Had not heard anything about it until today, but the cast looks incredible. From the article I read: Patrick Wilson - young Lou Solverson Ted Danson - local sheriff Jean Smart - wife of crime boss who assumes power when husband gets sick Jeffrey Donovan - Smart's oldest son Kieran Caulkin - Smart's youngest son Kirsten Dunst - some high maintainance hairdresser Jesse Plemons - husband to Dunst, probably a shithead Brad Garrett - Kansas City mobster Adam Arkin - not sure And, drumroll, Nick Offerman - local lawyer named Karl Weathers
Had just looked up this stuff within the last month because it felt like it was time for the new season to be starting up and season 1 did start in April last year. Unfortunately it looks like season 2 won't start until sometime in the fall. Will be interesting to see if they can come anywhere close to being as good as season 1. Billy Bob was amazing and Martin Freeman wasn't too far behind.
i really like how they're keeping it in the same universe, just going back in time. provides a link with the first season, but with a new cast of characters, it'll be a totally different story.
I wonder how long they'll ride out the continuity...I wouldn't care if they weren't connected at all, but I'll also be fine with season 3 branching off on some direction of a random S2 character
This may qualify as a #hottake, but I think there's a higher probability of Fargo S2 repeating the success of S1 than True Detective
I think they can do that for as long as they like assuming, like you said, they branch off on a tangent for future seasons. I won't hate it if they just scrap everything and start fresh for season 3, but I like how they're handling it right now.
Frankly I thought Fargo was better overall than TD...and the Fargo universe allows for much more freedom than a gritty, crime drama.
It's a toss-up for me but I do think that TD is given more leeway because the two lead performances were so damn good and the originality of the story. That said, I believe Fargo executed its story better and had richer ancillary performances. Both had excellent world-building. This is why I think Fargo has better longevity. Hell, they could go back to Molly Solverson in S3 and likely not miss a beat. I also think Fargo has done so well to comprise its new cast full of character actors (the mark of the best shows).
Fargo can do things like the Oliver Platt story arc and it completely works...TD may have been better at its highest points, but it didn't have the luxury to bring everything full circle( ) and it fell a little flat...pure speculation, but it looks like S2 of TD has a better chance of providing a fulfilling resolution than S1, but it still might not be as good.
I worry less about TD's story and more about its cast. They got the biggest names they could find. The problem is: every lead performance is going to measured against Rust Cohle and every single one will fall short. At the moment, it appears that Fargo isn't trying to recreate Lorne Malvo or Lester Nygaard, and that's the best thing Fargo has working in its favor.
The cast is less worrisome than regurgitating the characters imo. I don't think it requires the greatest acting skills, but I hope Colin Farrell isn't the complicated loner looking for redemption.
Farrell is a wildcard, imo. He does well when he's not heavily/entirely relied upon like in In Bruges and Seven Psychopaths. But those films had lighter tones than I expect True Detective S2 to have. I'm also not impressed with the acting chops of Taylor Kertch or whatever, or Rachel McAdams. It's all speculative but I don't think they needed star power for True Detective when they already have a lot of great character actors on the lot.
I think Farrell will be great...I've always liked him even though he almost exclusively works shit movies...I don't think they need star power, but they had to do it and the writing should really be the star. Hell they could've done S1 without star power and it would've been fantastic although half as many people would've watched it.
I really need to rewatch season 1 of this show. Was one of my favorites from last season. Just phenomenal top to bottom.
It was one of the more totally satisfying shows I've seen...I wish I wasn't, but I'm extremely nit picky about shows/movies...Fargo was just about perfect to me...I can't think of anything that bugged me.
I enjoy TD and I'll be watching come Sunday, but I think Fargo has the potential for a longer lifespan. I like how there's a bridge between last season and this one. Plus, Fargo isn't trying to be the smartest guy in the room by setting up too many existential questions that are ultimately left unanswered.
I just meant purely in terms of season 1 but ya agree with the rest. I really enjoyed the set up of TD but the end was far too cliched and typical movie ending for my liking...good/evil, chase the bad guy, heroes win, surface level ending, etc. I think the huge draw of a show with one-off seasons is the ability to end it however the fuck you want. Almost all dramas operate under the presumption that the main character(s) isn't going to die, go to jail, etc. until the very end, if at all. That can be tiring for me in some shows when the drama revolves around the main character constantly being threatened with royally fucking up. I would've liked TD to avoid the typical show ending given its format.
Fargo was the better show overall, especially because it kept building and building and absolutely nailed the ending. Couldn't agree more with the fact that TD wants to be super smart with its long monologues and whatnot. Fargo is just trying to be good TV, and it excels at that. Can't wait for season 2.
I liked Fargo more than TD but I disagree about Fargo nailing the ending. Having Colin Hanks be the one to kill Malvo still bothers me.
Fargo was the best show on TV last year imo. I like Td and GoT even more, but Fargo had me interested in the story of almost every key character.
Just started reading the thread tonight and this post slayed me given what we know now . His character was comically bad