∞True Detective Season 1 Thread ***CLOSED***∞

I just hope to God they make it take place in 1960's/70's NYC.

Also Emil Hirsch and Tom Hardy would be a great move.

One could be the neighborhood guy / "streets of new york" type dude.

The other could be the well educated / polished old-money type dude, taking this job as a way to live an adventourous life while he helps his family keep and increase their political power.
 
Last edited:
Dudes in here fantasizing over season 2 casting are going to be as disappointed as the reddit dweebs and their ridiculous season 1 theories
 
AK Nako said:
The thing is if we had this same discussion in December all of you would have said the exact same thing about Matthew McConaughey (and don't you dare say anything about "Mud" because you know it's true.)

So this whole discussion is silly.  

It's the "Lebron isn't clutch" argument except commuted to television actors.
Click to expand...

No, no no. All I needed to hear was a review of Lincoln Lawyer to know that MM had finally got right. Dude always had good acting in him, he just always chose bad roles. You could check the movie thread. I been onto his comeback for years, ever since I saw Killer Joe and realized Lincoln Lawyer wasn't a one-off. He was better in Killer Joe than anything Pitt's done since Snatch. Except then he follows Killer Joe up with The Paperboy, Mud and Dallas Buyers Club. And THEN...True Detective.

No. Matt had really good potential, but wasted it on trash for most of the last decade.

Brad's more or less maxed out his potential with his really good and interesting taste in roles.

RustyShackleford said:
NT Greatest Hits of dudes judging actors

- 3x time Oscar nominated actor Brad Pitt is "just good". I don't need to look at his resume I just, you know, know. :rolleyes
Click to expand...

Stop it. Don't NT me. :rolleyes

Brad's 2 lead noms...1 was for Benjamin Button, where he was decent. I remember that year. People loved the cgi and prosthetic transformation he went through and the movie was a big crowdpleaser, but if they just went on his performance, he wouldn't have been nominated. Clint Eastwood would've for Gran Torino.

And the other was for Moneyball, where people were stunned that Brad had wrinkles, and was brave enough to show them off. That was a weak year safe year, where they decided not to nominate Fassbender for Shame. And Brad was in crowdpleaser...somthin like highest grossing baseball movie ever? I think it was more respecting that he'd been making good movies for a long time, and people like him...kinda like that time Sandra Bullock won.

I mean, I say he's a good actor, not a great one, and you come with Benjamin Button and Billy Beane?

Nah, where he excels is being a character actor. A side supporting role where he can go wild or weird like Fight Club or Snatch or 12 Monkeys or True Romance or Burn After Reading or Inglourious Basterds. That's the stuff he's the best at. He's great at picking roles outside of those, though. He never steps outside of his range. You wouldn't see him taking any of the roles Leo's taken in the last few years.

Think of it like this...MM in Dallas Buyers and Killer Joe, Leo in Wolf, Bale in Hustle and The Fighter...Pitt couldn't do any of that. Joaquin in The Master, Jackman in Les Mes. Nope, Nope. Dujardin in The Artist, Bardem in Biutiful and Skyfall, Fassbender in Shame...Fassbender in Prometheus...Fassbender in 12 Years. He couldn't do any of those. Hell, Pitt was the absolute worst part of 12 Years a Slave.

I'm not saying he's just a "good actor" in the same way Mark Wahlberg or Keanu Reeves are. He's better than most and consistently puts out good work. He just couldn't save a bad movie, and would get exposed if he didn't work his strengths He's on Colin Farrell, 00's Johnny Depp and Ben Affleck's level. Not Leo, Joaquin, Fassbender, MM, Hardy or Bale's level. Or even RDJ's really imo.

He could be good on TD for sure, and he'd be a big name that brings a ton of viewers back, but just not on a Rust Cohle level.
 
Last edited:
AK Nako said:
MrONegative said:
Pitt...he's really good in a movie star way. In a Will Smith trying to be serious way.


Thing is, you make him the eccentric side guy...the charming comic relief...the 'stand there and hit the audience with the eyes' dude...he's on it. Cuz he's a character actor in a leading man's body. Same as Colin Farrell. Same as today's Johnny Depp. You give him a side role, where he can let loose? He'll always leave you saying...yup...that's Brad ******* Pitt. Cuz it's about what he's great at. He can be your comic relief, your spaz, your quirky 3rd man, your handsome brooding stranger, your badass, your dummy. I mean...definition of a character actor.


