Killing Star Mireille Enos Defends Controversial Finale: 'It Was Really Smart Storytelling'

Not everyone’s grumbling about the lack of closure in the season finale of The Killing. Leading lady Mireille Enos (Sarah) brushed off the backlash to Sunday’s Season 1 send-off, which concluded without Rosie Larsen’s real killer being identified.

“I thought it was awesome,” Enos told TVLine at Monday’s inaugural Critics Choice Awards, where she was a nominee for Outstanding Lead Actress in a Drama. “I know there’s lots of controversy about it, but I think a cliffhanger is really smart storytelling. It means audiences will come back [for Season 2].

Killing Spoiler Alert: Exclusive Season 2 Clues!

“I think there was too much story to wrap up,” she added. “To solve [the murder] in one episode, it would have felt rushed. If there’s anything that’s been true about this season, [it’s that] we’ve taken our time. That continued to be true through the finale. I think the payoff next season is going to be really worth it.”

Enos’ Killing co-star Michelle Forbes, a supporting actress nominee at Monday’s Critics Choice Awards, was more sympathetic to viewers’ frustration level. “I think we have very savvy audiences,” she conceded. “They know their TV well. If you’re going to make a risky move, you have to on some level accept criticisms that are out there.”

Is There An Emmy In Mireille Enos’ Future?

And what if viewers choose to retaliate next season with their remotes? “Television is a democracy,” she shrugged. “You can watch if you want. If it’s appealing to you, you can watch it. And if it’s not, you don’t have to.”

Meanwhile, the woman at the center of the firestorm, showrunner Veena Sud, maintains that she never promised the whodunit would be wrapped up in Season 1. “We asked the question, ‘Who killed Rosie Larsen?’ But we never said, ‘Tune in and by the end of 13 episodes you’ll find out who did it.'”

However, Sud is making such a promise about Season 2. “I want to assure [the fans],” she says, “that they will find out who killed Rosie Larsen in Season 2.” (Reporting by Vlada Gelman)

Comments are monitored, so don’t go off topic, don’t frakkin’ curse and don’t bore us with how much your coworker’s sister-in-law makes per hour. Talk smart about TV!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

  1. Mitchell says:

    I will be voting with my remote and not watching… I think that Ms. Sud knew she had a problem, thus all the interviews giving her rationalization of what she did ready to go live once the episode aired… The lady doth protest too much, methinks

    • John says:

      I also hate how Sud has spun the situation to be about people complaining about lack of resolution. Here’s the thing – if the series meat had been there, we’d gotten swept up in the characters, relationships, the dramatic payoffs NOT related to the case, if the things that happened along the paths to all the red herrings actually carried weight throughout the rest of the investigation, if we had grown to like the whole cast the way we grew to like Holder (until they betrayed that), then guess what? The cliffhanger would have been really cool.

      • WestCoastRam says:

        These are my exact criticisms of the show. The cliffhanger had nothing to do with my disappointment.

    • Alan Hahn says:

      I was really bummed out at the ending….but, when a minute or so after it ended they announced season 2 I was jumping for joy. I get to watch another season of the best drama series my wife and I agree is the best we’ve ever seen on TV in 40 years of watching.

    • DL says:

      I agree with you completely, Mitchell. And perhaps my biggest gripe was the way she rationalized the Holder “twist.” In her interview with TVLine, she first admitted that it was intentionally a bait-and-switch, and then went on to say that you can’t know someone in thirteen days. Sure, that’s true if you’re talking about real life, but this is TV! As we know, the actors didn’t get the final script in advance, so Joel Kinnaman never got to play any of Holder’s two-faced nature.
      Furthermore, where did this curveball fit in with his behavior in regards to Bennet Ahmed? If he was trying to arrest someone, anyone, then he would have tried to set him up the same way. If he was specifically going after the councilman, he would have tried to exonerate Ahmed. Neither of those things actually happened. It just doesn’t jibe.
      Seems like the twist came out of wanting to shock the audience rather than Holder’s character, and that just isn’t good writing.

      • ErixN says:

        I never fully believed that Holder was a good guy. I knew that he planted those photos because of the way it worked out. The guy was just slimy. That said, I was not pleased with the finale. She said that they had one episode to solve the case… that’s a lie. They had 13 episodes!

        • KevyB says:

          If they had wrapped it up with a final twist, then arrested that person at the end, then THAT would’ve felt cheap. The biggest problem with the show was that the first half was too slow and twist-free with lots of boring side stories (like her going to Sonoma, YAWN), while the second half picked up the pace and gave us a few good twists. I was fine with the finale because it just continued a formula the last few episodes had introduced. If the whole season had been like the first half, I would’ve been disappointed in the finale. But I am MORE interested in a good hour of television than in finding out who did it.

