A theory based in film studies indicates towards the idea that a text becomes a cult property by being claimed by its fans. This might be through quoting a particular film or tv show, or wearing mechandise or even, in the case of True Detective, becoming so immersed by the narrative that predictions to what was coming next were constantly discussed. Who is the Yellow King? Did Rust kill the girls? Was Audrey Hart one of the escaped victims? It was through these questions, and the persistent theories that materialised online in the run-up to the finale, that encapsulate what it means for an audience to own its show. The knock on effects of this mentality can be split into two different consequences. The first revolves around complaints about how the ending was unsatisfactory and how the shift in perspective during the final episode lessened the impact it had on the reveal to its audience. The truth of the matter is, any finale that stays grounded (i.e. does not include a supernatural twist) is going to follow the limited conventions of its cop procedural concept. On the other hand, this may leave many fans wondering why the finale of True Detective was too disappointing and may add this to the other evidence (ambivalence to casting news, accusations of plagia) that the second season could only be a let down. The real truth of it all, however, is that the success of the second season of True Detective (and any show for that matter) rests purely on the quality of the product. Thats the only way that the first season of True Detective can be topped.
Screenwriter, musician and all-round troublemaker who, when not lifting weights or securing buildings poorly, is here writing about wrasslin' and other crazy things.