You give him a lead role? He'll be aight in 'hey, there goes Brad Pitt again' sorta way. His ace is that he chooses roles better than almost any other People magazine type actor. If he didn't...he'd be Colin Farrell right now. And if he just went for the cash grabs, he'd be Johnny Depp today. But he doesn't. And he'll always make you like his character on screen. It's just...he's a good actor, not a great one. You don't leave his films thinking, he's the best in the game or give that man an Oscar.


Give him 15 or 20 minutes in a movie, he'll give you something memorable and maybe lowkey iconic. Give him 8 hours, you'll probably get something decent.


....


Tom Hardy, though, would be amazing. He's not as big a name as some of these guys, but he'd kill anything Nic threw at him. You get him...bring the writing, 3 eps in dudes are gonna be pushing MM down the list.
Click to expand...
The thing is if we had this same discussion in December all of you would have said the exact same thing about Matthew McConaughey (and don't you dare say anything about "Mud" because you know it's true.)

So this whole discussion is silly.  

It's the "Lebron isn't clutch" argument except commuted to television actors.
Click to expand...
If we're gonna ignore A Time To Kill and Frailty too then I'd say no we wouldn't be saying the same thing about MM. We'd be saying MM is a worse actor cuz when you take those movies out the discussions he's really never shown any potential in the rest of his romcoms.

MM without those movies does not have as good a career as Brad Pitt. I'd be saying Pitt is better but not by some huge margin.

The difference here is MM HAS shown his actual potential in Mud, in DBC, in True Detective. So this whole argument is moot. We're not talking about Brad Pitt's potential to be great we're talking about him as he is now.

When he actually does come through with an amazing performance then the discussion can change. If all yall dudes are saying is Pitt has the potential to be among the best fine, I don't really see it. I'd like to see it. I'd like to see him challenge himself but as of now he's just a really good actor. You know what your gonna get with his character acting. Nothing of it has amazed me to the point I'm saying this man deserves an Oscar or I'd be disappointed that he didn't win.
RustyShackleford said:
NT Greatest Hits of dudes judging actors

-Christian Bale as Batman? WTF, dude as been in nothing, he was decent in American Physco, but that's it.

-Heath Leger is the Joker :x :smh:

-Tom Hardy is Bane :rolleyes

-Philip Seymour Hoffman is overrated

- 3x time Oscar nominated actor Brad Pitt is "just good". I don't need to look at his resume I just, you know, know. :rolleyes
Click to expand...
Eh, this is a terrible example that doesn't point out much. Right now we're talking about Pitt's entire career and assessing his acting skills. That other stuff is not even comparable. The other examples except for Hoffman are just ppl's pessmistic predictions for announced casts where for the most part they were proven wrong. Lets be serious, Bale playing Batman (which wasn't even amazing) isn't some huge role he has to live up to. Not in the great actor sort of way. He just has to be beliveable to movie goers and please the hardcore fans. His Bruce Wayne wasn't that good anyway. Same thing goes for Hardy's Bane, seriously who the **** is Bane? The character as portrayed is nothing special. Same thing goes for Ledger's Joker, as far as name recognition and where you place it in every other Joker appearance in media, there was no reason to expect that. Those are superhero movies anyway. I mean Bane was cool with the voice but what did he amount to other than Talia's patsy that suddenly got easily defeated with no explanation by Batman in their second fight? Out of those 3 examples all from a pretty good trilogy about a crazed obsessed billionaire vigilante in a bat suit Ledger's Joker was the best and worthy of an award nomination.

As for Hoffman is overrated, I only heard that from ignorant NTers after Hoffman died and ppl were praising him. On one level you either like him or you don't but on another if you haven't seen his movies and seen where he's excelled you probably would say something stupid like he's overrated.

Anyway, like I said either example does not properly compare to the Pitt argument. If you wanna group that in with crazy things NTers say go ahead then.
 
Last edited:
MrONegative said:
AK Nako said:
The thing is if we had this same discussion in December all of you would have said the exact same thing about Matthew McConaughey (and don't you dare say anything about "Mud" because you know it's true.)

