Season 1 Episodes Talk

[mjc570]

S1E2:   I would totally watch a series that just had coed killer Ed sitting and talking.  Great acting, great writing.  

[mjc570]

S1E3:  pretty good episode, especially Ed, and how the two agents are building a rapport with him  I liked how Holden and Bill tagged team Dwight to get him to confess.  What I didn't like:  Dr. Wendy, I usually love Anna Torv, but the decision to play her with such a flat affect is a huge mistake.  I guess it's supposed to show how scientific and dispassionate she is (women in business, and academia I assume were not allowed to be emotional and "female":) but it was especially jarring when Holden refers to her "enthusiasm," I wondered if he had lost command of his English. 

[ketchuplover]

Richard Speck became feminized in prison

[mjc570]

Was Speck really so foul-mouthed?  That was so awful it was kind of funny.

About the principal - I liked how they presented it as a complicated situation, and showed the fallout on his family.  I really have trouble believing that anyone in those times would have been bothered by the "Nickels for Tickles" in the absence of even one child being traumatized or even upset. 

Did nothing come of Holden seeing Debbie and Patrick embracing?  it seems like their relationship is unaffected, although I don't see how.

Was the tuna can supposed to be symbolic, that Wendy is incapable of having a relationship with another living creature?  Because Anna Torv sure is playing her that way.

Miss Ed 

Added:: I don't know why bother with the BTK stuff at all, I'll never remember it.  I can barely stuff from episode to episode and I'm semi-binging,  Is it just to show that killers are amongst us?  That could easily have been done

Edited August 20, 2019 by mjc570
further thoughts

[swanpride]

So, I discovered the show and have finished season 1. Loved the start, not really sure what to make out of Holden. I am not quite sure how he went from being pretty laid back about his girlfriend to being so...possessive and egoistic. I mean, yeah, it's another time period, but on a personal level that is quite a switch.

Though what really confused me was the teacher episode. I mean, I get it in the context of the time it was set in. But I am not sure if I get what they want to convey to the watcher. That Holden is right despite getting criticised? There is really no grey area there from the perspective of today's perspective. The teacher was asked to stop and he didn't, so he should be fired, never mind if his tickling was the start of grooming his pupils or not. What he did was f... disturbing. I think the most questionable part was the nickel. Because during a time in which teachers were still allowed to hit their pupils, the tickling is in itself weird but the nickel is actually what indicates that the teacher knows deep down that what he does is NOT okay. Plus, he is basically punishing bad behaviour this way.

Holden was completely right to be concerned and completely right to say that he couldn't guarantee that this wouldn't develop into something worse. And while it is weird that he got involved, he was basically begged for help because nobody seemed to take this serious enough.  

[HurricaneVal]

I just finished season one, and have read this whole thread.  Wow.  I agree with so many of you on so many points.

The first five minutes of the first episode, when that guy blew his head off was so shockingly graphically real looking that I knew this show was not going to be afraid to go there.

Seeing Holden settle in to realizing they really were onto something that had a lot of potential to effect real change was a fun arc, as was his eventual arrogance and over-confidence.  I've seen that dynamic over and over in the real world.  His denouement at the end where his casualness and cockiness with his big, bad self being comfortable with a horrific killer and his panicked realization of how incredibly stupid that hubris was really was a good capper on the season.  I'm hoping season two Holden is a little more subdued and cautious about crossing that line.

I am really enjoying watching this nascent criminal science coming together, I like the scenes where Holden, Bill, and Wendy are tossing ideas back and forth and creating the vocabulary for the science on the fly.  All these words we see casually used everywhere in movies, TV, the news like organized, disorganized, spree, serial etc. are being developed right before our eyes.  I like the interactions between the team members, I agree that Wendy has a right to be upset that the carefully crafted survey isn't always being followed.  I also agree that Wendy needs to understand the need to get into these killer's heads so they will open up to let them even nibble around the substance of the survey.

Bill Tench is a very interesting character.  Superficially, he's the epitome of a grizzled and soured veteran FBI agent, and you expect him to pooh-pooh all this fancy psychology stuff.  But he doesn't.  He's not just a hidebound old-fashioned cop, he's open to these ideas with the ultimate goal of catching these awful criminals before they hurt too many people.  He's really a complex character, on the one hand he plays true to type telling Holden to lose those first few moments of audio, but on the other hand, he's really open to all these new ideas and sees that Holden's methods are getting results.  His growing understanding that cold and absent fathers can contribute to the development of one of these horrific killers, and his recognition that's what he's doing to his own kid, yet his inability to change is really well done by both the writing and the actor.

