OT: True Detective Season 3

Has anyone else been watching the newest season? I know that season 2 was a pretty big disappointment, but so far 3 episodes in I am liking this new season. The creep factor is certainly there, Mahersala Ali is a fantastic actor, and dare I say Stephen Dorff is pulling his weight too as Roland.

Would love to discuss thoughts on possible killers.

The best theory I've heard is that the wife is actually the murderer. That Hays willingly put pieces of the crime out of his mind after finding out it was her, or that finally reading her true crime book will piece everything together.

Feel free to share on this thread as the season continues,

Forums: 
DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.

Comments

I like that theory about the wife, and would make some sense. The whole "You're worried what they will find" from Hays' wife vision/ghost makes that seem possibly true, but I think he is worried about some clue or object that he missed (Listening to the Bear Brook Murders podcast may have influenced that line of thinking in me though).

My friend is convinced the journalist is Julie, but I don't think the age/timing would be right for that to work out.

I'm completely enthralled though - I really enjoy having a show that I don't binge and keeps me thinking. I had been missing that since Sharp Objects ended.

We are hooked too. It certainly has rekindled that season 1 flame. I don't have any theories yet. I get hung up though, if it was Hays wife, why would she be writing a book about it drawing more attention to it later on?

I have no idea why my username is VT_Warthog.

Arkansas blew a 24-0 lead in the Belk Bowl.

Perhaps as a way to hide in plain site? Who would ever suspect the person that wrote a book about it AND married the lead detective on the case.

I personally don't think its the dead wife though. I also am convinced its not the dad. Perhaps the mom or the creepy uncle. With this last episode tossing out that Will's death may have been accidental and there really was no intention to kill either of them.

I've heard the "Julie is the true crime host" theory too, but the timeline doesn't seem to add up there, and it feels like a cheap twist which is not True Detectives MO that I can tell.

It is interesting though that there are some small hints that season 1 and season 3 are taking place in the same universe. The mention of the Spiral being the most obvious, as that was the tattoo that was found on the dead hooker in the original S1 episode.

im only on episode 3 season 1. im really liking it. im disappointed to hear season 2 isn't that great.

#Bapn ain't EZ

Wanna win put boobie in! Let boobie spin coach!

For whatever reason, I tend to go against the grain with a lot of public opinion on on tv shows/movies, but I actually liked Season 2. It wasn't season 1 by any means, but it had great production value, acting was decent, and had some memorable parts.

Chick Patty w/ Cheese

The "good" news is that Season 1 is amazing and Season 3 is off to a good start. You can skip season 2 and you won't miss out on anything as each season is unconnected from a story stand point.

To be fair, 2 was not awful television. It just didn't have the same hook as the first one and the writing was a little off.

I'm really excited for you. Episodes 4 and 5 of Season 1 are some of the best TV of all time.

Season 2 is not as bad as people make it out to be. If you understand what's going on, it actually has a lot of redeeming qualities. The issue, though, is that it is IMPOSSIBLE to follow as there are like 3 or 4 different groups of people trying to double cross each other. The cool fan theories and discussions that you're seeing on this thread did not exist for season 2 because no one knew wtf was going on until it was over. Season 1 and 3 are less complicated, which ironically makes it more enjoyable for viewers.

Umm, season 1 was a constant mind fuck. It was great.

Tyrod did it Mikey, Tyrod did it!!

Just finished season 1 today...heaviest show I've ever watched. Absolutely amazing. I've never heard a good thing about season 2, but I'll jump in on it soon.

Edit: watched the first episode of season 2...yikes. But Colin Farrell had the funniest/most aggressive line of dialogue I've ever heard in my life (when he beat up the bully's dad). It almost saved the episode.

Amateur superstar and idiot extraordinaire.

The factory is involved in the murder somehow. They wouldn't go out of their way to donate anything to some lady who by all means sure seems like a terrible worker.

I don't think the wife has anything to do with it.

The big mistery is where is Hay's daughter. Is the son feeding his mind lies about the last time he spoke to her? Is she dead? Did she get abducted as well?

What's
Important
Now

We're getting a lot of similarity to Season 1, so I'm gonna play it safe and say that the boy's killer was somehow connected to the DA, Hayes tried to push that narrative and got smacked down because he never had the smoking gun evidence, and now as an old man will get his vindication when he solves the case despite his Alzheimer's.

But that's probably just what Nic Pizzolatto wants me to think, and it turns out Hayes is the murderer and just forgot he did it, or some such bullshit.

The peep hole in the closet hasn't been explained. I think the killer is the uncle who lived with them for a while.....I think he may be the biological father of the deceased. Sister may be living with him also?

