Did I stutter? I said Trump had the right to say whatever he wanted. I just added that NBC has the right to turf him if they don't like what he says. The man isn't being thrown in jail for his remarks. If he were, then I'd be right there defending him. (Free speech and all) Show me a country - and country - where the employee has the right to do what he likes and the employer can't fire him. Can't can you? So instead you respond with an ad hominem attack. Really loving your debating skills.
Oh good. I thought I was alone in not quite getting where all of this is going. I mean, I understand how the first episode or two was spent introducing us to the main characters and their backstories but…..enough already. Let's get to the meat of the thing. I'm glad Ray made it and wasn't killed - although the explanation of that left me cold and disbelieving. Yeah, cops use dummy bullets but not usually at such close range. Kudos to Farrell for making us sympathize with his gut injury (noticed how he constantly protected himself even while chasing the guy who torched their car?). The first season of True Detective wasn't so much about the case at hand, as it was about Rusty and Martin. God help us if that's true about this season as well - because I'm just not getting it.
Sure it is! Just as it is NBC's right to cut ties with him if they feel his opinions don't reflect their own. We are all free to be as bigoted as we'd like to be, but we're not free to be exempt from the consequences of our actions. I applaud NBC for their actions in this regard. Nice to see a major corporation exhibiting some decency.
A couple of things: 1) did he identify himself (other than someone who was "with the police")?; 2) how do we know the guy won't make a trip to the cop shop and try and press charges? This cop is living on the edge as it is - there's no indication he won't suffer from his misdeeds; 3) there are crooked cops who pull this kind of stuff all the time. Sometimes they get charged, sometimes not - because of "lack of evidence" (ref. the G8 summit in Toronto a few years ago, when a whole lot of people were beaten or illegally detained - including a reporter - and only one cop was charged but then exonerated). Often their brothers on the "thin blue line" will back them up, making prosecution impossible. It happens. I find this show entirely realistic.
Season 1 raised the bar pretty damned high. Even though Season 2 Episode 1 only gave us a small taste of what's to come, I have high hopes. This is definitely a dark gritty drama that seems (so far) to have the same ability to pull us all in. And for starters, we're already finding ourselves caring about these broken characters - which frankly is an amazing start to this season and bodes well for the rest of it.
It was all about the stories and investigations this year - much much more than it was any of the personalities. There was very little in the way of character development.
Interesting idea. Maybe as a separate post. Thanks for that - I'll give it some thought.
And none taken. Maybe I'm not explaining myself well. I have my opinion about the whole Ziva thing, and about the Bishop thing too - and I've made those opinions quite clear over the season. But as a reviewer I'm also open to hearing opposing opinions. There's a reason some people can't move on - and I find that listening to them helps me understand them better. Plus, now and then I learn something new and interesting. So yes, I want to move on from the Ziva thing - I truly believe it's a dead issue. It doesn't mean I want those who hang on to her to shut up - far from it. I want the opposite. Does that make more sense now?
That last episode was bogus, which is why I didn't include it. I don't for a second believe that Gibbs is dead, merely injured.
© 2015 TV Fanatic
TV Fanatic Plus
© 2015 TV Fanatic