          It’s amazing how angry people are getting over this when it took longer than 13 episodes for Lost to even show us WHAT WAS IN THE FRIGGING HATCH! Isn’t a murder mystery more important than a hatch that had only a dude in it! A dude!!! Was that worth 20 hours of your time??? At least this show seems to have direction to it. It’s just going to take a few more hours to get there.

  2. SarahFW says:

    “To solve [the murder] in one episode, it would have felt rushed. If there’s anything that’s been true about this season, [it’s that] we’ve taken our time.”

    You had 10+ episodes to solve the murder, thank you. And if there’s anything that’s been true about this season, is that there certainly wasn’t a rush……when at times, that would have been a nice change of pace. Frankly, while it had moments of greatness, I was only hanging on until the end of the season to find out who the killer was. Great gimmick, The Killing staff, pulling it out until next season, but I won’t be watching. I will just wait for someone to post the murderer on Twitter.

    • Regina says:

      I concur, Sarah. It’s exactly what I thought when I read that quote — they had morn than an hour. Plus, I was already planning on coming back for Season 2 and I didn’t need a cliffhanger to make me do so. (Even with the shoddy police work and uneven pacing.) However, because of the non-resolution, they essentially ensured I would *not* be coming back. They could have used that “needed” cliffhanger to set up another storyline without having to resort to holding back the killer’s identity from the audience.

    • Anna says:

      That is absolutely your choice. I for one will be watching next season, and probably every season after that should the show remain on the air.
      I am not going to use the common argument that people who did not like the end or the bulk of the show are unintelligent because, obviously, its biased, rude, and probably untrue in most cases.
      I will however say that The Killing is something unique. Its different that what is already out there. Its also based on a formula that appealed to non-American viewers. That is not a judgment call on American Vs. European sensibilities, it is just a note that cultures and expectations are clearly different in the US than they are in the UK and Denmark when it comes to TV programing.
      On top of that I don’t think Veena Sud puts the viewers first and foremost in her plan for The Killing. While some shows are all about the fans, Bones, Castle, Fringe, etc. The Killing isn’t. Its a story first, a popular TV show second. Veena Sud, like many writers probably thinks of her work as art. Some agree, some don’t. Art is subjective that way. For most artists though, art is not about the consumer but they story they want to tell. Fan concerns, outrage, etc are not going to come first to Veena Sud, her craft is.

      • SarahFW says:

        The European series solved the murder by the end of the first season, so I don’t get that part of your argument. I just wasn’t that invested in most of the characters. The only likeable guy turns out to be a turncoat. And Veena Sud might have sealed her own fate by ignoring the audience she’s writing for: I wouldn’t be surprised if she is fired before next season.

        • Yasin says:

          I think we all need to have a little faith.

          Also Sarah, if you want to argue, please get your facts straight. Yes they did solve the mystery in the first season- but the first season was 20 episodes, not 13.

  3. Abby says:

    It doesn’t mean viewers will return next season. They already wasted viewers’ time with their incredibly pointless mid-season. Now they think we’ll turn up next year for more chain yanking? Um, no. I wont be there. Fool me once, and so on. I won’t be fooled again. It’s like they knew people were only hanging around to find out who killed Rosie and decided to force disenchanted viewers to show up for season two. No, thank you.

    • NickC says:

      No one ever promised you anything.People like yourself kill anything unique on tv.

      • AQS says:

        AMEN to this – ‘The Killing’ made no promises to the audience, no viewer should ever act entitled. Cheers to Sud for telling the story she wanted instead of conforming to expectations. I welcomed the twist, found it to be an incredibly strong end to a somewhat uneven season (with moments of intense brilliance), and am more than excited for the return of this bold show. I’ll also be rooting for Enos come Emmy night.

      • Stehpo says:

        This is one of the best arguments for this season ending i think. Great said, NickC. :)

      • filmex says:

        No, what we have seen kill unique TV are shows such as ‘Heroes” and “Flashforward” that become such shaggy dog, kick the can down the road exercises that audience enthusiasm wanes when the shows go on hiatus.

        And neither of those shows had the extended break of “The Killing’s” Spring 2012 return.

        HBO’s “Game of Thrones” is a much longer tale than this one, ended with a myriad of cliffhangers, yet no one felt cheated Sunday night. Most can’t wait for next year.

        If the inventive “Inception” can tell it’s tale in two and a half hours, don’t tell me we’re killing off unique TV because “The Killing” can’t tell a simple murder mystery in 13 hours.
        If they had wrapped this mystery, viewers would have returned in droves to see what mystery they tackle next year. Now they will have lost half their audience.

        “Justified” is a unique show, truly deserving of the Peabody Award it won this year, and it did it telling two tales over two 13-episode seasons. Don’t act like “The Killing” is super special, and the audience is just too dumb to recognize it.

        “The Killing” won’t be winning any Peabody Awards.

