SPOILER Show

Rob wrote:

What does Rust's opinion of Marty's forensic acumen have to do with Marty's need to know the information? But accepting the premise, if you don't think someone is a good detective, isn't carefully walking your slow-witted buddy through the evidence in chronological order exactly what you would do? Also, Rust did a lot of legwork to get that evidence. It makes sense that he'd want Marty to know how much work he put in. He committed a B&E for goodness sake. (This is all apart from the fact that Rust probably does think Marty is a good detective. They lock horns and have exchanged harsh words in moments of anger, but there's obviously, fundamentally, a mutual respect.)

We're not talking about Marty's need to know. We're talking about Rust's willingness to inform him. And why would Rust feel the need to impress Marty with his diligence? A B&E is probably the least of the crimes we've seen Rust commit so far.  In any case, if I was in the same situation, I would definitely show him the tape first.

"Hey, you know that little girl we were never able to find? Well, it turns out this bastard I was suspicious of all along raped and murdered her. I have the evidence right here if you'd like to see it. So, would you mind helping me out with this case?"

Rust came to Marty for help because he needed access to police records and other resources, and because by shooting that guy, Marty fucked up their chances of properly solving this case back in 1995. Mutual respect has nothing to do with it.

Rob wrote:

But I thought everything besides the tape was pointless and unnecessary. If it's not, then what is the utility of having the same information conveyed in Marty's office? Didn't Rust bring Marty to the shed for the explicit purpose of showing him the evidence? How does running thru the evidence make sense in Marty's office but not make sense in Rust's shed -- where they came specifically to look at the evidence?

The point of that scene was for Marty to see the tape. That's it. The tape is the trigger that convinces Marty to help Rust. Everything else is an exposition dump that bogs us down unnecessarily. Either cut it, or save it for a later scene so that the action can get started already.

What exactly do we learn in this scene aside from the tape?

• There was no physical evidence connecting Dora Lange to Ledoux's place (this is an "as you know" and it makes me wonder why it took another seven years for Rust to figure out that the case hadn't really been solved after all)..

• Women and children have gone missing in the area surrounding the Tuttle-funded schools (Marty and the audience already knew that Rust suspected the schools were somehow connected to the case).

• Rust believed that Tuttle's interest in the case, the formation of the task force, and his behavior in 2002 were suspicious (more information we already knew).

• Rust tracked down a former student from one of the Tuttle schools who provides the first direct connection between the scarred man (Kelly Rita's third attacker) and the schools.

• The Tuttles come from a part of the state were people practice strange rituals involving  santeria and voudon that bear striking resemblance to Dora Lange and the Lake Charles victim.

• A photographer spotted many of those little stick things which Rust takes to mean that the killer was very busy during the post-Katrina chaos (again, we already knew that the killer was still active because of the Lake Charles killing - the fact that it may have been easier to kill people after Katrina is irrelevant because he didn't seem to have much trouble killing them before that).

So the only compelling piece of new evidence is Rust's interview with Toby. Considering their conversation at the bar, and the fact that Marty pulls his gun at the thought of meeting Rust in dark room, why go through all this before reluctantly showing Marty the tape? I still don't think most of it was necessary, and this episode needed to accomplish more since we've only got one episode left. But if we were really going to have a moment where Rust walks Marty through everything, having that happen before he shows him the tape is dumb.

Rob wrote:

It also looked like Rust's house when he was on the job. Same deal. Evidence on the walls, stick sculptures on the dining room table. Maggie walks in, sees it, and says "You can't live like this." She wasn't talking about his loose linoleum tiles.

His house did not look like that storage shed. Yes, there were a few pictures on the walls and the table was messy with one of those sculptures on it. But the rest of it was bare white walls and no furniture (rather like my brother's house). He hadn't painted the place insane symbols and cryptic clues. And to me, Maggie's comment seemed to have very little to do with the state of Rust's house. She wasn't even looking at the mess when she said it. She was just trying to seduce him. He's alone, in an empty house, he's just lost his job, and seemed pathetic enough that he might jump at the chance to bone her.

Rob wrote:

Come now. He's may not be clinically insane, but in colloquial terms Rust is batshit crazy.

[snip]

Given all this crazy-ass behavior (and more), is it really that far-fetched to think this guy would draw on a storage locker door? Well of course not. (He likes to draw. His "taxman" portfolio is full of drawings of stick sculptures and such.)

Yeah, I'm willing concede that I overstated my case a bit there. Rust clearly has issues. But I still think that spiral was fucking stupid. There is in fact a world of difference between filling a notepad with small, intricately detailed sketches and painting a big ass mural on a door.

Hyperbole and sarcasm aren't necessary here. I'm not butthurt over the fact that you love the show and think it's perfect; I just happen to think it's decidedly less so. I really do think the show has some brilliant moments. But I've yet to get through an episode without finding something that really bothered me from a storytelling standpoint. And no amount of hand-waving by a die hard fan is going to convince me that I'm just imagining things.

I apologized for the sarcasm in a clear declarative sentence that was free of any equivocation or weasel words whatsoever. "I apologize for my sarcasm. It was flippant and childish. It's a bad habit." Is there anyone else here who reads that as a backhanded apology? If so, please tell me how that apology could be made more explicit so I can revise it. And I meant it, too. That's the thing. I wasn't just apologizing to apologize -- I felt bad for having spoken to you that way, and a little embarrassed too. Forgive me, but I literally don't know how to apologize in a more direct way, so I'm finding myself in a no-win situation it seems.

You're all a bunch of suckers. This whole show is just a commercial.

Yellow King Show