I also really like how there really isn't a "case of the week" like a regular procedural, though each episode stands alone.  I like how the story arcs over several episodes, and themes are continued, and there are unexpected pop-puts.

The casting and performances of the killers themselves are amazing.   Scary.  Creepy.  And unbelievably true to life.  I suspect that as this show continues there is going to be a competition among character actors out there to get parts on this show!

I'm off to start season two.....

[Ottis]

On 8/21/2019 at 4:01 AM, swanpride said:

Loved the start, not really sure what to make out of Holden. I am not quite sure how he went from being pretty laid back about his girlfriend to being so...possessive and egoistic. I mean, yeah, it's another time period, but on a personal level that is quite a switch.

Is he possessive? He's a guy who is gone all the time, with an attractive girlfriend who has what appears to be an attractive fellow student as a "partner" (a word which has a different meaning to Holden, in law enforcement lingo), who doesn't call Holden for help when she needs it and when he goes to see his girlfriend finds them touching each other in the dark of whatever that place was. I'm not sure he shouldn't be concerned. 

That said, I don't know why he *went back to her.* He clearly has issues relating to other people, and especially the few women we've seen. Going back feels like he is becoming a hunter, like his serial killer subjects.

I'm actually surprised Holden and Trench have SOs. Their jobs and schedule and subject matter must be hugely destructive to having a meaningful relationship.

On 9/26/2019 at 2:43 PM, HurricaneVal said:

Bill Tench is a very interesting character.  Superficially, he's the epitome of a grizzled and soured veteran FBI agent, and you expect him to pooh-pooh all this fancy psychology stuff.  But he doesn't. 

This is why I find him intriguing as well. You don't have to believe in or support some ideas in order to enable them or see if they work. That used to be a fairly typical approach for reasonable people, which we seem to have fewer and fewer of today.

I thought overall the first 3-4 eps were strong. I started to lose interest with the guy, his brother and the enabling sister killing the poor blonde. That seemed more predictable than a surprise. And the principal thing was hard to view through their time, knowing that today that dude would have been fired. I would prefer more focus on serial killers, key learnings that apply to the general populace and then how they actually helped the FBI solve tough cases.

Also, I assume what we see is true, but I had no idea cops in the 60s and 70s were so closed minded to behavior profiling. It seems like an obvious step to take. Civilians do it all the time, trying to understand why people behave the way they do. 

[FormerMod-a1]

I just binged season 1.  It's my kind of show so I'm not sure why I was so late to the party. 🙂 

On 8/20/2019 at 6:56 PM, mjc570 said:

Was the tuna can supposed to be symbolic, that Wendy is incapable of having a relationship with another living creature?  Because Anna Torv sure is playing her that way.

I wondered about this, too.  It seemed the like the cat plot was just dropped.  It looked like it was building to her seeing the cat, but then ants all over the can.  So then I was like "did the cat die?" (It was apparently a stray, if not feral, so most likely), and "what was this all about?"  Things did go south after that, with more oversight and Holden spiraling, so maybe it was just foreshadowing.

On 11/17/2019 at 10:24 AM, Ottis said:

Is he possessive? He's a guy who is gone all the time, with an attractive girlfriend who has what appears to be an attractive fellow student as a "partner" (a word which has a different meaning to Holden, in law enforcement lingo), who doesn't call Holden for help when she needs it and when he goes to see his girlfriend finds them touching each other in the dark of whatever that place was. I'm not sure he shouldn't be concerned. 

That said, I don't know why he *went back to her.* He clearly has issues relating to other people, and especially the few women we've seen. Going back feels like he is becoming a hunter, like his serial killer subjects.

I didn't see Holden as possessive either, but I did see his research changing him.  Earlier in the season Tench made a point of asking him how it didn't affect him, and also commented to others how Holden seemed not as affected.  I think this showed he really was affected, and more than just getting a big head about the work. 

I also saw that Debbie and Patrick were doing more than talking in that dark room.  I saw her sitting on the table, and I thought he was standing between her legs when the lights went on and she jumped up going after Holden. 

That said, I never thought they were a good match and didn't know how they stayed together so long.  And it's not like I didn't like her - I liked that she was smart and independent and had no problem speaking her mind.  I just thought they didn't make sense as a couple.  She always seems slightly annoyed by him, or slightly looked down on him.  It was more like she tolerated him.  And he definitely has flaws, big ones, but I don't think it made sense for her to be in a relationship with someone she felt that way about. 

