Sharp Objects HBO

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, the police seem extremely incompetent. Just b/c they were kids doesn’t mean they’re above suspicion.

Because they were 13 yo girls is exactly why they were above suspicion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, the police seem extremely incompetent. Just b/c they were kids doesn’t mean they’re above suspicion.

Because they were 13 yo girls is exactly why they were above suspicion.

What bubble do you live in? What an obvious story flaw.

Kids kill: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_youngest_killers

Hurting animals is a huge red flag.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, the police seem extremely incompetent. Just b/c they were kids doesn’t mean they’re above suspicion.

Because they were 13 yo girls is exactly why they were above suspicion.

What bubble do you live in? What an obvious story flaw.

Kids kill: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_youngest_killers

Hurting animals is a huge red flag.

You realize that this isn’t a documentary, right? Podunk law enforcement in a podunk town looking for a male killer isn’t going to set their sights on sweet little Amma just because Wikipedia.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, the police seem extremely incompetent. Just b/c they were kids doesn’t mean they’re above suspicion.

Because they were 13 yo girls is exactly why they were above suspicion.

What bubble do you live in? What an obvious story flaw.

Kids kill: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_youngest_killers

Hurting animals is a huge red flag.

You realize that this isn’t a documentary, right? Podunk law enforcement in a podunk town looking for a male killer isn’t going to set their sights on sweet little Amma just because Wikipedia.

A lot of rural prejudice on here.

This town wasn’t just podunk. Tons of “old money” according to Camille. Rich people would demand competence.

[Anonymous]

You police in rural towns conduct thorough murder investigations, eg:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Molly_Bish
The only reason her murderer wasn’t caught quickly was b/c one of his family members gave him a false alibi.

Or this one—1500 interviews:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/06/26/undercover-cops-grabbed-a-djs-chewing-gum-it-helped-crack-a-teachers-1992-murder-police-say/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.c5c758c6bf6d

In both cases forensic evidence is key to capturing killers.

I realize sharp objects is fiction, but I expect fiction to be realistic if it’s going to be a murder mystery.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You police in rural towns conduct thorough murder investigations, eg:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Molly_Bish
The only reason her murderer wasn’t caught quickly was b/c one of his family members gave him a false alibi.

Or this one—1500 interviews:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/06/26/undercover-cops-grabbed-a-djs-chewing-gum-it-helped-crack-a-teachers-1992-murder-police-say/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.c5c758c6bf6d

In both cases forensic evidence is key to capturing killers.

I realize sharp objects is fiction, but I expect fiction to be realistic if it’s going to be a murder mystery.

I fail to see what forensic evidence at the crime scenes would have revealed that the killers were the murdered girls’ friends. Expecting law enforcement in this story to be omniscient is what’s not realistic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, the police seem extremely incompetent. Just b/c they were kids doesn’t mean they’re above suspicion.

Because they were 13 yo girls is exactly why they were above suspicion.

What bubble do you live in? What an obvious story flaw.

Kids kill: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_youngest_killers

Hurting animals is a huge red flag.

You realize that this isn’t a documentary, right? Podunk law enforcement in a podunk town looking for a male killer isn’t going to set their sights on sweet little Amma just because Wikipedia.

A lot of rural prejudice on here.

This town wasn’t just podunk. Tons of “old money” according to Camille. Rich people would demand competence.

Sure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, the police seem extremely incompetent. Just b/c they were kids doesn’t mean they’re above suspicion.

Because they were 13 yo girls is exactly why they were above suspicion.

What bubble do you live in? What an obvious story flaw.

Kids kill: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_youngest_killers

Hurting animals is a huge red flag.

When out of town cop tried to drop statistics on the sheriff during their conversation about possible suspects early on the sheriff said “now you’re just making sh!t up.” He said that no one in the town would have done it, that it was likely a trucker or one of the “Mexicans” at the pig plant. He had his small minded prejudices, like many in Wind Gap, so convincing him to consider 13 year old girls from the town would not have been a successful endeavor.

