The Killing
 

Spoilers abound, if you're not caught up to the aired episodes!

Let's talk theories. Only a couple episodes left. Is this show ending after one season, or are they going to make it a multi-season thing?

It seems like it has to be someone in Richmond's staff, or Richmond himself. Otherwise, why are we seeing those people at all? Aside from the Bennet Ahmed red herring, there's not been any reason to show that storyline, unless it will eventually have to do with Rosey's murder. Obviously the car she drowned in connects her, and then the picture that staffer found two weeks ago of Rosey and Richmond.

What did people think of Sunday's episode, Missing? I suppose some character development with Lindon and Holder was cool, but it felt to me like they were stalling the story for a whole episode, and with only two more to go, I'd like to see the investigation ramp up a bit. Also, "I was with dad"...how does Lindon not think of that? Obviously, we don't know the dad's story, but no matter the story, that seems like something to check.

I think Lindon adopted Jack after she investigated Jack's mother's murder.

Anyway, discuss. :)

- I think it has something to do with the Mitch Larsen's sister. I don't know what yet, but she seems real fishy and like she has some real problems. I know the campaign car still doesn't make sense to me, but with the Larsen's bank account drained, I think that it has something to do with the sister.

- I loved the last episode. It was a departure episode from the story arc and allowed the viewer to really explore the relationship of Lindon-Holder and Lindon-Reggie-Jack and Holder-HisFamily. The season needed a reset switch, if only for an episode. One reason why the show is so compelling is that it isn't just plot -- it has very human, realized characters.

- My guess is that she didn't know Jack even knew who is father was, that's why she didn't check. Plus, she was jumping from one horrible conclusion to the next. She wasn't thinking of any simple explanations.

I appreciated the character development we got. I guess I just wish it had been distributed among several episodes so that it wasn't such an abrupt halt in plot for the whole episode. I'm not sure it needed a "reset switch". I feel like the momentum has been building up to the finale, and that was fine with me.

I have some suspicions about the sister as well, but not based on any real facts. The bank account being empty I thought was a consequence of the father being in jail and using their bank to pay for the mortgage on the new house. But I could be assuming, and perhaps the sister did have something to do with it. That does still leave us with the question of what the campaign has to do with it.

I'm a little dubious of the casino manager and her crony. I would think a business would want to be seen as cooperating with a murder investigation. Could be bad publicity if it got out that they were resistant. So stonewalling Lindon is weird, unless they know something they want to keep hidden. And that's possible, as we saw Rosie on the ATM camera. Maybe they knew she was there but didn't want to get in trouble for allowing a minor to be present or whatever she was doing. I hope it's not an underage prostitution thing. That would just be cheesy.

I love the killing and I try to stay home now on sunday nights. I liked the character development episode a little bit, but I did want to know what was happening with mr larsen and the campaign.

What worries me about the whole staling feel of the last episode is that we won't know who the killer is at the end of the season. That it will just be an unsolved mystery or something we have to wait for next season.

I keep thinking back to that campaign car, which is a question left unanswered. It was reported stolen. But who stole it? And why hasn't Linden or Holder asked "who checked it out last?" They've given us outs on every suspect they've introduced. But they've yet to answer one of the big questions early in the show, which triggered the introduction to the politicians, who are one of the main plotlines.

The political storyline, on its own, is pretty boring and well-worn. Eager, play-it-clean idealist v stodgy incumbent. They've given us Rosie dying in the campaign car, connected Bennet to the campaign, and now shown a video clip with Rosie shaking hands with the assemblyman at a rally. There's enough there that whoever the killer is, will have to have some connection to the campaign.

The casino has to be important too. Rosie was there, and it was a late-reveal, time-line wise, with the big dramatic moment at the end of the last ep being Holder seeing her on the ATM camera. Her dad had gambling problems that were in part responsible for breaking the family. I gotta believe he's been to that casino many times. Maybe the casino folks were sending him a message. Though, if so, he didn't get it very clearly considering he beat Bennet half to death.

OK, so what do people think about the season finale?

I thought it was an engaging episode, but I really am tired of cliffhanger season finales. I'm ok if it's an episode cliffhanger when they're coming back the next week, but cliffhangers where you have to wait months...I'm just tired of it.

I'm not surprised that Richmond is now probably not the killer. It seemed too obvious by the end of last week's episode, and I just didn't think they'd give away the killer in the second-to-last episode. I have my suspicions that it might be Gwen, and that she was helping misdirect Lindon by giving her the video. Perhaps she's jealous of Richmond's philandering and used Richmond's computer to set up a date with Rosie, then killed her in order to eventually frame Richmond. But who knows? You can never tell if the writers are leaving enough clues to guess the killer or if they are withholding everything that would lead you to the killer.

So what do people think of Holder planting false evidence to have Richmond arrested? Holder's been my favorite part of this show, and I'm not sure I like the twist of him turning out to be corrupt (or worse). I'll reserve judgement until season 2 to see how his character is affected, but that twist has me concerned a bit. It was a surprise - I'll give the writers that.

Finally, I doubt that Richmond gets shot. The sound of a gunshot was conspicuously absent. I mean, it could happen, but I bet someone knocks Belko's arm out of the way at the last second. As for motive, is he just getting revenge for Rosie, or is he somehow helping cover for the real killer by not letting Richmond mount a defense and clear his name?

I thought the last one would have made a great next-to-last one.

This was in The Hollywood Reporter this week:

It's hilarious that she herself draws the comparison between her show and The Sopranos, then says what a compliment it is to be in the company of The Sopranos.

If, and this is a big if, but if the last one really was the end of this story, and we're supposed to draw our own conclusions re who killed Rosie, what's up with Holder, does Belko cap Richmond, etc., and next year will start with Linden gone to California and new detectives on a new story, then that makes for a more interesting end. Though I'm not sure I care enough about the story or the characters to spend much time thinking about who/why. But if they're just who-shot-JR-ing the audience after three months of 'WHO KILLED ROSIE LARSEN???!!!' promos, it's a bummer.

Veena Sud said that next season we will find out who killed Rosie Larsen. It's not going to stay ambiguous. It just sucks that they chose to end the season there.

And I agree that the Sopranos comparison is apt, but not in a complimentary way towards The Killing. The Sopranos finale was one of the shittiest endings for a solid, entertaining show.