I had more thoughts on other things, but I'm starting season 2 now. 😄 

[BuyMoreAndSave]

Thanks to everyone's favorite 6'9" sociopath, I've started referring to this series as "Neckfucker."

Also sidenote, did you guys know Ed Kemper has narrated hundreds of books on tape for the blind? Like damn, what did the blind do to deserve that? Here's him narrating Flowers In The Attic of all things: 

Anyway I really have enjoyed this show. I have an interest in true crime and psychopathology, and it's really fascinating to see how all these theories got developed in the first place. I've learned a lot that I can apply to cases I'm interested in. Also I can't believe the term "serial killer" didn't exist until the late 70s.

On 8/21/2019 at 6:01 AM, swanpride said:

Though what really confused me was the teacher episode. I mean, I get it in the context of the time it was set in. But I am not sure if I get what they want to convey to the watcher. That Holden is right despite getting criticised? There is really no grey area there from the perspective of today's perspective. The teacher was asked to stop and he didn't, so he should be fired, never mind if his tickling was the start of grooming his pupils or not. What he did was f... disturbing. I think the most questionable part was the nickel. Because during a time in which teachers were still allowed to hit their pupils, the tickling is in itself weird but the nickel is actually what indicates that the teacher knows deep down that what he does is NOT okay. Plus, he is basically punishing bad behaviour this way.

Holden was completely right to be concerned and completely right to say that he couldn't guarantee that this wouldn't develop into something worse. And while it is weird that he got involved, he was basically begged for help because nobody seemed to take this serious enough.  

I think it was more to show the difficulty of having the power and influence that comes with developing these theories. They're trying to create a model that predicts a potential risk of future criminal behavior, but did he get it right? Did he just trigger the guy into escalating his behavior by causing him to lose hope in life? It's sort of a damned if you do, damned if you don't and you don't know what the results will be, especially when something like this is in its infancy.

On 11/17/2019 at 11:24 AM, Ottis said:

Is he possessive? He's a guy who is gone all the time, with an attractive girlfriend who has what appears to be an attractive fellow student as a "partner" (a word which has a different meaning to Holden, in law enforcement lingo), who doesn't call Holden for help when she needs it and when he goes to see his girlfriend finds them touching each other in the dark of whatever that place was. I'm not sure he shouldn't be concerned. 

That said, I don't know why he *went back to her.* He clearly has issues relating to other people, and especially the few women we've seen. Going back feels like he is becoming a hunter, like his serial killer subjects.

[....]

Also, I assume what we see is true, but I had no idea cops in the 60s and 70s were so closed minded to behavior profiling. It seems like an obvious step to take. Civilians do it all the time, trying to understand why people behave the way they do. 

Even now in 2019 there are STILL people stuck in the 70s way of thinking though! Like that criminals are "born evil" and there's nothing that can be done to predict or prevent it. I've literally encountered people with these views in true crime discussion groups. It's ridiculous.

I also was very confused by the cheating storyline. So she's obviously cheating, she sees that he caught her and runs out to talk to him as he leaves, and then they just...never talk about it? What?

Edited December 15, 2019 by BuyMoreAndSave

[BuyMoreAndSave]

On 10/17/2017 at 9:44 AM, Yokosmom said:

Is this the episode with the dinner party?  I am wondering, is Tench's son supposed to be autistic or just shut down emotionally?

On 10/17/2017 at 4:30 PM, Bcharmer said:

Yes, the one with the dinner party. I'm thinking autism... but the show hasn't made it clear. They hint at maybe something in his previous life, before adoption, causing his behavior, which may be fitting for the show.... if he was, in fact, mistreated. That might be the whole reason for that storyline. Who knows, though.

Reactive Attachment Disorder, IMO.

On 10/17/2017 at 1:56 PM, cpcathy said:

I think Jonathan Groff has the loveliest speaking voice.

TBH though, I just did not buy him as a straight character, which sort of made the show less believable to me. (The actor is gay.)

On 10/19/2017 at 10:15 PM, Bec said:

Oh, I know! I also want to know why these killers are the way they are. Thanks to the kind of work depicted on this show, there's more info now, but I think even to this day we only have the tip of the iceberg. And that "they're just monsters, there's nothing more to know. Only sickos would want to hear what they have to say." attitude is still around. As if wanting to learn more about what makes them tick is the same as being in love with them and treating them like rock stars.