Season 3 has been great so far. A great rebound from the absolute POOP SHOW from Season 2

Bleeding burnt orange and chicago maroon

Season 3 - There's a dialog? All I hear is mumbling. Can't watch it with turning on CC so I gave up.

This season has so many little details and bits of dialogue that are tough to understand that it almost requires watching more than once.

Episode 4 had one of the creepier scenes I've seen on TV in some time thought when Hays was trying to record some notes for himself alone at his home. I also think episode 4 gave a great little hint at the whole Hoyt Foods thread when the guy they were talking to outside his trailer made the comment about a lot of people being injured doing farm work and "the chicken kill line".

"A black man and a white woman in a brown car" Could it be a Hoyt employee with an injured eye and the kid's mom, as they would have both worked together at the plant and there is clearly something more bothering the mom than just cheating on the husband.

I assume those were the "ghosts" of everyone he had killed during his life. Question is, who was the white dude in the suit that he put he his hand on his chest and apologized/comforted. I don't remember exactly what he said, but it was the only one he acknowledged directly.

Where's the beef?

There was at least one US service member as well in that crowd, which is interesting

I missed that. Guess I'll have to go back and watch again.

Where's the beef?

Yeah I pointed out to my wife that there was a guy standing with the Viet Cong that was in US Marine gear, you can see the helmet pretty clearly. He was to the left (from the viewers perspective) of the guy in the suit and tie.

I agree with you that they were definitely "ghosts" of people he either killed or was involved in their death somehow, which is why the guy in the tie that he interacts with and the Marine were the most interesting phantoms.

Woodard was also in the scene. Only for a second (left hand side of the shot) and at first I thought it might have been a woman because of the long hair, but after seeing Ep. 5 it dawned on me that's who it was. I think the references to "after what we have done" that West was talking about in Ep. 5 probably have something to do with with guy in the suit from that scene.

Where's the beef?

There was a nice little easter egg about True Detective being a single universe in which all previous cases exist. Zoom in on the laptop...

I'm not realizing this might be a shitty image, so if you can't zoom in and read it, it's about Rust and Marty stopping an alleged serial killer.

I feel like the interviewer is the missing girl as an adult. I'm not sure why, but it's a hunch in why she knows so much.

What's
Important
Now

Julie would be 46 in the present - I just can't see the girl above being 46.

Daughter of Julie? Maybe. Screwing around with Hays' son? Possibly??? Seems like that could be a thing (2 drinks on the bed side table, awk. conversation between the two Hays at the station).

One of my buddies just suggested it could be Rolands daughter, (girl in picture on his desk in the 90 timeline) and that could be her connection to the case. Though it could be something totally different of course.

Thats my thought as well.

I just binged season 1 last week. It was some of the best TV (or anything) I've ever seen

It's up there with Seasons 4 and 5 of Breaking Bad as the best season of TV of all time for me.

Three more episodes left and I still feel like I'm clueless on who the killer could be. Or if there even is a killer. I don't buy the theories that it is Amelia. To me, that seems like a theory that has gained traction just because folks are looking for a suspect isn't expected. But that's not really how Season 1 went. Season 1 it was someone who you didn't see a lot of.

I have no idea why my username is VT_Warthog.

Arkansas blew a 24-0 lead in the Belk Bowl.

I don't see it being Amelia either. The show has given a number of hints that the killer was someone that knew the kids fairly well, and frankly it would be a bit of a cheat if they make it Amelia because they have shown us nothing to suggest she knew them so closely.

In Season 1, we do meet the killer fairly early on, with the great little easter egg that the school sign says "Notice King" as he is cutting the grass.

In Season 2, they talk to the killer in the first episode I think.

With that said, I would bet we have at the very least seen the killer at this point in the season, and it was probably someone early on. The only people I feel confident saying it definitely wasn't are Wayne, Roland, Woodward, the father, the old black guy at the trailer park.

I do feel like the mom was involved somehow, although I don't think she actually killed her own son.

I agree with both of you on Amelia. I feel like there were a few times where they tried too hard to drop clues about her in the last episode.

I am also thinking that in the future trailers, Amelia is not meeting with Julie, but rather a girl from a similar situation of kids/women who were taken from their families in that area. I think that might also fall in line with the larger conspiracy/cult that was going on in season 1.

Lots of things pointing the Amelia way. I feel like if everyone is guessing it, then it can't be her.

This is what had me thinking that way during Episode 5

In Episode Five, Hays reads her book for the first time and finds a quote from Lucy Purcell that comes directly from the mysterious ransom note.

I just have the feeling that they pointing us that way as a diversion.

Also, I can't believe they pinned those murders on the Vietnam Vet. Before the planted evidence was out there, it was quite obvious to me that he was never the guy that killed the boy or Lucy.