So this whole discussion is silly.  

It's the "Lebron isn't clutch" argument except commuted to television actors.
Click to expand...

No, no no. All I needed to hear was a review of Lincoln Lawyer to know that MM had finally got right. Dude always had good acting in him, he just always chose bad roles. You could check the movie thread. I been onto his comeback for years, ever since I saw Killer Joe and realized Lincoln Lawyer wasn't a one-off. He was better in Killer Joe than anything Pitt's done since Snatch. Except then he follows Killer Joe up with The Paperboy, Mud and Dallas Buyers Club. And THEN...True Detective.

No. Matt had really good potential, but wasted it on trash for most of the last decade.

Brad's more or less maxed out his potential with his really good and interesting taste in roles.

RustyShackleford said:
NT Greatest Hits of dudes judging actors

- 3x time Oscar nominated actor Brad Pitt is "just good". I don't need to look at his resume I just, you know, know. :rolleyes
Click to expand...

Stop it. Don't NT me. :rolleyes

Brad's 2 lead noms...1 was for Benjamin Button, where he was decent. I remember that year. People loved the cgi and prosthetic transformation he went through and the movie was a big crowdpleaser, but if they just went on his performance, he wouldn't have been nominated. Clint Eastwood would've for Gran Torino.

And the other was for Moneyball, where people were stunned that Brad had wrinkles, and was brave enough to show them off. That was a weak year safe year, where they decided not to nominate Fassbender for Shame. And Brad was in crowdpleaser...somthin like highest grossing baseball movie ever? I think it was more respecting that he'd been making good movies for a long time, and people like him...kinda like that time Sandra Bullock won.

I mean, I say he's a good actor, not a great one, and you come with Benjamin Button and Billy Beane?

Nah, where he excels is being a character actor. A side supporting role where he can go wild or weird like Fight Club or Snatch or 12 Monkeys or True Romance or Burn After Reading or Inglourious Basterds. That's the stuff he's the best at. He's great at picking roles outside of those, though. He never steps outside of his range. You wouldn't see him taking any of the roles Leo's taken in the last few years.

Think of it like this...MM in Dallas Buyers and Killer Joe, Leo in Wolf, Bale in Hustle and The Fighter...Pitt couldn't do any of that. Joaquin in The Master, Jackman in Les Mes. Nope, Nope. Dujardin in The Artist, Bardem in Biutiful and Skyfall, Fassbender in Shame...Fassbender in Prometheus...Fassbender in 12 Years. He couldn't do any of those. Hell, Pitt was the absolute worst part of 12 Years a Slave.

I'm not saying he's just a "good actor" in the same way Mark Wahlberg or Keanu Reeves are. He's better than most and consistently puts out good work. He just couldn't save a bad movie, and would get exposed if he didn't work his strengths He's on Colin Farrell, 00's Johnny Depp and Ben Affleck's level. Not Leo, Joaquin, Fassbender, MM, Hardy or Bale's level. Or even RDJ's really imo.

He could be good on TD for sure, and he'd be a big name that brings a ton of viewers back, but just not on a Rust Cohle level.
Click to expand...

I agree with maybe 1/2 of what you said.

I'll admit that his choice of roles may work against him because all the character work has been in supporting roles. Fine

If you're were saying Pitt is not Leo, DDL, Bale, Hoffman as being the best of the best. Fine

But him not being in/tried one of those breakout roles, and him out being able to pull it off is TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THINGS.

Matter of fact, all his great work in supporting roles signal he can pull it off.. He just doesn't take those roles. It's his own fault, but still. The talent is there

He was every bit as good in Bastards as Leo was in Django.

I just find it hilarious that MM can do so much trash, then pick better roles for allow his great acting to shine through. And dudes be think he always had it in him.

But Pitt has a much better comparative resume but for him it is "NAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH he can't pull it off":rolleyes :lol: Whatever
 
Last edited:
Ranking Actors lol.

I get there is a difference between Anthony Anderson and Don Chidle but when the careers are both as accomplished as MM and Brad Pitt how can you really say one is better than the other?

I really don't understand how you guys rank actors.

