I think it's like 35 tops from the age of his kids. If it was more like 42/59 (which is doable imo with Woody's face) they would have been well served by aging Woody up in present with grey hair and whatnot.

They actually did the haircuts exactly wrong, Woody looks much closer to 40 with the short hair, they could have made him go grey in the present with longer hair which would have sold his age.

It was muffled conversation behind the girls' door as Hart was coming to get them for dinner. Something like:
"You don't have a mummy and daddy anymore. They died."
"How?"
"In a car accident"

Sounded like the older girl explaining the circumstances of the scene to the younger one. Younger one is playing the victim. Typical older/younger sibling power dynamic.

It certainly looks like a gang rape. But maybe that is for our benefit - and Hart's, and the girls were enacting something different (like a marginally less sinister crime scene?) that looks like a gang rape to grown ups.

The girls' dialog could be an implication of what happens to girls who don't have parents to look after them - which ties back into other plot aspects, including the immediately following dialog where one of the girls asks Marty if he's coming to dinner too, he says yes, and the little one says "Good!" This coming off Marty being upset by the apparently underage girl at the bunny ranch who had no family. Also perhaps it ties into the precise circumstances of Rust's daughter's death - that's being revealed to us slowly - or foreshadowing the breakup of Marty's family.

For a 6- or 7-year-old to set up that scene, she must have witnessed something similar. Seems more likely to me that it was second-hand from Daddy's police work than something they saw first hand. Other (and more plausible) source is TV/movies. (Or does Marty have magazines as well as a girlfriend?) In '95 the girls were not getting it from the internet.

We know Marty lies to his wife and lies to his girlfriend. Why wouldn't he lie about this too? Or perhaps incidents like this are what prompts him to "not bring home the work".

IMO, this is a much stronger argument that the girls didn't enact the scene based on anything they saw from Daddy's police work. I think it is too much of a stretch to assume they therefore must have seen an actual gang rape. More likely they either heard a description (or multiple descriptions) of Daddy's cases, or they saw a movie.

So perhaps the point of the scene is that Marty can't successfully escape, even at home.

No, can't rule it out as a possibility. It's just less likely than other possibilities. Put the girls on a range, not a single hand.

Marty's escaping from more than his job. He's irresponsible. I suspect that's going to tie in to the breakdown between him and Rust. Also I doubt the breakdown is due to Rust having an affair with Marty's wife. They just become friends. Isn't there dialog during Rust's interview about Maggie having set him up with some woman? That's more typically behaviour of a woman who is just a friend, rather than a current or ex girlfriend.

Having had two girls (a long time ago, and all the grandkids are boys), my guess was 4 or 5 and 6-8. But maybe they grow 'em smaller and chubbier in SW Louisiane.

It is not unreasonable to point out that it looks like those dolls are getting ready for a gang rape. Or a commercially inspired gang-bang. Or maybe a forensic examination at a crime scene.

I don't know about all of that, but I just watched "The Wire" in less than a month and I can't imagine how drawing it out over 7 years would have made me enjoy it more.

So far this show has done a great job delivering compelling back stories. Cohle's explanation as to how he became a homicide detective was really intriguing. And of course when he talks about his daughter. Damn man..

They're spectacular. Disappointing lack of bush gifs though.

Upon further review, I'm going to up those estimates by a year.

Their captain outright states this when he's chewing them out over MM's mouth and disdain for the task force. Where he asks Woody if he's ever closed a case that's more than a week old or wasn't on a platter after a couple rounds of interviews.


I was surprised by MM's "origin story" but there's something I want to discuss a little:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unreliable_narrator

I think this is potentially really important given the way this story is being told (flashbacks from the point of view of the two main characters). Clearly MM has emotional/psychological issues and Woody is a problematic character as well. And if either is the killer then clearly they would be capable of manipulating the interviews.

So something I noticed - Which started (may have to rewatch episode 1) with Woody's bull****ting about not taking the job home and needing to decompress. And then we switch to flashback where that turns out to mean cheating on his wife. So while speaking in the interview Woody is full of it, but when the flashback turns on we get truth.

So my thinking at this point is that what we see in flashback is reliable. However, what we don't see in flashback (direct interview) may or may not be. Or to put it another way, why was all of MM's background story recounted by him in the interview and not presented in a flashback? Apparently since records are sealed we only have MM's word on any of it. That could just be a narrative choice not to flashback anything further. Or avoid some kind of montage. But it feels significant.


Finally, it should be pretty clear that either or both of them are suspects. When Woody mentions that they're looking to pin something on someone, all the investigators want to talk about is MM. So either the subtext is that MM is the pone under investigation, or, Woody's chosen then to broach the topic in the hopes of putting MM in the jackpot. Which could be because Woody holds that much of a grudge or because Woody's the killer.

Why wouldn't you wait until all eight episodes have aired and then 'blow through them'? You're empowered, you can be your own Netflix.

I like a lot of this, but you're ascribing too much to such young children. If they knew what they were depicting was wrong, they would have taken the scene down when he knocked on the door. It's clearly something one (or both as they seem very close) witnessed in some form or fashion, and it's something they can't process. I remember being about 7 years old and freaking my mom out as I was walking around our apartment complex and I saw the f word written as graffiti on various walls. I came home and asked, "Mom, what does f*** mean?" That was good stuff, seeing how she freaked out. That depiction is very similar to what I just described, in my opinion. They saw it and can't put a meaning to it, so they just show it. For all we know, they could have re-iterated some of what the gang rapists were saying during the act. We just don't know yet, and I'd be shocked if it's not paid off.

For the first explanation of it being from Hart's work, no, I don't buy that. That's a staged scene, and it's representing an act, not a crime scene. There would be no photos of the crime happening, and the cops wouldn't have stood around the victim the way it's portrayed. As for movies, I can't see any situation where a gang rape video would have been in view of either of these children. What movies contain gang rapes? Not very many, and there's no way you'd be witnessing something like that in cop's house, who knows what he does is effed up. So, I can't see any way that he would be that irresponsible with his work or off time movies with his children. If it were 11 or 12 year olds, I'd totally buy your explanation, but it doesn't hold water for such young children. They would have to get there by total accident. Using your playing the range comment, the thing that makes the most sense is that one, or both, witnessed it, since there is that level of detail to their scene.

There's no disputing that Marty is a liar, and we should believe a liar is lying when they speak, but what we've seen on screen actually bears out that he does not want his kids witnessing anything potentially bad related to his work. I think a more interesting question is what happened to his previous partner, and the idea that his wife makes him bring partners home for dinner?

Again, no, just no, about them hearing a description and re-enacting the scene based on that. They are too young to have an imagination like that and to actually understand what they are creating with that level of detail, even if they don't understand the acts they are portraying. And again, if they saw a video, it would have been by accident, and there's just no way they would have watched enough of it to be able to stage the scene with that level of detail. One thing I will give you is that it is possible Hart had some sort of torture mags around, because he is definitely kinky, and probably took awhile to cross certain lines with others. Something important to note, and speaks to CMAR is that both of these guys are completely capable of being killers. Cohle knows he is, and Hart is denying how truly dark his personality is.

He can't escape at home, and that's the point his wife is making. It is his life. It owns him. I think the point of the scene is for character development. He sees but does nothing. That's his M.O. The moment he saw that scene, he should have called the older one back and asked her about it. His character is just completely apathetic about what's going on around him, until it directly affects him. He is a seriously scary dude. He has a terrible moral compass.

Again, based on what I think, I think it's the MOST likely conclusion. You disagree, and that's fine. If they never come back to it, we'll never know, but they will, and we'll figure out what was going on then. We need a lot more backstory to fill in for Hart, previous to working with Cohle.

I think all of his irresponsibility is related to not having a moral compass. I also do not think the marriage lasted much beyond 1995. That would be one of the most miserable marriages ever to last another 7 years. Their marriage is already destroyed, and it's just about when either will be willing to pull the rip cord. She pretty much hates him already, and has a huge amount of resent toward him.

I really don't understand logic like this. This isn't some math problem to solve (we should assume that we're seeing is what we get in this instance, because of the age of the characters). I know we are living in a show filled with red herrings, but there are some things that are never meant to make an audience guess. This was clearly depicting a gang rape, and if it wasn't intended to it was extremely piss poor directing. That picture goofyballer posted is indisputable evidence of what was going on with those dolls, and I can't see any situation where what we see can be explained away innocuously (meaning it's not a gang rape). Again, how they saw it is up for debate, but the most logical conclusion is that they (or one) witnessed it live, which would explain the extreme detail in the scene. Second hand information doesn't get to that level of detail with such young kids, unless the director is incredibly dumb. I definitely do not think he is incredibly dumb, and think it was very obvious what he was trying to portray. This is another instance of no one believing when monsters are actually under the bed. We've gotten to such a twist TV and movie culture, that people don't believe what they're seeing is what they're meant to see. What would possibly be the reason to misdirect on something like this? It would make no sense.

awesome show, very well done. Can't wait for more epiodes.

ppl complaining that WH doesn't look old enough in the present day scenes need to stop sucking so much at watching tv.

i don't think this is true at all. releasing all episodes at once was a genius move by netflix. it highlighted the advantages of a streaming service (you can make your own schedule) and it did build buzz for them and their shows (obviously helps that they have high quality shows). that being said i agree that the model wouldn't be a good idea for tv channels

maybe as a promotional gimmick it was good for the short term, but i know i certainly view HoC and OITNB as shows i felt consumed by for 2-3 days, excitedly told friends they HAD to watch them asap while i was in the midst of them, and can barely remember or care about now. notice how no-one even mentions arrested development anymore? if that had been released one episode at a time it would have at least made a splash as a memorable disaster like dexter and entourage. having a whole season at once really lessens the impact.

it's definitely different to be able to watch an entire series over a month than it is to watch one season over a few days. the pre-existing model of watching new shows 1 ep at a time and bingeing on older shows was awesome. watching 1 new season of tv in a couple of days just doesn't quite work.

knowing that TD only has 8 weeks makes it all the more exciting to sit down and watch each episode each week as the show unravels itself. feels like we still don't quite know for sure what kind of show it is going to be.

also, since no-one has said it yet, how great are the opening credits?

nunnehi
This message is hidden because nunnehi is on your ignore list.

Oh darn, ignored by arguably one of the worst TV posters on the site. How will I live?

I don't really believe Woody is the killer, but it was interesting that he put off MM on going to look at the church until monday, then while at the grandparents house he wanted to leave early to go 'check on a lead'.

Wasn't Arrested Development new season considered the worst overall by most people? That could also be the reason.

I think it makes sense for Netflix to dump every episode at once. That's why I use it. When I start a show on there I don't ever watch 1 episode then stop I watch 2+.

I agree it wouldn't make a ton sense for HBO to do it but I wouldn't complain.

Nothing much to say about your commentary, I just want to highlight one of the rare poker analogies that doesn't make me cringe.

I love how Woody told off Grandpa. I say **** like that to my father in law all the time.

I also appreciate how this thread calls the characters Woody and MM, as it should.

Amazing episode. Is there a better actor than MM right now?

its just one person and he is a super nit and dead wrong

so on the scale of 0-100, 0 being not a suspect at all and 100 being OJ in the Bronco, what do the cops think of MM and Woody at this point?

I'd put it at like 20. And most of that 20 isn't that they actually did anything murderous, but maybe sloppy investigating or leaking info or something along those lines.

Yeah, I think their questions are designed to have us think they're interested in MM as a suspect when it's going to be revealed as something else entirely. Either of them being the killer would be terrible, even if they manage a way to make it work. It's just so trite that, at best, it'll be a well executed disappointment.

My GF made a comment that I think is accurate. It's only two episodes in and these two detectives feel like fully fleshed out characters. The writer has managed to convey so much while employing a lean style of dialogue that is absolutely masterful. Even the monologues are fairly short, but full of eloquence and vivid evocation. MM's bit about being spared the sin of fatherhood was amazing. On top of that, it already seems like one of the best shot TV shows I've ever seen. It, too, is a deliberate approach, but wholly immerse; and, coupled with the understated score, doesn't so much pull you in as much as it just places you there. I think it's already my favorite show.

He wanted to screw his girlfriend.

- Woody doesn't have his union rep or lawyer present.
- They're allowing MM to drink which they probably would not do if they want any part of the interview to me admissible in court.

So it's unlikely from a "real world" standpoint that either are suspects in any way (or this is really, really preliminary). However, it's television so who knows how procedurally sound it's going to be.

OTOH, they are filming the interviews so they're not completely informal and are on the record in some capacity.

I don't think either are truly suspects, though I expect MM will increasingly become a red herring. But a lot depends on the structure of the storytelling and I'm still trying to figure out the significance/reliability of the flashbacks. The flashbacks are one of three things:

A) Literal interpretations of Woody's or MM's recountings
B) Composites of Woody's and MM's recountings
C) Objective truth

I don't think A) is possible since I don't think this is going to be a Rashomon. They also often start with one of the two starting the retelling and then finish with the other (ie; interviewing Woody, flashback starts, return to MM while discussing the same incident).

Additionally, the flashbacks contain all kinds of information only one or the other would know and I don't think the show has been nearly meticulous enough about attributing who's flash back were seeing. Which opens the door to B). But if B), there's an awful lot of detail that neither Woody nor MM would share with the investigators - Woody's probably not going to share details of his tryst, use of handcuffs, &etc. Or personal interaction with his father in law. Or the Barbie gangbang.

Or if it is A) or B) that we have some serious Chekhov's gun issues with a lot of these details - It could just be that Woody/MM ramble but more likely details need to have some significance for them to be mentioned in the interviews.

So I think it's C). The interview process starts the discussion of aspects of the case at which point we cut to the flashback which are what actually happened and not shaded or tainted by Woody or MM's POV. Which does leave open the question of the difference between what Woody and MM tell the investigators and what we see. But that might not be important. Although we come back from MM seeing the starlings flying formation and the investigators ask about his hallucinations so maybe they are getting the whole flashback too?

I'm getting the feeling the black cops might suspect MM of the latest one.