      • Abby says:

        The tagline had an implicit promise. I wouldn’t be as bothered if the show didn’t gave such a horrible mid-season. They wasted so much time with hogwash. AMC renewed this show, even though it got worse week by week, yet forced the Rubicon staff to “set up” a second season that ruined the season ending and then didn’t renew it? THAT was an excellent, unique show that told its story slowly. But it renews this show even though it had turned into a bad show just so Veena Sud could jerk around the audience. If you’re going to be unique, you should be good. The Killing was no longer good before this ludicrous ending. There ended up being Zero characters that were likable, except the Larsen boys. It seemed the writers took turns writing, making up plot twists as they went along. What a waste of my time.

        • Anne says:

          The Killing has nothing to do with Rubicon. Stop taking out your despair for the loss of one show on another show. They aren’t related.

          • Abby says:

            I’m comparing foolish decisions made by AMC. The executives allowed terrible season finales for both series. And they renewed the series with the most unlikable characters. Holder is dirty. He seems to be a better detective than Linden gave him credit for, but who really knows? Linden is a terrible detective and a terrible mother. Could she have at least been good at one of them?

      • Beth says:

        I agree with NickC. Why are there so many ADD viewers nowadays. They preponderance of ‘reality’ dreck just proves this point. Let the story unfold the way it’s meant to. No need to rush.

        • filmex says:

          The implied insult that anyone who doesn’t think a simple murder mystery takes more than 13 hours to tell has ADD, or doesn’t appreciate ambiguity, or all the rest is absurd.

          This just in, lethargy doesn’t equate with quality. If Shakespeare could tell some of the most complex, labyrinthine tales in history in three hours, there’s no reason “The Killing” could not do it in 13.

          Criminy, Lars Von Trier did both seasons of the far superior “The Kingdom I & II” for Danish television in less than ten hours.

          Those of us who loved the show, and hoped they’d tackle a mystery a season for the next five years are the ones most upset. That’s because not only were the producers willing to see the show not picked up (it was only renewed last week) without providing an ending, they have just lost a sizable portion of the audience who, come Spring 2012, will no longer care who killed Rosie, thus insuring the show’s demise next year, without having resolved the truncated season two mystery.

          Believing as much does not makes us ADD-addled.

      • K says:

        Orpheus Descending was going to be the last episode whether or not they got a Season Two. So if it hadn’t been renewed, you would have gotten that ridiculous unearned “twist”. That shows a deep lack of respect and care for not only the audience but for storytelling.

      • Heather says:

        There is way too much of this “you obviously can’t appreciate good TV” rhetoric coming from people who enjoyed the ending. That’s fine that you did. That’s cool. But people who didn’t have a reason not to like it. The fact that they stuck through the season means they can appreciate unique television. Viewers just got so frustrated by what they perceived as a slow moving show with mostly bad characterization and maybe not real sense of direction, only to have the finale end with no answers and a promise of the same problems next year. Oh, and many people’s favorite character may be corrupt.

        As far as the case goes, if Richmond isn’t guilty, then we literally got nowhere — all season. The entire season could have been condensed into two episodes and likely would have had the same amount of development.

        • Beth says:

          But Heather, why do people stick with a show that in your words — “they perceived as a slow moving show with mostly bad characterization and maybe not real sense of direction, only to have the finale end with no answers and a promise of the same problems next year. Oh, and many people’s favorite character may be corrupt.”

          Why would you watch that if that’s how you felt about it? I will never understand why people would waste 13 hours on a show that you describe above. Do you have so little else to do but watch shows you hate?

          • AnnaN says:

            The reason we put in the hours watching this after realizing after Ep. 7 that the sloppy writing and crappy characterizations were status quo and that only three good episodes actually existed is exhibited in this convo with my husband:

            “Do we really want to watch this?”
            “It’s DVR, we can skip the commercials.”
            “So it’s only 40 minutes of our time and we might as well find out who did the murder as long as we wasted this much time on it already.”
            “Okies, but I want a foot rub.”

            40 minutes later…

            “Hah! Did they just lose us as viewers?”
            “Looks like.”

            aaaand, SCENE.

            So there you have it.

      • side3 says:

        Amen NickC! I was a little ticked when there was no resolution…then I thought about…and was talking to people at work about it (which is kind of the point, right?)…who was in the car with Holder? Does the councilman die? Who really killed Rosie?! So many questions…I can’t wait to get some answers. I will be back. I loved that not all of the answers wer apparent from episode 2 on.

      • Thom says:

        Brilliantly said. BRAVO!!!!

      • Carrie says:

        Yes, enough with bashing the finale. Apparently, there’s a lot more to Rosie’s murder than we thought and it couldn’t be wrapped up in 13 episodes, which is understandable. It would be different if the show had the normal 22-episode season, or if that was the series finale, but it wasn’t. There have only been 13 episodes. Give the show a break and get over it already. It’s only TV.