Bad: takes away from movie, looks outta place. You notice how bad the acting is. (Anthony Anderson, Ron rigle, James Franco -_-...yea )

Good: doesn't take away from movie. Plays role as he is supposed to, you remember the movie not the role (most actors, Woody Allen, Ben Affleck, Kristin wiig, Chris Rock)

Great : adds something to character, turns in memorable performances, you remember them more than the movie (Richard Pryor, Meryl Streep, Julia Louis Dreyfus, Morgan Freeman)

That being said, Pitt and MM are on the same level, great.

Side note, comedic actors never get their respect, like smiling makes you less of an actor or something b
 
knowledgebones72 said:
I just hope to God they make it take place in 1960's/70's NYC.

Also Emil Hirsch and Tom Hardy would be a great move.

One could be the neighborhood guy / "streets of new york" type dude.

The other could be the well educated / polished old-money type dude, taking this job as a way to live an adventourous life while he helps his family keep and increase their political power.
Click to expand...
Season 2's probably gonna be set in California. pizzolatto's said as much.
 
Last edited:
MrONegative said:
 
AK Nako said:
The thing is if we had this same discussion in December all of you would have said the exact same thing about Matthew McConaughey (and don't you dare say anything about "Mud" because you know it's true.)

So this whole discussion is silly.  

It's the "Lebron isn't clutch" argument except commuted to television actors.
Click to expand...
No, no no. All I needed to hear was a review of Lincoln Lawyer to know that MM had finally got right. Dude always had good acting in him, he just always chose bad roles. You could check the movie thread. I been onto his comeback for years, ever since I saw Killer Joe and realized Lincoln Lawyer wasn't a one-off. He was better in Killer Joe than anything Pitt's done since Snatch. Except then he follows Killer Joe up with The Paperboy, Mud and Dallas Buyers Club. And THEN...True Detective.

No. Matt had really good potential, but wasted it on trash for most of the last decade.

Brad's more or less maxed out his potential with his really good and interesting taste in roles.
Click to expand...
Babel, Assassination of Jesse James, Burn After Reading, Benjamin Button, Inglorious Basterds, The Tree of Life, 12 Years a Slave...

All good performances.  Only one of those roles was written for him (Basterds).

Brad Pitt is a good actor.  You can say you don't care for him, and that's fine, but if we're gonna assess him an "objective" grade, his resume and the movies he's been in lends to him being great.

McConaughey is hot right now too. No one said they can't both be great.
 
Last edited:
RustyShackleford said:
But him not being in/tried one of those breakout roles, and him out being able to pull it off is TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THINGS.

Matter of fact, all his great work in supporting roles signal he can pull it off.. He just doesn't take those roles. It's his own fault, but still. The talent is there
Click to expand...
Okay, see that's your real point. You think Nic can give him maybe the best lead role of his career.

He was every bit as good in Bastards as Leo was in Django.
Click to expand...
See that's why I didn't mention Leo in Django, cuz even though I disagree, you could make a case.

I just find it hilarious that MM can do so much trash, then pick better roles for allow his great acting to shine through. And dudes be think he always had it in him.

But Pitt has a much better comparative resume but for him it is "NAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH he can't pull it off":rolleyes :lol: Whatever
Click to expand...

You're treating acting like baseball. But it's like basketball. We're not talking career stats or # of good roles. It's about what you bring on the day. Brad has always been on a good team, and always been in a position to do what he does well. MM hasn't, and all he needed was a whiff of a good gritty movie and he took off.

Killer Joe is half gritty Southern gothic flick, half cracked out trashy stageplay. And The Paperboy goes full ****** early and often. But he's great in both. Anyone who saw those 2 movies knew MM would bring it in TD. He always had good talent, but if you asked me before Killer Joe, I would've thought his peak would probably be around Colin Farrell's In Bruges. But DBC and TD are way past that.
 
Too much walls of text. But anyone saying Pitt is not a good actor is an idiot. He's strayed away from those movie star and look at me Im beautiful roles for most of his serious career. If anything his relationship is what most people know him for.
 
Moving away from the Pitt talk.

Do you brah prefer the show move to a 12-13 episode format or stay at 8.