True Detective Fans Are Convinced They Know the Killer's Identity

What's
Important
Now

Yeah no part of me is buying that she is the killer. It isn't Pizzolatto's style. It would be so cliche imo.

I have no idea why my username is VT_Warthog.

Arkansas blew a 24-0 lead in the Belk Bowl.

what day and time does this come on? ive been steaming from my xfinity online app but im all caught up now on everything that is available on there so now im trying to watch episodes as the come on.

#Bapn ain't EZ

Wanna win put boobie in! Let boobie spin coach!

Sunday nights, at 9pm EST.

I also believe if you have HBO app, they've been releasing the night before

I think that was a special occurrence this week and it was released 2 days before (perhaps so people could watch on a night other than the super bowl).

Joffrey, Cersei, Ilyn Payne, the Hound, Jeff Jagodzinski, Paul Johnson, Pat Narduzzi.

That makes a lot of sense. I do remember seeing on twitter or facebook that the episode was ready for streaming sometime Saturday (which I found odd), so I assumed it was a regular occurrence. Thanks for the clarification.

there is no killer - the kid slipped and fell and cracked his skull on those rocks while he was out in the woods with his sister and her real father. Thinking no one would believe it was an accident, he put the boy in that position and left dolls so he would be found, and took his daughter away. He was a neighbor who had an affair with the kid's mom. Hence living close enough by to give the girl the doll on halloween.

Remember during the kid's funeral service at his home, his grandmother said it was rumored the girl wasn't her son's child. She wasn't.

Maybe the point of all this is just how far the damage goes, how many lives are lost and fucked up by something that isn't even what it seems. Or by the affair of the mother.

What's
Important
Now

Consider my mind officially #blown. Solid theory.

I really like this theory, as it would be an amazing study in how so many lives were consumed by something that was an accident.

I've seen a theory in a similar vein that suggests that Julie was ultimately kidnapped by someone powerful (the chicken man Hoyt for example), and ultimately in 1990 she is free of them and Wayne actually finds her and agrees to keep her secret, perhaps going so far as to track down the kidnapper himself and kill him (the "What you left in the woods" line from His Amelia vision) Which would explain why he is participating in the docuseries, simply to find out how much they may know about her whereabouts or his own actions.

I went back and watched Episode 5 again, and caught a few things that made me think over whats going on.

First of all, I thought on first watch, and reinforced on the 2nd, that the conversation between old Wayne and Roland was one of the better scenes of television I have seen in a while. I honestly didn 't think Dorff was the kind of actor that could pull that off, but it was a really great way to close out a good episode.

But what stood out to me was when they listen to the phone call from Julie presumably, here line "The man on TV pretending to be my father"

What if she wasn't talking about Tom at all? After Tom spoke, the AG Lindt, who seems shady, made some brief comments on the broadcast as well. What if Julie was actually talking about him and asking for him to leave her alone and knowing what he did. We already established that she is pretty messed up from the conversation with the other street kid (as one would expect from someone in her shoes), so it makes sense that she wouldn't necessarily go out of her way to differentiate which guy she was talking about.

Big reveals last night.

Seems like Hoyt bough Julie from the mother. Hoyt's daughter lost her own daughter. Seems like Julie was sold for a sum of money to the mother.

The mother was killed by Hout when she came back years later looking for more money, but they made it look like a drug overdose.

The Cousin was in on selling of Julie.

Tom is gay. Which explains why his wife sleeps around and why Julie probably isn't his daughter.

The detective that went missing in 1990 worked the case originally and more then likely planted the evidence. He's the guy we see when Tom walks into the Pink Room.

I think we are going to see that they figured this all out in 1990 and because of his dimentia he is just reliving the story again. They probably killed the crooked cop and he feels guilty about it thus why he keeps harping on it in his dimensia.

What's
Important
Now

I agree with you, here are some additions I came to while discussing with my friend last night.

The Black man and the white woman

Lucie and and the Milky eye guy. They were both paid substantial money for the "kidnapping" sale/purchase of Julie to the Hoyt family. The Hoyt's hired Milky eye guy to complete the transaction. Perhaps his anger at Amelia's book thing was based on his guilt/her not knowing what she is talking about, yet profiting from this horrible thing.

Tom is gay. Which explains why his wife sleeps around and why Julie probably isn't his daughter.

Here's a big addition, so is Roland. A few things Tom says to him suggests that they may have even had a thing, or at the very least saw each other in some of the same places/circles. Hays and Roland's falling out could be due to Hays accidentally/intentionally outing Roland and it torpedo'ing the investigation. Conveniently (on purpose), they can make this move easily because Hays Dementia prevents him from remembering anything about their falling out (or why Roland doesn't have a wife or kids, which he seemed shocked that Hays wouldn't know why in third timeline).

