television shows is fundamentally flawed because it only takes into account reviews written very early in a season's run, and is rarely if ever updated to take into account reviews written later when a season may diminish or improve. Some progress does appear to have been made since Metacritic aggregates for subsequent seasons, but the problem is exactly the same there as well since those reviews again are taken from only an early batch of episodes.

My problem is not with critics but rather with Metacritic's aggregation. You can continue to falsely claim that I am saying "wrong critics" all you want, but your continued assertions won't make it truth.

I'm not saying these are the "wrong critics" or even that these are the wrong reviews; I'm saying that these aren't enough reviews over a sufficient period of time for an aggregated score to actually say anything meaningful about a show's critical acclaim (or lackthereof).

Yes, I know. You've made it clear over and over that you don't think the critiques at Metacritic are adequate or valid and why.

But rather than attempt to refute the statment that the show was critically acclaimed, as you did initially, because the critiques at Metacritic were, in your opinion, inadequate or invalid (and therefore, the wrong critics, even though you didn't actually use those words), you could simply have stated what was true; that some critics did like the show, particularly the first season or parts of the first season, and some didn't.

BTW, just to reiterate, just because some fans and critics didn't like the show didn't mean AMC agreed --obviously -- because the show has apparentely been given a repreive.

 

[bigdaddy]

AMC cares about one thing... money. They don't care about their shows at all. The Killing is probably really cheap now, most of the old cast isn't needed. AMC doesn't give a rat's ass about it's shows, they just want money.

Breaking Bad almost went to another network for a final season just because AMC wanted 6-8 episodes only to save money. Walking Dead is HUGE and gets budget cuts left and right. Mad Men gets decent ratings and more acclaim than most shows and AMC almost didn't renew it after it's forth season because they were too cheap.

AMC doesn't care about shows, or fans, or anything other than making as much possible. With Netflix pitching in some money for the rights AMC released they can make money off of the show.

Also the article is from December 1st.

This article is from the 15th / 21st...

As of this writing The Killing is still not officially resurrected for a third season despite any reports to the contrary that you may have read. But the production team had been mobilizing in preparation for an official pick-up from AMC. The one-word question that news generally elicited was: why?

The theory I saw posited by many that made the most sense to me was that even though AMC had picked up Hell On Wheels for a third season, when the muckity mucks on the production team quit, the show's future was in limbo. AMC needed something to fill that void in case things didn't move forward with Hell On Wheels, and that was The Killing.

But with a new showrunner on board, Hell On Wheels is no longer in limbo. It's pick-up of 10 episodes is officially official. What does that mean for The Killing? Is there a 'The Killing: Now More Canceled Than Ever!" post coming in the future? If the theory outlined above was behind the talks of its revival, one might speculate the news about Hell On Wheels isn't good news for The Killing.

If a third season of The Killing is not to be, that news will certainly get out. But don't be surprised if there's no official statement from AMC. While in a somewhat rare move AMC did officially make a statement about cancelling The Killing, it hasn't officially commented on its revival yet.

http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/20...ancel-status-through-december-15-2012/161999/