The Killing on AMC (Baltimore, international, difference, Lost)

[mag32gie]

Well, guess I'm weird because I loved the ending. I'm so sick of the ordinary and can't wait for season two. I felt it was definitely "Chilling" and "Shocking", which is why I couldn't wait to watch it in the first place.

[nevergoingback]

Originally Posted by PKCorey

Wasn't the wife on bedrest so its no surprise that she doesn't know who the suspect is at all.

He was arrested and charged for the crime. Bedrest or not I think it's very far fetched to imply the spouse didn't know who was arrested for the attempted murder of her husband.

I think it's dumb to "cliffhang" a shows first season. It makes the writers seem desperate or I guess they weren't expecting a second season so they kind of had to.

The show is now a gimmick. I'm sure I'll still tune in though. LOL.

[Tricky D]

Originally Posted by mag32gie

Well, guess I'm weird because I loved the ending. I'm so sick of the ordinary and can't wait for season two.

Me too.
I'm no fan of the crime shows like NCIS etc where they solve their crime in 1 episode.

The reason I'm still watching The Killing is because the subplots are a critique on (modern) society, which reminds me of the TV show Dexter.
In Dexter we see society through the eyes of a serial killer and find out in each episode that a serial killing dad is becoming more and more 'normal' like us because he has learned to be empathic for the ones he loves (his stepchildren, child & wife and girlfriend).
And in The Killing we see the opposite: how 'insane' our society actually is.
I mean so far we've seen that:
- in our society it is normal for our kids to have sex to be accepted by their peers
- that because of our new technology our kids today find nothing wrong with filming (or is it staging?) a rape and then mail it to friends.
- that we use the internet as an open source where we display the most heinous of things (like Linden's kid has done with the evidence photos of Rosie)
- that we find nothing wrong with believing that a teacher can only be a criminal simply because he married a former student
- that our government spies on religious organisations because they believe them to be terrorists
- that some religions (or is it just some cultures?) encourage female circumcision
- that racial discrimination is a necessary evil; the teacher and his friend were both Muslim and trying to get a passport therefore they could only be terrorists
- that once a Muslim is suspected of being a criminal we as a society find nothing wrong with vandalising their mosques
- we as a society find nothing wrong with mudslinging during a political campaign.
In fact we would find it curious if the politician's did not sling mud at each other to win.
I guess that in our modern society in politics, like in sports, winning is more important than fair play.

So you could say that I find the subplots more important than finding out who killed Rosie.
The fact that the cops aren’t portrayed as super cops who get everything right immediately also helps.

[mochamajesty]

So you could say that I find the subplots more important than finding out who killed Rosie.

You may find it more important, but I am sure that most viewers did not.

The show used "Who killed Rosie Larsen?" as it's tagline from the beginning. It was on every billboard. Why ask the question if you weren't going to answer it? It was heavily implied that this question would be answered, and now I feel as if my intelligence was insulted.

And Veena Sud stated in several interviews that she would have ended the series just as it was even if the show was not renewed. So, from the beginning, the writers were jerking us around.

I will post a link to the interview when I find it.

[Tricky D]

Originally Posted by mochamajesty

It was on every billboard. Why ask the question if you weren't going to answer it?

Ah, but who says that Richmond did not kill Rosie?
The only thing Holder did is use a photo the tollbooth cameras could not have made because they were out of order, but that doesn't mean that Richmond is innocent.
I'm betting that it was Holder who made the pictures of Richmond meeting Rosie which the mayor had in his possession and gave to Gwen.
For all we know Holder is in a sting operation where catching Rosie's killer isn't his main objective.
Holder's cover could be that he's aiding whoever is after Richmond to reach his goal.

[RjRobb2]

Originally Posted by mag32gie

Well, guess I'm weird because I loved the ending. I'm so sick of the ordinary and can't wait for season two.

That ending was about as ordinary as it gets on TV. In fact, the show could not have been more ordinary with that ending if it tried. It was a cheap twist and every show does that. What make this show good was it's unique, gritty realism and they completely ditched it in the last 5 minutes of the show.

[RjRobb2]

Originally Posted by Tricky D

But since it will be they've only added the scene where it is revealed that Holder has 'faked' the photo with Richmond driving the campaign car over the toll bridge.
Right now I wouldn't be surprised if Holder is in an undercover sting operation to expose the connection between the current mayor (remember the skull at the building site?) and the Danish mafia (or whoever it was Stan Larsen used to work for).

A sting operation wouldnt be planting false evidence into a homicide investigation and ruining the credibility and reputation of a prominent citizen. Not to mention that it would make all the evidence for that case probably get dismissed because of that.

If he is working for someone it isnt for law enforcement.

[Tricky D]

Originally Posted by RjRobb2

A sting operation wouldnt be planting false evidence into a homicide investigation and ruining the credibility and reputation of a prominent citizen.

Who says that it is false?
Holder filed in a photo which the tollbooth cameras couldn’t have made but that doesn’t mean that the photo is false or that Richmond did not kill Rosie.
What if Holder cover is being a corrupt cop so he could infiltrate the mayor's waterfront operation and thus was observing Richmond long before he knew that Richmond was planning to kill Rosie?
Every photo taken during that observation would still be evidence but exposing Richmond as the killer immediately would've jeopardised his infiltration.
The only reason why Holder made the mistake of lying about the photo is to put Richmond behind bars because that would elliminate him as a candidate which ensures that the mayor wins the election so Holder can continue with his infiltration.

If he is working for someone it isnt for law enforcement.

Wasn't Holder an undercover cop (in vice?) before he was to replace Linden as a homicide detective?
He could still be working for an anticorruption unit or anti-mafia unit.

[RjRobb2]

Originally Posted by Tricky D

Originally Posted by RjRobb2 Who says that it is false?
Holder filed in a photo which the tollbooth cameras couldn’t have made but that doesn’t mean that the photo is false or that Richmond did not kill Rosie.

If the tollbooth cameras were not working then that picture is false because it either was never taken or not taken that night. Therefore, it is false evidence. If submitted the photo as being taken that night and it had a date on it which means it was altered somehow. Even an undercover cop cannot do that.

A police officer, undercover or not, cannot plant false evidence into a murder investigation. It is ILLEGAL and it would not hold up in court.

Originally Posted by Tricky D

What if Holder cover is being a corrupt cop so he could infiltrate the mayor's waterfront operation and thus was observing Richmond long before he knew that Richmond was planning to kill Rosie?
Every photo taken during that observation would still be evidence but exposing Richmond as the killer immediately would've jeopardised his infiltration.
The only reason why Holder made the mistake of lying about the photo is to put Richmond behind bars because that would elliminate him as a candidate which ensures that the mayor wins the election so Holder can continue with his infiltration.

Playing corrupt cop or not, planting evidence and misrepresenting said evidence is illegal. It would not hold up in court and would not be allowed in any investigation.

Originally Posted by Tricky D

Wasn't Holder an undercover cop (in vice?) before he was to replace Linden as a homicide detective?
He could still be working for an anticorruption unit or anti-mafia unit.

Yes, he was an undercover cop but again, an undercover cop would not and could not interfere with a MURDER investigation of a young girl or plant false evidence in said case. Whatever Holder was trying to accomplish would be ruined because the entire case would be thrown out in court because of that. What do you not understand about this? It would be ILLEGAL regardless of being an undercover cop or not.

[DC at the Ridge]

I think the thing about Holder is that he's impulsive. When he thought that Bennett was the murderer, he was all about sealing the deal, and when he thought Richmond was the murderer he was all about sealing the deal. He takes shortcuts because he thinks it's getting murderers put away. His inability to self-edit is his character flaw. That's why Linden told him he doesn't have to say everything that pops into his head. I think she was subtly telling him that he doesn't need to jump to every conclusion either.

Linden prefers to let the evidence speak. Which is why she was so upset on the plane. She could have simply called her boss and told him that the state police had called her, that the photo was a fake, and let the chips fall where they may. But part of her wanted to leap off that plane and fix things, and part of her needed to pause and think. Think about whether this was over-eagerness on Holder's part, or whether Holder had been playing her all along. Think about what this revelation is going to do to her--to her life, to her reputation, to her career, to the future she's finally determined to meet.

Obviously the picture was pretty damning, but without the picture, there's still a lot of compelling evidence against Richmond. The campaign car itself was always a strong link to the campaign. No matter how lax security was with the fleet of cars, the people in the best position to know about the security issues were the people in the campaign to begin with. Richmond's identity as Orpheus. That's such a morbid identity. To lose your wife, to rescue her from the Underworld, to fail and lose her forever. And the thing about Eurydice is that she was Orpheus's muse, she was his source of inspiration, she was his guide. We get echoes of that same kind of thing when Richmond talks about his wife. So her loss to Richmond, like Eurydice's loss to Orpheus, means a life of unending despair. No possibility of ever feeling complete. In a way, Richmond, despite his ambitions, is a man simply waiting for it all to end.

The only thing about that is that the Senator's daughter was his alibi, and she confided to Linden that he had left during the night. But that means that she also, doesn't have an alibi. Maybe Richmond did meet up with Rosie, maybe he scared her with morbid questions about drowning. But when she got away from Richmond--why did she scream? The garage owner says he heard a girl scream, walked out toward the pumps and saw the black sedan taking off. There was enough time for the driver of the black sedan to pay for his gas, so just exactly what happened there? Why would Rosie scream if she'd gotten to the back of the garage? Wouldn't most girls run into the garage for help, or else hide? What happened when she got behind the garage that made her scream? Was there someone else?

I would have really, really liked to have had all the questions answered by the season finale. When the next the last episode was shown, I knew that it wouldn't resolve everything, but I think that this episode left so many things unresolved, that it's very frustrating for viewers.

I'd also add that the performances by the actors throughout the show have been stellar, but that I think the actor who portrayed Stan did a particularly fine job. From the first episode, when he was at the lake and found out his daughter was murdered, he's explored a huge emotional range. Grief, stoicism, desperation, anger, powerlessness, he was utterly convincing.