I'll also add the one thing that came across my mind in relation to these.

When the milky eye guy leaves, Amelia says "the dolls" which I think is a subtle hint that there is something there.

Who told the cops about the dolls? Mike Ardoin, who had a crush on Julie. And if you take a look at the truck that is doing work at the nunnery, there is a "Ardoin Landscaping" sticker on the truck.

Julie and Will wave to him as they go to the woods on that day, but it makes me think that she got out and got into contact with him and he is sheltering her in the late 80s/90s.

I don't think Roland is gay. See this: https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueDetective/comments/aphcab/putting_this_to_r...

There's also a thread on Reddit that shows that the milky eye guy in 1990 is different than the one we saw in 1980. Which isn't a big deal other than it shows they probably had the wrong guy in 1980.

I have no idea why my username is VT_Warthog.

Arkansas blew a 24-0 lead in the Belk Bowl.

It's also possible the Milky eye guy is the same guy, just a different actor to show age. However, they have just aged the other actors with makeup, so who knows.

What's
Important
Now

They are two different guys. The guy they speak to in 1980 had the cataract in his right eye.

The one from the book reading had his in the left eye.

Yeah I think they just went to the wrong milky eye guy in 1980. The 1980 guy looked older than the guy in 1990 honestly, or at least roughly the same age which wouldn't make sense.

My theory on Roland being gay is not contingent on having a fling/affection for Tom, and isn't based on any of the bullet points used in that reddit post. It's not something I feel certain of by any means, just a theory I fleshed out with a friend before we took to reddit to realize we were far from the only ones to do so.

They definetely had the wrong guy in 1980. For all the dramatics in that scene, it seemed fairly clear the old guy had nothing to do with it.

In 1990, the guy that shows up at the book signing had a cataract in his left eye, the 1980 guy had his in the right eye.

Yes, a ton of reveals came at us last night.

There are still several questions worth answering for the final 2 episodes, but I think your post sums it up nicely with what we know so far. Pretty clear that Hoyt family was involved directly with Lucy to "kidnap" Julie, and she was ultimately killed by their associates when she came back looking for more.

Harris James is also involved, hence him getting a cushy job at Hoyt. Its probably also the reason that when Hays mentions that Hoyt visited him when they meet in the 2015 timeline, Hoyt probably knows that Wayne and Roland killed Harris, but never took it to the police because it would expose his own involvement.

As for questions still worth answering:
What happened to Will? Was it just an accident? Who posed him?
What exactly did Wayne and Roland do? The implication is kill Harris but there may be more.
What did Wayne do to cause the falling out with Roland?
For that matter, what happened to Amelia? What was her involvement if any?
Why is the True Crime director so interested and how does she know so much?
Where is Julie in 2015?

The detective that went missing in 1990 worked the case originally and more then likely planted the evidence. He's the guy we see when Tom walks into the Pink Room.

This is Harris James you're referring to right?

I have no idea why my username is VT_Warthog.

Arkansas blew a 24-0 lead in the Belk Bowl.

Yes, the redhead.

What's
Important
Now

By the way I rewatched the last 15 minutes last night and I didn't realize the damn vault door that led to the Pink Room the first time around. Julie was locked in the basement for the most part.

What's
Important
Now

Yeah, I can't imagine you could just say to an 8(?) year old girl that she was taken to have a better life. It would not surprise me at all that she was locked in for quite awhile until she came around to the idea at the very least.

I imagine that when we see Tom say "Julie?", he may be looking at a portrait of Hoyt's daughter with Julie on her lap, similar to that creepy portrait we see in his office the first time the detectives go and speak to the underling about the Outreach Fund.

Didn't see that coming at the end. Hayes got bought out by the Hoyt family. Everything else was pretty on point.

Seems like Haye's is still being followed by the Hoyt family.

We also know why West is such a heavy drinker. The mixture of killing that man, and finding Tom Purcell dead.

I also liked the tie into season 1.

I really want to know if Hayes remembers being paid off, or whatever happens in that car? I feel like he can't remember it.

What's
Important
Now

I'm going big here with finale predictions:

Roland West had a sexual relationship with Tom Purcell. There have been hints at this along the way that are subtle but I think will be revealed. Their close relationship, Purcell being outed as possibly gay in 1990, West is single/alone as an old man, etc.

Also - full blown old man reunion between Purple Hayes, West, and Cohle/Hart from Season 1. The filmmaker mentioned the connection between their cases, and no way that comes up without a little Cohle/Hart cameo. Can't wait to see old man Hayes bust a cap in some evil rich dudes.

"Dick to Hyman? DICK TO HYMAN!" - Guy in Lane Stadium crowd when Richard Johnson hit Josh Hyman on reverse pass in 2004.