  4. jasin says:

    I actually loved the cliffhanger. Though I was thinking all along that this story would wrap up at the end of 13 eps. The last five minutes were incredibly intense.

  5. NickC says:

    I have never seen a show with such a divided fan base….not since LOST…I Loved how it ended.Im sick of this need it no world we live in…I love a good story that when they give you an answer it just opens up more questions…but i guess most peop today are so impatient.If you don’t like smart story telling go watch something else.

    • Ashley says:

      The Bones fandom has a HUGE divide in it almost to the point where its better to stay out of it and watch alone. The loud mouth complainers ruin any happy moment that the show gets. Good luck to The Killing fandom!

    • Liza180 says:

      I agree!!!

  6. bmo says:

    2 seasons to wrap up one murder is a bit gimmicky. It’s a good show but it would be nice to move on to another case. I would feel better if the season was shorter like a mini series/european series. the show is great but literally drags on. That’s annoying for any tv show.

  7. BRETT says:

    I’m shocked that everyone expects this to have been solved. Like she said, they NEVER promised. I for one am happy that this show was the polar opposite of stuff like CSI – where they solve two cases in an hour, over two days. This is realistic storytelling. In real life, murders aren’t usually solved within 24 hours. I felt like every week I was tuning in to watch a movie, and I haven’t felt that way in a while watching TV. I am a huge fan of this show and can’t wait to see who really killed Rosie (Gwen?) and what the new case will be in season 2.

  8. Jackie says:

    I actually really loved the way this show wrapped up. It didn’t follow the regular police procedural where everything gets wrapped up nicely at the end, and it was so refreshing. I hope that when the show returns we don’t spend yet another season wondering who the killer is. We’ve hung on for one season and are willing to go into season two, please don’t make the reveal disappointing or dragged out.

  9. bamalam says:

    I knew going in that the murder would not be solved in the season finale, with all the articles after the show was picked up for season 2 debating which cast members would be back and giving little hints such as “the aunt will be returning for season 2”, so it was really awesome to see the twist that they came up with. I mean, why would the aunt and some of Rosie’s family be returning in the next season if the murder were solved?

    The original Danish series had 20 episodes per season to solve each case, and people keep comparing this show to it, saying how superior it is to this version, so why wouldn’t it take just as long to solve this case too, and be just as acceptable? Isn’t this how cable television works? They don’t get as many episodes for a season as network shows do, and because of it, I think expectations have to be adjusted. I have no doubt that the writers and producers of The Killing know what they are doing and will look forward to when it comes back finding out who the killer is and anticipating the new case the detectives get to work on.

    I honestly don’t remember ever being promised that the case would be solved by the time the season ended, and even if we were, is that really Veena Sud’s fault? I don’t think she would be the one who is in charge of advertising the show. Wouldn’t that be AMC’s doing? If anyone is going to be angry at anyone, I think it should be AMC for getting everyone’s hopes up. I would like to know the reaction of viewers if the show wasn’t marketed only as “Who Killed Rosie Larsen?”

    • elr says:

      I too went into the season finale knowing that they would probably not reveal the killer and I was fine with that. There was still too much up in the air for the murder to get wrapped up. And believe me I will be there for season 2, nine long months from now.

  10. Bobbi says:

    I also loved the finale and will most definitely be back for Season Two!

  11. Holly says:


    Point One. No, Veena Sud never said the specific words “You will find out the killer at the end of episode 13.” But that was implied by every single promotional medium, as well as by all of the interviews of the cast, Sud and other producers. So, let’s be real here people, it’s letter of the law versus spirit of the law. Stand behind your choice and make it clear that you believe you did the right thing, but admit you jerked around the audience in the process. (And obviously, some people will be okay with it. But others won’t. So don’t pretend that’s not what happened.)

    Point Two. This whole thing about needing to be so different from police procedurals is just stupid. A police procedural is an hour long episode that follows this formula: Victim discovered. Investigation. Suspect Identified. A 13 episode arc of a murder mystery is inherently different from a police procedural. The comparisons to CSI are just silly. This is so different from that type of show that I don’t understand the obsessive need to proclaim that difference.

    Point Three. Veena Sud… meet Rob Thomas. The Killing… meet Veronica Mars. See? You can do this type of story without pulling out a last minute middle finger to your audience and still have it be quality, innovative television.

    Point Four. This murder mystery seems like it was written by a ten year old. The plot holes are absurd. I’m not going to hijack the comments by pointing out each and every one, but to start with: how about the fact that the SuperAwesomeOMG!11! detectives didn’t bother to check the mileage on the car the body was found in until Day 13 of the investigation. As someone said on Twitter, the only thing Linden does worse than getting on a plane is detecting.

    • D. Marie says:

      This is what I was thinking and feeling, but couldn’t put into words because I was so disgusted.

      Not only was it implied we would find the killer at the end, but wasn’t it solved in one season in the Danish version? Countless times, there was so much dead air between subplots, I wondered why the creators/writers didn’t use that wasted space to get to the point. I’m saying this and I was a fan of LOST. A Bermuda Triangled-island/dogma, this ain’t. And, oh, the unanswered questions. Not just the whodunit.

    • kim says:

      This post hit the nail on the head. I loved the show and the characters and if there had not been promotional material that said the they would solve the mystery of Rosie Larson’s killing, I would not have expected it. I will watch next season but I hope lessons are learned. Not sure who was at fault, AMC or show producers.

    • Virginia says:

      Woohoo, Holly! Perfectly said! Veronica Mars did the telling of a murder mystery as close to perfect on tv as I’ve ever seen. I was a little shocked with who killed Lily but the reasons why all made sense. We were also definitely given clues throughout the season that all pointed to the killer and it worked.

      I started to get turned off by the killing because of the shoddy police work portrayed. I was expecting it to be smarter. A 17 year old girl in 2011 lives on her phone and it took until the 8th or 9th day after her murder for them to check her phone records? This idea only came after they found Belko in the house and he told them Rosie was on the phone the night she died. That was just wrong.

  12. Dwigt says:

    It’s true that in real life murders are not necessarily solved in 13 days. But there’s definitely a pace problem in the show: there was a lot of completely useless and filler material, scenes between Mitch and Stan were repeated and repeated until they became pointless, and then the cliffhanger due to ANOTHER red herring. If you feel that an investigation on a complex case takes more time than 13 days, I don’t know, just put two days in one episode.
    And then, there’s the doctored photograph. Such a piece of evidence couldn’t be accepted in an investigation. Holder just comes with a piece of paper without any attestation or trace of origin and on the base of such a sheet of paper they arrest the leading candidate for the election. And the guy who handed the forged document did make a real request to the highway patrol and then the highway patrol informs Linden that Richmond couldn’t be photographed because the camera has been broken for three months.
    If you want to frame a very important man, don’t do it in a way that any attorney could discover within hours of checking, especially as there would be a huge backlash against the mayor or whoever forged the evidence…

    • filmex says:

      I guess we should be grateful that the producers didn’t decide to go the “24” route and tell the story in real time. This mystery could drag on for a decade.

      I wonder if at the end Holder wasn’t in the car of the billionaire campaign contributor. He made his money in IT/software, didn’t he, and we’ve already seen that he is a sick twist…even inviting the campaign manager to swim with the Beau Soleil girls in his glass-bottom pool.

      He could easily have set up a forwarding so that any mail addressed to his Orpheus account be forwarded to the councilman, and he certainly has the money for payoffs for fabricated evidence, which that last scene inferred.

  13. Rocky says:

    Anything with the name Veena Sud attached to it is forever on my black list. I don’t support hack writing and manipulation. I can go to MTV if I want schlock TV. I expect more from AMC.

    • Beth says:

      So it took you 13 episodes to decide this was “hack writing and manipulation”? Why would you stick with it that long if that’s what you really thought?

  14. Jay says:

    The problem wasn’t the ending at all. It’s the fact that the entire story isn’t compelling enough to warrant a second season of it. If the case and characters involved in that case were more interesting I’d have no problem with it continuing into the next season.

  15. mdb says:

    For me Mireille Enos logic is flawed as I will not be back, it was not good story telling there was too much focus on meaningless detail and pointless subplots, i am all for slow development of a story but there were too many episodes with no development at all

  16. Kate says:

    I’ll come back and watch it. I didn’t buy that Councilman Richmond was the killer to begin with. I thought it had a good finale. From the interview it doesn’t sound like they are going to take the entire season two to finish the Rosie Larson murder. But rather wrap it up and start a new murder.

  17. Valerie says:

    Count me out for a season 2. With all due respect to Ms Enos, I can find out how Rosie’s killer is on the internet, and I won’t have to sit through anymore hours of pointless, glacially paced filler to do so. A show like this needs a payoff at the end, because sitting through each individual snoozefest episode felt like an act of good faith because we knew it was all worth it in the end. Only, it wasn’t. Because the finale not only had no pay off, it wasn’t even particularly well written or acted.

    • Beth says:

      Why would you sit through 13 episodes if you thought each individual episode was a snoozefest? I don’t get that. You don’t have anything else to do on a Sunday night, but to sit through a snoozefest?

      • LovesAGoodMystery says:

        I’ve noticed that you ask everyone who criticizes the show why they watch it. It’s because it is a mystery! We all were still watching because it’s a short season and we just wanted to find out who the killer was!

        • Beth says:

          I only ask the ones who say that EVERY EPISODE is bad. All shows have their ups and downs, this one included, but why watch if you think it’s all bad? Your username here is ‘LovesAGoodMystery’. Well, I do too, but I don’t watch the bad mysteries just to find out who the killer was!

          • ewing says:

            I can only speak for myself. To me, first three episodes were good. First one was great. Then for few episodes I tried hard to like it, in denial about the fact that they completely screwed up great premise that for me, could go two ways – great whodunit with smart twists or better yet character/society study a-la The Wire. ideally, both. I heard great things about original so I wanted to believe. When the writing got stupid and pointless beyond words, I got in far enough wanting to know the killer at least and hoping that finale will be maybe interesting at least. Instead, it proved that detectives were completely incompetent morons. I actually like finale twist somewhat… but it is more of a comedy now to me. Bring on world-wide conspiracy! Let Linden have passionate affair with old mayor. Let Jack’s father turn out to be Saddam’s long lost song, hell bent on world domination! Let the show go on for ten years, and never tell us the real killer! If you can’t be sublime, go for ridiculous.

    • Corinne says:

      I too will be finding out the killer via the internet. At least Mireille Enos admitted it was a ploy to bring back viewers, but wrong in saying it was smart story telling.

  18. VBarkley says:

    “Television is a democracy,” she shrugged. “You can watch if you want. If it’s appealing to you, you can watch it. And if it’s not, you don’t have to.” Yeah, but if people vote against you, you don’t get ratings, you don’t get renewed, and you’re out of a job, Ms. Enos.

    Sounds like Ms. Sud has an ego as well.

  19. filmex says:

    For all those that voted “Yes, relax people — it’s not like it was a series finale”, keep in mind that the renewal did not come till last week, so the producers thought so little of their viewers that they were willing to leave them hanging for all eternity, come hell or high water.

    Having learned nothing (apparently) from the hiatus-killing experiences of both “Heroes” and “Flashforward”, they are now asking viewers to tune into the show next year when this story will conclude, and another one will begin, one in which they’ll have even less time to tell the tale.

    And with the viewers they will have lost this season, and without replacement viewers who will not want to board the horse midstream, you can bet next season will be the series last, and the conclusion of the next mystery will never be seen. Which apparently will cause the producers no lost sleep at all.

    • Jim says:

      The renewal was announced last week, but the producers likely knew before the show was completed.

      • filmex says:

        Verna Sud stated in an interview this past weekend that they had no idea they would be getting renewed before getting the notice last week. Since the series had lost viewers over the course of the season, there was no reason to believe it was in the bag.

    • Holly says:

      You know, I hadn’t really considered that before, but you’re totally right. Not only did they anger a lot of existing viewers, they made it impossible for new watchers to join in the second season. And that’s really dumb, because the advantage of a show like this IS that if you started a new mystery each season, it would be easy to pick up new viewers. Now not only have they lost an enormous chunk of existing viewers, they’ve made it harder to join in for the first time on season 2 than it would be with many other shows, when it should have been so much EASIER.

  20. CB says:

    What bugs me about all of these people from the show commenting on the reaction is that none of them seem to realize how poorly received the second half of the season was. This wasn’t a just a sudden “oh, this show sucks!” because of cliffhanger ending, this was a gradual backlash to the show that begin halfway through the season when it became clear the show was not going to live up to the promise of the first few episodes. The finale was just the final straw – the dumbest episode yet, full of cheap character twists and massive plot holes – and it was only made worse by the lack of an ending, which means that ALL of these stupid elements that have ruined the second half of the season are going to be returning next year.

    We didn’t want closure because we needed to know who the killer was. We wanted closure so they could address the show’s problems and start all over again next season. Now, unless they just wrap up everything in the first 3 minutes of the next episode, that can’t happen.

    • filmex says:

      2.7 million people watched the premiere.

      2.3 million tuned in for the “cliffhanger”.

      1.5 million will probably be back next year.

      HBO’s “Game of Thrones” premiered with 2.2 million viewers (most forking out an average of $15-20 a month).

      3.04 million tuned in for the season finale of “Game of Thrones”.

      That’s the way you want the numbers to go.

    • Patty says:

      Such BS. Bad characterization? It’s by far one of the best shows from that point of view. I don’t care about the whining, the unbelievable arguments ppl use to support their frustration, i do care the propaganda build in such concept.
      Ppl nowadays want everything like they’re fast food, as immediate as possible, ther’s no patience, they rather build another storming audience for NCISs and such, then to give a break to real shows.
      There’s actually no place for good tv, only reality shows and poor soap operas.
      I’ll be thanking you ppl in advance for the most probable early cancelation of “The Killing” next season.

  21. I don’t get all the whining people have done about the murder not being solved in season one. So what? It’s an engaging story full of interesting characters. I love the pacing, the intrigue, the guessing, the surprises, the dead-ends, the twists and turns and how all the characters are woven through each other’s lives. I will absolutely be back for the second season!