I would say stay at 8 but make the individual episodes longer
 
honestly this season boiled down to cohle smashing hart's wife as far as plot intricacy imo so 8 is fine if they arent focusing on the case in depth
 
AK Nako said:
Babel, Assassination of Jesse James, Burn After Reading, Benjamin Button, Inglorious Basterds, The Tree of Life, 12 Years a Slave...

All good performances.  Only one of those roles was written for him (Basterds).
Click to expand...
It's not about roles being written to him. It's about what roles he takes, and more than that, who's making the films. The only not good movie Brad's done in the last...what...20 years? was The Counselor. That's it. He's better at picking roles and collaborators than damn near anyone. If Joaquin Phoenix was as good at picking scripts and creative people as Brad, we'd be talking about him damn near like we do DDL.

Brad Pitt is a good actor.  You can say you don't care for him, and that's fine, but if we're gonna assess him an "objective" grade, his resume and the movies he's been in lends to him being great.
Click to expand...
Nah, I like him. He's better at picking roles than even Daniel Day-Lewis. This all started cuz when Pitt's name came up I said, he'd be okay, but he's a bigger name and face than a great actor. That's all. He's always good, but for the type of show this is, I think they could do better.

Cronicmolemolereturns said:
Too much walls of text. But anyone saying Pitt is not a good actor is an idiot.
Click to expand...
Literally no one has said that.

Anyways...

Let’s Predict Possible Plots And Cast For ‘True Detective’ Season 2

^Half-serious, half-joke, but some really good ones in there. That Viggo and Fassbender... :smokin

And I think 8 eps is perfect for a show like this. No filler, straight heat.
 
Last edited:
We live in a world where a dude gets knocked for managing his career probably :smh: :lol:

The flip side could also be. If Pitt chose more challenging roles, he would be consider one of the best of all time, since he has been so successful in the smaller character roles.

You seem to be ignoring that possibility completely.
 
8 episodes was the right length for me. Gimme a 2-hour finale and then it's perfect.
Also, idk about you guys, but I started watching TD when the first 5 episodes were out.
Which meant I had to wait weeks to watch the last three... and then I wondered why I thought the series lost steam.
What I'm saying is I prefer to binge watch when I want so I can really dive into it.
 
I've learned today that speaking on Brad Pitt with anything other than absolute praise is considered a knock.
 
calikev34 said:
8 episodes was the right length for me. Gimme a 2-hour finale and then it's perfect.
Also, idk about you guys, but I started watching TD when the first 5 episodes were out.
Which meant I had to wait weeks to watch the last three... and then I wondered why I thought the series lost steam.
What I'm saying is I prefer to binge watch when I want so I can really dive into it.
Click to expand...

Yeah i did the same and regretted it. I started getting into the theories and it ruined the surprise of Errol being the Yellow King.

Next season if it is 8 weeks, I might just wait. Much better veiwing experience.

I watched Spartacus S1 in one weekend and that was so :smokin
 
ohmygosher said:
Just finished this up.

Had no idea Michelle Monaghan had cakes like that. Always thought she was :smokin but that just took her to another level. :smokin :smokin


Edit:

GoodQueasyGibbon.gif
Click to expand...

Could be a body double bruh. Probably is.
Anyway JGL should definitely be one of the new detectives. The other one...........Id be ok with Pitt. Or Fassbender
8 episodes is good. 13 would be better and would give the show a chance to delve deeper into the characters
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

slaughterx
Tax Season Baby Mama Drama...
Replies
20
Views
1K
  • Poll
アミーゴ
アミーゴ
marikomorose
Y’all Interested in a Summit ?
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
marikomorose
marikomorose
therealest1
Nike Ja 2 - Holiday 2024
Replies
7
Views
3K
DripNick
DripNick
tr1ll
I propose a new SPOILER rule for media in NT's Terms and Rules.
Replies
20
Views
714
TSCQ
TSCQ
KingdomFlatbush
Renting Vs. Buying
Replies
18
Views
2K
htg designs
htg designs

The ultimate sneaker enthusiast community.

NikeTalk was created as a way of giving back to both the sneaker enthusiast community and to the greater global community of which we are all a part.

NikeTalk is NOT affiliated with Nike Inc. in any way, shape, or form. All opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of Nike, Inc.

© 1999-2024 NikeTalk.com

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom