MovieChat Forums > Bloodline (2015) Discussion > Why I liked season two less than season ...

Why I liked season two less than season one

posted 8 years ago by lubin-freddy
6 replies | jump to latest

Another poster incorrectly used the word "narrative", meaning "narration". Here I plan to use the word correctly.

What I liked most about season one was its narrative arc, the way the story developed, how and when we got information, and how our understanding of, and feelings for, the characters changed from episode to episode. This made the season interesting, and involved us more deeply.

While season two wasn't bad, at least until the final episode (more below), it didn't have that same structure. It starts as all is shît for the Rayburns, and stays shît. There's no real development, other than perhaps John "breaking bad", but that's not handled well, or insightfully. The most serious problem, for me at least, is not understand what exactly drove John to run for sheriff, even though he must have known that all the history wouldn't stay hidden. Was he driven for recognition? Was it a self-destruct urge? The series doesn't give us a hint.

The final episode seemed poorly written, full of the plot conveniences necessary for another season. What really got me was the amature cliche of a character happening upon a conversation crucial to his life and future. That's when I felt that the series lost me, though I'll give it a try when, and if, it continues. If not, I wouldn't be disappointed.

"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

[–] Gary-161 8 years ago

I know what you mean. When Sally found the old sign in Nolan's flat I was only surprised it didn't read: "Rayburn Inn....Abandon hope all ye who enter here!"

[–] ChrisOlliYo 8 years ago

The narration by the character John of season one served the purpose of creating the mysterious atmosphere and mostly self-justification. That could work before the audience still in the dark and haven't form full impression of each character.

One thing about the narrator of a show is to bring audience to see things through his/her perspective, and if it's not done by a third party, the character in the show has to be relatable or at least sane. After what John and his siblings did in the end of season, how could 'we are not bad people' and 'don't judge us' not sound hypocritical? It's smart for the show runners to erase the narration part knowing psychologically the audience wouldn't buy his nonsense anymore.

[–] lubin-freddy 8 years ago

What was nice about John's narration is how we find out that it's all coming from the police interrogation. I understand then, how it wouldn't fit into the narrative of season two. But they could have done something else to make the dramatic arc more dynamic.

"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

[–] pinmv 8 years ago

I thought it came from his presentation to run for sheriff...

We just binged the entire show in about a week.

[–] lubin-freddy 8 years ago

Perhaps, I don't remember. But it was, in a sense, a kind of flash forward.

"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

[–] larosat 8 years ago

S2 was better than S1. And John narrating doesn't make the show any better.