  22. Ray says:

    It’s not just the ending its that the whole show sucked after the first 2 or 3 episodes and I only hung with it to see who the killer was. Now I dont care who the killer actually was. I wont be watching season 2. Veena is a total hack. I will never watch anything with her name attached to it again.

  23. Renae Ravey says:

    The internet has destroyed the way we watch TV– we need answers and we need them now. People won’t let stories unfold anymore. It’s a shame really. I’ll be back for Season 2 because I’m willing to accept what is revealed and when. I’m not on a timetable.

  24. Rob says:

    I don’t think the problem was the lack of closure, but the lack of intelligence. There were tons of inconsistencies and things that just didn’t make sense.

  25. Joe Jackson says:

    Just incredible stupid ending, The show barely had enough ratings to get renewed. It will now pick up ZERO new viewers because they will be stuck in the middle of an on going story line. The show will also lost a fair about of viewers for 2 reasons: 1st all show lose viewers (unless they are NCIS), 2nd the show pissed off a bunch of fans that will not return. And in the pre season media releases when asked when the killer would be known they always just said that the Killing is based off of Forbrydelsen and would follow that model. Guess what happened in the season finale of Forbrydelsen, we found out who the killer was. You can not tell me this was the plan from the beginning, if it was Michelle Forbes would have been hired for two seasons not one. They were playing it by the seat if their pants and got burned

  26. Nicole says:

    I was upset at first then realized it wad great. Each episode was one day, so to solve the murder in 13 days is a little farfetched. I’ll be watching season 2 for sure!!!

    • Anon says:

      Totally. Oh, wait, no… the opposite of “totally”. Most murders are solved in the first 48 hours, if they are going to be solved. And even in high profile cases that take months, the cops usually know who they want to arrest quickly. It’s finding the evidence to do so that might take additional time.

      • Kyle says:

        Im not a real big fan of this show, long before the twist came. But I totally understand and respect the outcome of the 1st season.
        “Most murders are solved in the first 48 hours.” Youre kidding right? In some cases, it actually takes years, maybe decades for a murder to be solved. Does JonBenet Ramsey ring a bell?

  27. GaryfromCinci says:

    By the middle of the season I was ready to give up.. the only reason I kept watching was to find out who killed her. I personally feel that the writing did nothing to make you emotionally involved in Rosie or who she was as a person. The show and acting are way overhyped. Id much rather watch a Dateline NBC version of who killed Rosie Larson anyday. I think I will just read TVLine.com recaps next season to find out the ending.

  28. Luc says:

    This new trend in TV drama of pissing off fanbases and polarizing the audience is very strange. In these difficult socio-economic times, people traditionally turn to TV as a way to escape the frustration and fury of real life, yet these creative teams seek to exacerbate rather than offer some relief. TV has historically had their finger on the pulse of what is needed for that escape and draws the viewers in to addition proportions. Lately, they seem to be more interested in shocking and frustrating the audience, and of course mocking fans for their interst. If this continues to be the trend, people will look to other areas for relaxation, enjoyment and escape. Too bad…

  29. Deneph says:

    I thought it was a great ending. Not only is the murder not solved but it just got a lot more interesting. I can’t wait for season 2!

  30. Kaitlin says:

    I really didn’t mind not wrapping up the Rosie Larsen murder storyline. I mean, sure, everyone thought we would, but that’s only because that’s what past television history has taught us is the right way. It’s not. Veena Sud can do what she wants. And it should also be pointed out the Danish version had a 20-episode first season, we only had 13. So I’m really not that upset that we don’t know who the killer is yet. I AM MORE CONCERNED ABOUT HOLDER BEING A VILLAIN. He can’t be corrupt, right? RIGHT?

  31. George says:

    People would love the Cliffhanger if the 12 episode before had been lot more than drivel. Unless Veena Sud can seriously bolster and make season 1 make more sense with season 2. This show and AMC legacy will forever be tarnished.This show continued to exploit the critical praise even after many critics started point out this many minor flaws.

  32. Midori says:

    What if the show was canceled?

    People will not be coming back. I will not be waiting a year on a show that is full of unlikable characters no one watching cares about.

    • Dexx says:

      If it was cancelled then people would be angry about a lack of resolution just like there is with many other shows. It wasn’t cancelled though. What ifs don’t change what is. What “is” is that there is a season two and even if people are angry with season one they have the option to watch season 2, which is an option that doesn’t always exist with shows that end with cliffhangers.

  33. spikesgrl says:

    I wasted 13 hours of my life on this boring, slow paced, rainy show only to be let down with no revelation as to the killer. I will not be back for any further seasons.

  34. toolravin says:

    Any way we can swap out the renewal of this show for a second season of Rubicon? All the people who defend The Killing for bringing a breath of fresh air to tv should be ok with this, cause Rubicon was like no other show around, had a much better pacing, more intriguing characters, and was able to answer questions while making more at the same time.