[Anonymous]

Which wouldn't prevent the detective from actually investigating.

Yet it does. The author shouldn't set a mystery in modern times if she's just going to gloss over technology and procedures that exist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Which wouldn't prevent the detective from actually investigating.

Yet it does. The author shouldn't set a mystery in modern times if she's just going to gloss over technology and procedures that exist.

There are crime procedurals to be found if that’s your thing. Most viewers of this series probably aren’t looking for a longer series just to cover all of the minutiae of forensic investigation and analysis. It was shown that the detective who came in from Kansas City or wherever was inspecting the body in the morgue, poring over crime scene photos, dental and medical records, taking soil samples from tires, interviewing people, asking questions of experts, etc. The sheriff was shown resisting a lot of that, which was kind of a theme to the story. There was actual investigating going on, but little of it was coming from residents of Wind Gap.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Which wouldn't prevent the detective from actually investigating.

Yet it does. The author shouldn't set a mystery in modern times if she's just going to gloss over technology and procedures that exist.

There are crime procedurals to be found if that’s your thing. Most viewers of this series probably aren’t looking for a longer series just to cover all of the minutiae of forensic investigation and analysis. It was shown that the detective who came in from Kansas City or wherever was inspecting the body in the morgue, poring over crime scene photos, dental and medical records, taking soil samples from tires, interviewing people, asking questions of experts, etc. The sheriff was shown resisting a lot of that, which was kind of a theme to the story. There was actual investigating going on, but little of it was coming from residents of Wind Gap.

I don't necessarily like procedurals. I like complex characters and plots. This was just an extremely laid out story with massive plot holes and using weird titillating sex to get away with it. Chris Messina's character did nothing but drink in bars and try to sleep with Amy Adams who when isn't dressed up looks kind of dumpy. She seemed like she was on ambien during every scene. The doe eyed amma looked like she stepped out of roller boogie or pretty little liars.

It had a great cast except for amma. not sure why people get so agitated when people express dislike of it. It was boring and nonsensical.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Which wouldn't prevent the detective from actually investigating.

Yet it does. The author shouldn't set a mystery in modern times if she's just going to gloss over technology and procedures that exist.

There are crime procedurals to be found if that’s your thing. Most viewers of this series probably aren’t looking for a longer series just to cover all of the minutiae of forensic investigation and analysis. It was shown that the detective who came in from Kansas City or wherever was inspecting the body in the morgue, poring over crime scene photos, dental and medical records, taking soil samples from tires, interviewing people, asking questions of experts, etc. The sheriff was shown resisting a lot of that, which was kind of a theme to the story. There was actual investigating going on, but little of it was coming from residents of Wind Gap.

I don't necessarily like procedurals. I like complex characters and plots. This was just an extremely laid out story with massive plot holes and using weird titillating sex to get away with it. Chris Messina's character did nothing but drink in bars and try to sleep with Amy Adams who when isn't dressed up looks kind of dumpy. She seemed like she was on ambien during every scene. The doe eyed amma looked like she stepped out of roller boogie or pretty little liars.

It had a great cast except for amma. not sure why people get so agitated when people express dislike of it. It was boring and nonsensical.

I found some of the characters of Sharp Objects to be pretty complex and disagree that it was nonsensical. I definitely felt Messina’s character’s frustration at methodically investigating the crimes only to be stymied by the sheriff and others. There was a lot more there than bars and sex.

I haven’t really seen agitation in this thread. Just robust discussion.

[Anonymous]

I bet the people who think sharp objects is well done also think love actually is a good movie.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I bet the people who think sharp objects is well done also think love actually is a good movie.

No need for insults.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I bet the people who think sharp objects is well done also think love actually is a good movie.

Why on earth do you waste your time on a thread about a show that you didn’t like??