Let's get one thing straight immediately. True Detective's first season is, without a doubt, up there with the greatest series in the history of HBO. It is completely brilliant. From the deeper-than-deep performances of McConaughey and Harrelson, to the gritty writing of Pizzolatto, to the swampy cinematographic portrayal of Louisiana, to the incredible noir soundtrack and weirdly surreal Lovecraft references, it is captivating from start to finish. It deserves every morsel of praise that has been thrown its way. Unfortunately, the success of the anthology show's first season seems to have provided its weaker-than-ropey sequel series with a free pass. Oh, no doubt it's been criticised and generally accepted to be weaker than season one, but it has had nowhere near an adequate amount of vitriol thrown its way - both in relation to its weakness in comparison to the first season, and its poor writing, acting and plotting in general. Fans of season two make the argument that it's a different series and story, therefore it shouldn't be compared with the original. Yet you would compare season two of ANY OTHER show to its first, right? Just because its different characters doesn't mean that you can name a show after a successful series and still avoid comparisons. Besides, the first season was compared frequently to various other shows (Twin Peaks and The Wire, for starters), let alone the SAME SHOW. Anyway, the second series is a huge disappointment, as has been covered expertly elsewhere on WhatCulture. It doesn't deserve the defences and excuses its been treated to by obsessed fans. If it went by any name other than True Detective, it would be an average show. The fact that it carries such a hefty tag just makes it seem even worse.