Maybe one day we can prevent this level of deviance, instead of playing catch-up and having law-enforcement chase after these guys after they've already harmed people. But that would require us to know a lot more about how they are formed. It would require changes on a societal level, not just changes in law-enforcement. We are not even close to having all the answers. How are we ever going to know more if we don't study them?

Agreed so much. Many experts believe that most violence can be prevented with the proper tools and interventions. Most people aren't born destined to kill. Maybe a tiny minority of people who end up killing. The "moral panic" type of thing isn't going to get us anywhere with violence prevention. We have to meet people where they're at to turn them away from antisocial behaviors.

On 10/25/2017 at 5:44 AM, Miles said:

I went to Wikipedia to look up Edmund Kemper and was perplexed when the german wikipedia said he weighed 150kg. That didn't match with photos of him. The english Wikipedia seemed much more sensible with 113kg. So that's my first edit to Wikipedia in like a decade.

He gained a lot of weight over the years in prison.

On 10/25/2017 at 9:59 AM, kariyaki said:

Yeah, it seems to be a one-two punch. The likely case is that you can have someone with psychopathic tendencies, but if they have a happy childhood, they'll go through their entire lives without killing anybody. Or you can have somebody who has a crappy childhood, but no psychopathic tendencies (and this is a very common occurrence for many people) but they also do not kill anybody. But merge those two together and you end up with some scary shit.

Not everyone who kills is a psychopath. In fact I think most of them aren't. Psychopathy refers to a specific neurological condition. There's also sociopathy which is caused more by environment/abuse than genetics, where the person isn't born with antisocial tendencies but develops them as a result of trauma. There are personality disorders which are along the same lines. There are psychotic killers who kill as a result of their delusions or hallucinations. Even mood disorders can increase the risk of violence -- depression increases the risk of violence by threefold according to studies. There are brain injuries...SO many killers had a history of brain injuries. It's a massive oversimplification and inaccurate to say all killers are psychopaths. And yes, many psychopaths (probably the majority) are pro-social and never harm anyone because they have no desire to.

On 10/31/2017 at 4:11 PM, Captanne said:

I think it's Douglas who came up with bed wetting, petty arson, small animal killing -- these are all childhood indicators of serious adulthood problems to come.  Dahmer exhibited just about every last one.

The Macdonald Triad has actually been discredited over the years. The triad is more a sign of an abused child than of a future killer.

Edited December 15, 2019 by BuyMoreAndSave

[DangerousMinds]

21 hours ago, BuyMoreAndSave said:

Reactive Attachment Disorder, IMO.

TBH though, I just did not buy him as a straight character, which sort of made the show less believable to me. (The actor is gay.)

Agreed so much. Many experts believe that most violence can be prevented with the proper tools and interventions. Most people aren't born destined to kill. Maybe a tiny minority of people who end up killing. The "moral panic" type of thing isn't going to get us anywhere with violence prevention. We have to meet people where they're at to turn them away from antisocial behaviors.

He gained a lot of weight over the years in prison.

Not everyone who kills is a psychopath. In fact I think most of them aren't. Psychopathy refers to a specific neurological condition. There's also sociopathy which is caused more by environment/abuse than genetics, where the person isn't born with antisocial tendencies but develops them as a result of trauma. There are personality disorders which are along the same lines. There are psychotic killers who kill as a result of their delusions or hallucinations. Even mood disorders can increase the risk of violence -- depression increases the risk of violence by threefold according to studies. There are brain injuries...SO many killers had a history of brain injuries. It's a massive oversimplification and inaccurate to say all killers are psychopaths. And yes, many psychopaths (probably the majority) are pro-social and never harm anyone because they have no desire to.

The Macdonald Triad has actually been discredited over the years. The triad is more a sign of an abused child than of a future killer.

I don’t think Dahmer was abused though.

[BuyMoreAndSave]

4 hours ago, DangerousMinds said:

I don’t think Dahmer was abused though.

His parents were violent towards each other. Witnessing violence can have similar effects to experiencing violence. (Dr. Gary Slutkin has some very interesting research about this topic.) His alcoholism from a young age also likely affected his brain development.

Also: "Jeffrey Dahmer’s father, Lionel, says that his son was sexually abused by a neighborhood boy when he was 8 years old, about the time the family moved here." https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1991-08-11-mn-635-story.html

I also think sometimes the truth is not even known. Ted Bundy claimed he had a perfect loving childhood. But his grandfather was known to be extremely violent and abusive towards literally everyone in his life and there were even rumors that Ted Bundy's grandfather was his dad (as in raped and impregnated his own daughter). It seems unlikely Ted Bundy was spared from the abuse or was unaffected by witnessing his grandfather abuse women throughout his life. But he never would have admitted to it.

