'The Killing' cancelled by AMC

[bigdaddy]

I started this show a while back, and I've got about five episodes left of season 1.

So considering some of the opinions I've read in this thread (sort of...I'm skimming it to avoid spoilers), is it worth continuing? I'd at least like to watch it long enough to learn the killer of the girl from the first season.

You would need to suffer through 21 more episodes, or we can just tell you.

I think everyone with common sense (which is something the writers clearly had none of) would have figured if you get picked up for 13 episodes than you would reveal the killer at the end of the first season in case it go canceled. They didn't do that. That was stupid, everyone ditched.

 

[M'rk son of Mogh]

I think everyone with common sense (which is something the writers clearly had none of) would have figured if you get picked up for 13 episodes than you would reveal the killer at the end of the first season in case it go canceled. They didn't do that. That was stupid, everyone ditched.

I'm not understanding, if they weren't cancelled, then why should they have done that "in case" they were? They gambled and it paid off, how is that a stupid decision? The story didn't change from what they wanted to do. Just people's expectations for some strange reason, where they decided that any arc longer than a single season is all of a sudden unacceptable?

 

[gblews]

The fans "thought" it should happened because the producers allowed them to think that is what would happen.

So if people had no idea what the producers said (I would think most of the viewers aren't online watching the interviews behind the scenes), then there would be no problems?

I don't think it should matter what the producers say, and in fact, they're pretty much obligated to NOT give away what they're doing, so lying or distorting the truth is to be expected. They could claim aliens are behind the whole thing and then reveal something totally different. The work (good or bad) should speak for itself.

Also ironic (looking at your avatar) considering Twin Peaks, with the same basic premise, was never meant to reveal the killer according to Lynch, and when it was, it wasn't until well into the 2nd season. And that show has quite the cult following.

And furthermore, the producers never "said" the killer would be revealed at the end of season 1. As I have written before, people are so used to the procedural cop shows that lead viewers by the nose to the perpetrator usually at the end of one hour, they had a hissy when they didn't get what they thought they were entitled to at the end of season 1.

I started this show a while back, and I've got about five episodes left of season 1.

So considering some of the opinions I've read in this thread (sort of...I'm skimming it to avoid spoilers), is it worth continuing? I'd at least like to watch it long enough to learn the killer of the girl from the first season.

It is definitely worth continuing. Just keep in mind that this show is bout way more than the murder mystery. It is about the effect of the murders on the victim's family and on the investigators. It is not a procedural and is really quite subtle for a American made crime drama.

The acting is superb and the reveal of who the killer is at the end of season 2 is a real shocker.

I started this show a while back, and I've got about five episodes left of season 1.

So considering some of the opinions I've read in this thread (sort of...I'm skimming it to avoid spoilers), is it worth continuing? I'd at least like to watch it long enough to learn the killer of the girl from the first season.

I think everyone with common sense (which is something the writers clearly had none of) would have figured if you get picked up for 13 episodes than you would reveal the killer at the end of the first season in case it go canceled. They didn't do that. That was stupid, everyone ditched.

So, there is some television law that says the crime has to be solved by the end of the episode or by the end of the final episode of the season? Well you're right if this were the 1960's or '70's, '80's or '90's. But it isn't. The old forms of presentation of T.V. shows have changed. But, change is painful and so I do understand why so many are having such a problem with it.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

So, there is some television law that says the crime has to be solved by the end of the episode or by the end of the final episode of the season? Well you're right if this were the 1960's or '70's, '80's or '90's. But it isn't. The old forms of presentation of T.V. shows have changed. But, change is painful and so I do understand why so many are having such a problem with it.

Homicide never solved the Adena Watson murder, and that was the 90s. I have a friend who was sure the post-series television movie would finally reveal the murdered, eight years after the series began with it. When I pointed out, at the time, that the real-life murder on which the Adena Watson case was based was never solved, his response was that this was drama, not life, and drama demanded closure that life didn't get. Well, we still don't know who murdered Adena Watson.

 

[Professor Zoom]

I started this show a while back, and I've got about five episodes left of season 1.

So considering some of the opinions I've read in this thread (sort of...I'm skimming it to avoid spoilers), is it worth continuing? I'd at least like to watch it long enough to learn the killer of the girl from the first season.

As has been stated, it was at the end of season two. I bailed. I thought, while they had good actors, the show was mercilessly dull and dimwitted at times.

For god's sake, how many times in the season did she go to the airport, or get in her car to LEAVE, and then turn right around? It maybe have been two or three times, but, it felt like every episode.

But the midway point, I was ready to bail. Because I hated the characters, hated the pacing, hated the red herrings, the constant, we are back to square one. Obviously, others in this thread liked it. I stuck around because, yes, I'm one of those that felt we were being told it was going to be wrapped up at the end of season one. Maybe it was the bill boards in LA, I don't know. Frankly, I don't care.

The show was self important shit.

 

[bigdaddy]

^ Bingo Zoom.

I love the actors, they had a good idea and blew it because they thought they were greater than they were.

There wouldn't have been as big of an issue with the show taking 26 episodes to reveal the killer if out of the hours and hours of plot shown 95% of it was shit. If they had a plan, that one thing would lead to another, that sometimes there are dead ends, if they stopped the lead from "leaving" every fucking episode. If you are going to do one, and only one, storyline throughout the whole show, or a season or two you have to plan it out, pace it out, have clues to where it's going and just plan it.

It feels like the writers were like the 24 writers, just make it up 2-3 episodes at a time, pulling it out of their ass along the way.

 

[od0_ital]

Homicide never solved the Adena Watson murder, and that was the 90s. I have a friend who was sure the post-series television movie would finally reveal the murdered, eight years after the series began with it. When I pointed out, at the time, that the real-life murder on which the Adena Watson case was based was never solved, his response was that this was drama, not life, and drama demanded closure that life didn't get. Well, we still don't know who murdered Adena Watson.

It was the Araber (sp?).

 

[trevanian]

I started this show a while back, and I've got about five episodes left of season 1.

So considering some of the opinions I've read in this thread (sort of...I'm skimming it to avoid spoilers), is it worth continuing? I'd at least like to watch it long enough to learn the killer of the girl from the first season.

I'd absolutely recommend watching all of them. 2nd season may not be quite as compelling in terms of story, but in terms of lighting it is amazing. I've never seen a show that was so incredibly dark, it practically goes beyond broadcast standards it is so dim. Super-impressive work (shot on FILM, too!)

I think season 3 is the best season, because you've got a better story, better actors and a compelling social issue, PLUS the super dark photography (the guy who shot seasons 2 & 3 was not the guy who shot season 1.)

Then again, this is coming from a guy who loved all of TWIN PEAKS time & again (except the "james on the road" stuff and the little nicky bits.)

I'd suggest a viewing of RIPPER ST as well, a recent UK show that has one season on homevid here now. Tremendous character work, nearly invisible VFX to convey the period, and people (especially women) who look REAL. it helped cushion the blow when I found out THE HOUR was not getting a third season (BASTARDS!)

 

[Aldo]

Well if you recall, I absolutely loved Twin Peaks. So if you say it's worth sticking with this show, then by golly that's what I'm going to do.

 

[Ruaidhri]

It's worth sticking with. Great show.

 

[PKerr]

^

They don't reveal the first season killer 'til the end of the second season?

Screw that, makes me glad I dropped the show after the first season finale.

Pretty much this, I was kinda pissed they ended season one the way they did, if I had to wait till the end of season two I would have been super pissed, glad I didn't bother to tune back in.