New around here? Register your SA Forums Account here!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
TheRationalRedditor
Jul 17, 2000

WHO ABUSED HIM. WHO ABUSED THE BOY.
Look at all these johnny-come-lately bandwagon jumpers. :smugdog:

That being said, 'The Jinx' has been one of the best things I've seen all year and the finale was chilling and unique, especially if you'd been watching week to week from the beginning. Go get your fuckin' shinebox, Serial!

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

TheRationalRedditor
Jul 17, 2000

WHO ABUSED HIM. WHO ABUSED THE BOY.

qbert posted:

I've watched this since the beginning and was sad there was no thread on it here. Of course, the weekend's events have changed all that.

Holy poo poo that ending. I was ready to declare the series great even if it ended Serial style with no real new evidence uncovered, but to do a documentary on basically a murder mystery and then discover the smoking gun yourself? That's basically a fantasy.

I hope there's a Season 2 following up on the eventual trial.
As delightful as that would be it's exceedingly unlikely because the wheels of justice (the arraignment hearings and court schedulings alone, before a jury trial proper) move at a universally glacial pace and these short 6 chapters are a culmination of over 4 years of evidence + interview collection. 'All Good Things' was completed in 2010 and Andrew Jarecki has said the first interview happened around then. It's a long, slow burn. It takes a lot of time and effort to put together such an excellent compact mini-series, especially with such a small crew. That would be really cool though. Also Durst could still like, die at any moment. Likely from belching-based asphyxiation!

ApexAftermath posted:

You realize this thread didn't exist until like a day ago right?
:thejoke:

TheRationalRedditor fucked around with this message at 20:41 on Mar 16, 2015

TheRationalRedditor
Jul 17, 2000

WHO ABUSED HIM. WHO ABUSED THE BOY.

Mahoning posted:

According to the interview I just posted, they've continued filming since the final interview and will continue to film. They said a bunch of people have come forward since the show premiered with stuff they've seen or heard or whatever. I doubt we get a whole season, but we will almost assuredly get a follow up episode or two.
That's very *braapghurgle* news!

TheRationalRedditor
Jul 17, 2000

WHO ABUSED HIM. WHO ABUSED THE BOY.
Even if these supposed timeline discrepancies were as egregious as possible, there's absolutely no onus on Jarecki and his team. These cases have been completely cold for over a decade, absolutely no one has been checking up on them besides his filmcrew who just so happened to have a unique opportunity to appeal to a reclusive nut's vanity where the police could do nothing of the sort. All clickbaiting blog "thinkpieces" are loving worthless, as usual. This whole thing is insanely cool and poised to be a unique crossover of media and legal reality, which is highly welcome.

TheRationalRedditor
Jul 17, 2000

WHO ABUSED HIM. WHO ABUSED THE BOY.

Toxxupation posted:

I was deep in the Serial tank last year, convinced it was one of the best pieces of media that aired and The Jinx makes that poo poo look like a fuckin' Nancy Drew novel

It's astounding how well executed on every level this show is not only narratively but cinematically and executionally as well. just incredible
The music, tone and editing were outstanding all the way through. And despite the gently caress it isn't even a fiction, one of the all-time great HBO program intros which no one seems to have uploaded anywhere yet. :argh:

TheRationalRedditor
Jul 17, 2000

WHO ABUSED HIM. WHO ABUSED THE BOY.

Toxxupation posted:

I mean...it's just the True Detective intro, dude, with a different song
I prefer it to TD. That crescendo with the primal scream & beat at the bridge rules

Arnold of Soissons posted:

It was weird to me that even after they caught him with a hot mic earlier (ep 3 or 4 when his lawyer told him to STFU) he forgot and hot mic'd himself again.
Well he's comically doddering and often absent-minded, remember that footage of him going up and down his brother's stoop for no good reason? What a goofball!

TheRationalRedditor fucked around with this message at 14:37 on Mar 17, 2015

TheRationalRedditor
Jul 17, 2000

WHO ABUSED HIM. WHO ABUSED THE BOY.
I appreciated it. :thumbsup:

TheRationalRedditor
Jul 17, 2000

WHO ABUSED HIM. WHO ABUSED THE BOY.
People said likeable but I think a more appropriate term was pitiable. He's a doddering old kook who speaks softly with an assortment of strange facial tics and a preponderence for gassiness. I think the feeling is better summed up that they want to pick him up and put him in a handbag, like an ugly pet lizard!

Of course after that initial feeling it's good to focus on how his personality is a thin mask that has been cultivated by a life of wealthy entitlement, anger, disdain for others, and years of elusiveness. To seem as harmless as possible while being evil.

TheRationalRedditor
Jul 17, 2000

WHO ABUSED HIM. WHO ABUSED THE BOY.
It's not pity because he seemed innocent, it's pity because he seemed to weak and pathetic. A lot of people jump to assume that his crazy eye movements and blinking is proportionally indicative of his constant lying, but such cues are actually one of the least reliable physical indicators of deception.

Much better ones are extreme roteness of stories that don't change between retellings or testimony (indicating extreme rehearsal after fabrication), and of course stumbling blank-outs where he freezes up upon getting asked something he actually didn't anticipate. He had nothing but decades to practice his cover stories exhaustively so you didn't see the latter too often, that is until the final episode - the envelope and note threw Durst for a loop and he was suddenly tapdancing on ice and faceplanted when he couldn't even tell Jarecki which signature he wrote. That's why he proceeds to castigate himself so thoroughly in the bathroom, because he thought he'd been bulletproof mr. cool ice up to that point and then it's suddenly "There it is. You're caught."

TheRationalRedditor
Jul 17, 2000

WHO ABUSED HIM. WHO ABUSED THE BOY.
I've also been wondering why there were so few questions about the severed head. Then again, given how visually repulsive and chronically unlikeable morris black was according to everyone who knew him, maybe it's not a surprise that no one was too upset about it missing. :haw: Still, that location of the gunshot was almost certainly why Durst managed to discard it into a trash compactor, volcano or something.

TheRationalRedditor
Jul 17, 2000

WHO ABUSED HIM. WHO ABUSED THE BOY.
It's very vexing that the shown trial footage didn't revolve around that question at all. I've just been assuming he made sure it disappeared because it's another gunshot in the back of the skull, like Susan Berman. There's no other bodies to support it but I have a hunch that killing his victims that way might be his MO because it's psychologically reflective of his detachment, disdain and feelings of superiority to the people who were "in his way".

TheRationalRedditor
Jul 17, 2000

WHO ABUSED HIM. WHO ABUSED THE BOY.
It seems reasonable to imagine he might have been ready to dump it along with the other garbage bags and then had a sudden realization in the moment of disposal just how a floating head could implicate him if it were ever found, so he retrieved the bag and then did something else with the horrendous contents. If it was in the mix it certainly would've been found with all the other parts in that strong shoreline current (remember that none of the bags sunk so he had to reconsider his actions).

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

TheRationalRedditor
Jul 17, 2000

WHO ABUSED HIM. WHO ABUSED THE BOY.
It was silly, and it's one of the elements that reflects the creator of 'Dear Zachary' couldn't even attempt to conceal his own hyper-emotional hatred, frustration, bitterness and anguish about losing his best friend which basically violates the cardinal rule about good impartial documentary filmmaking. That being said it actually sort of works because of the chaos of the story and how insane he must have been going filming, sorting, cataloging, and editing those hundreds of hours of footage that had to be intensely gutwrenching to him.

To me, the part where he most lets his restraint dissipate is during the 3rd act reveal with what amounts to a sudden primal scream encapsulating all his rage without warning.

  • Locked thread