But yes, even 40 years after behavioral analysis was developed, we have a lot to learn.

Edited December 16, 2019 by BuyMoreAndSave

[Lisin]

On 12/15/2019 at 3:16 PM, BuyMoreAndSave said:

TBH though, I just did not buy him as a straight character, which sort of made the show less believable to me. (The actor is gay.)

I'm not really sure how the actor's sexual orientation is even remotely relevant. How exactly does a straight character act? What about Groff's performance was less believable? 

[BuyMoreAndSave]

On 1/8/2020 at 1:27 PM, Lisin said:

I'm not really sure how the actor's sexual orientation is even remotely relevant. How exactly does a straight character act? What about Groff's performance was less believable? 

I'm not saying that a gay actor can never play a straight character or vice versa. For example in The Assassination of Gianni Versace, you would never be able to tell that Darren Criss is actually straight from watching him play Andrew Cunanan. I'm just saying that this particular actor didn't convincingly play this particular role, for me.

My "gaydar" went off with Jonathan Groff immediately, before I even looked him up and saw that he is gay. And so I just didn't buy him as this "womanizer" sort of character, and especially not when he put on his misogynistic perverted creep act to get the killers to open up. In another show where sexuality isn't literally one of the main themes of the show it wouldn't matter, but in this show it broke the willing suspension of disbelief for me a bit.

(I'm bi BTW, so I'm definitely not trying to offend anyone here, just giving my opinion.)

Edited January 17, 2020 by BuyMoreAndSave

[foxfreakinmulder]

I finished season 1 last night and I find it hard for me to like any of these characters and it seems like Holden, Bill and Wendy don't even like each other. And I can't stand Anna Torv sour puss expression, I hated it on Fringe too. What was up with the can of tuna? What a waist of time filming Wendy pouring a glass of wine and taking a can of tuna down stairs. I don't like Holden's girlfriend either and haven't from the get go. I think it's the actress though but Holden is a jealous, controlling guy. I do like the prison visits with the serial killers and think that's the best part of the show and is what's keeping me watching.

[Morrigan2575]

Finished S1 and i really liked it. It wasn't what I expected which was a case of the week or one season long case. However, I really enjoyed watching them build the BSU, identifying and refining the terminology that has become very common over the years.

I liked how the characters developed and changed (except Wendy). I cycled through liking, loving, hating the characters. 

Looking forward to season 2. 

[Epeolatrix]

On 1/21/2020 at 3:27 PM, foxfreakinmulder said:

What was up with the can of tuna?

Anna Torv said: I always take things a little too [introspectively], so when I first read it in the script I was like, 'Oh my God, wow, this is actually interesting,'" she told TVLine. "I thought, 'This little kitten is representative of all these faceless [victims] and we only notice the ones that are dead because they have families that are looking for them. And then here’s this little abandoned cat that no one is going to care about. And if that was a person, it’d be the same thing.'"

David Fincher said: The audience is meant to think that maybe the cat's sudden disappearance means "there was a kid in the building who’s going around killing cats. And it’s a birth of a new sociopath that we don’t quite know about. Because that’s how it starts — with [inflicting harm on] animals."

[Taryn74]

52 minutes ago, Epeolatrix said:

David Fincher said: The audience is meant to think that maybe the cat's sudden disappearance means "there was a kid in the building who’s going around killing cats. And it’s a birth of a new sociopath that we don’t quite know about. Because that’s how it starts — with [inflicting harm on] animals."

Wow. And here I just took it to be symbolic of how Anna Torv's character was too rigid in her thinking that you will always get the result you want if you apply the correct procedure (her list of approved questions for the killers they were interviewing) versus how the guys approached the killers as individuals and figured out what would make each one open up and talk. LOL. Silly me.

[supposebly]

So funny and interesting on how this could be seen.

I interpreted is somewhat like Fincher wanted it. Well, almost. I didn't think it would be a kid who killed the cat but just any future serial killer. Some start later.

I love Anna Torv's and @Taryn74's  interpretation too. 

Excuse me now while I go hug my cats.

[Morrigan2575]

15 hours ago, Taryn74 said:

Wow. And here I just took it to be symbolic of how Anna Torv's character was too rigid in her thinking that you will always get the result you want if you apply the correct procedure (her list of approved questions for the killers they were interviewing) versus how the guys approached the killers as individuals and figured out what would make each one open up and talk. LOL. Silly me.

That's exactly what i thought.