I’m a massive series addict. I’ll watch just about anything from Dexter to The Secret Circle, so when a friend gave me The Killing late last year, I was instantly hooked. In this crime drama, instead of jumping from one crime to the next over several episodes, it focused on one case: Rosie Larson. Every episode was another day in the investigation of her murder. The in-depth portrayal and exploration of all the characters had me hooked, as did the deepening mystery. It was tense, dark and moody. Definitely not your usual crime drama (which I usually love anyway). At the back of my mind I was concerned about how they’d end it, every series wants a season 2 and if they solved Rosie’s murder at the end of season 1, what would they do for 2? But (foolishly) I ignored these thoughts and waded on.
Admittedly, I did watch the last three episodes by skipping through them, but if I hadn’t, I’d be even more annoyed. Basically, they arrest Rosie’s murderer, the congressman, and in the last five minutes of the episode pull a ‘Boom! We tricked you! It ain’t him!’ What. The. Fuck. You take me along a thirteen episode ride only to pull one of TV viewers’ most hated tricks? The false solution? It’s not an intense cliffhanger. It’s not an interesting ending. It’s not ever a smart plot twist. All it’s done for me is piss me off enough at having spent near on thirteen hours watching this series only to get the most pathetic excuse of an ending, that I won’t be watching season 2.
In an article on The Huffington Post, many other viewers seem to feel the same way. The writers have tried to justify why the ended it the way they did, but personally? I think it’s a lazy way to end something. This kind of ending is usually used to draw readers back for a second season, but I think The Killing is going to get a serious backlash from their sneaky tactic which will result in a plummeting viewership and an inevitable cancellation.
Congrats, writers, you’ve basically cost yourselves your jobs.
(image source: fanpop.com)