  35. Yo Mama says:

    When you watch tv, you have to allow for some artistic license. I am a real-life a lawyer and yet my life looks nothing like any of the lawyer shows on tv. You know why? Real life lawyering is boring. For someone to take the life of a lawyer and make it interesting enough for someone else to watch on tv, they have to change some of the rules that we all have to play by in real life. I imagine the same thing goes for police procedurals. Would a real-life murder investigation unfold the way this one has? Probably not. It probably wouldn’t have been interesting enough to warrant a scripted television show either. People have gotten way too hung up on things like whether email servers still make that “ping” noise when you get an email. Who cares? It’s television. Enjoy the ride. I was similarly frustrated for half of a second when it was revealed that the case was not going to be solved. But it surprised me. Very few television shows do these days. I will tune in to season 2 for that very reason.

  36. Karen says:

    I loved almost everything about this season. Joel Kinnaman and Mirielle Enos have become my favorite breakout stars of the year; the mood and pace both worked for me in the context of the story; I didn’t mind that the murder wasn’t resolved. What bothered me most about the finale was the twist with Holder, but I’ll hold full judgment until I see which direction they take it in next season. So, yeah, I will definitely and happily tune in for S2, but I also still agree that Veena Sud needs to dial down the attitude and the ego.

  37. Coop says:

    The problem with the finale was that some of the scenes were highly unbelievable and poorly written. The worst, IMO, was the meeting between Stan and Bennet’s wife at the hospital. That was absolutely terrible. And then to leave your viewers with more questions and NO answers than what they had at the end of the series premiere? You can’t expect a huge number of the viewers, many of whom were holding on JUST to see the reveal, to react favorably to the finale. Will I watch next season to see how the case turns out?

    As other have said, the season started going downhill after the first few episodes. The pacing and writing made watching the show much more difficult. The only good thing I can say about the entire season is that the acting by the likes of Kinnaman, Sexton, and Enos was very strong.

    Some of the comparisons being made to the likes of Lost, Twin Peaks, etc. are highly insulting to those shows too. Please make it stop!

  38. Dayle says:

    The thing that most people seem to be missing is what if the show had not be renewed! I would have WASTED 13 hours (minus commercials) to never know who killed Rosie. I’m tired of some TV writers & producers treating the fans like dirt so that they can create their “vision”. It seems as though some people get on band wagons just ’cause something is different not good just different.

    • eye says:

      I don’t think that people are missing anything rather they have the common sense to understand that even though is absolutely sucks when shows are not renewed and lack resolution, it is always a risk and that they willingly took that risk.

      A lot of shows don’t get renwewed and people say that they wasted their time. People get annoyed, mad, or whatever but life goes on for them. It also goes on if we don’t get a conclusion and it goes on if we don’t like the conclusions that we get.

      Also, you are right that some people get on band wagons cause its different, however that doesn’t mean that to them it isn’t good. One persons definition or good or great is someone else’s definition of crap. None of us, including you can define that.

  39. Jason says:

    Love the show. Great adaptation of the Danish original. I’m closing in on the last few eps of the original and it’s crazy good. Looking forward to AMC’s version next season.

  40. Thom says:

    I can’t agree more with her.

  41. Thom says:

    @NickC Brilliantly said. Bravo! was for this statement:

    “No one ever promised you anything.People like yourself kill anything unique on tv”

  42. Ray says:

    I watched this show from the first episode on. The only great episode was the first, which got most of us hooked. The later in the season, the farther down my dvr the show went. Breakout Kings, In Plain Sight, and then Falling Skies came first.I hate 4 things about this whole thing.First, it was the slow pacing that by the end of the season I felt like I was in a bad relationship. Only sticking around for time invested. Second is AMC, in the promos they falsely led you to believe that a resolution would happen by the last episode. Third is myself, I stayed only to see who the killer was because it was hard to care about the living characters. Fourth, and most important, it will be over a year waiting for a conclusion. If you wanted people to come back, solve one case and start the next. You can say people are talking, but to me it sounds like complaining.

  43. Josh says:

    Those saying that people complaining about the ending are ruining the ability to be unique on TV are completely missing the point. I for one actually liked the cliffhanger ending, but the point is The Killing has not been that great of a show. It started off strong with a lot of promise, but it has become quite laughable. People are upset because they only stuck with the show to find out who killed Rosie, since there really wasn’t any other reason to watch. The characters aren’t very interesting, the plotlines aren’t unique or surprising. The only real reason to keep watching is to hope for a great reveal in the end. I’m still hoping we get that next season, but I understand why people wouldn’t stick around to find out.

    Twin Peaks didn’t reveal who killed Laura Palmer in its first season because it didn’t need to. There were a million other reasons to watch Twin Peaks. Who killed Laura was the central mystery that propelled everything forward, but it the great characters, storylines, and surrealism were just as wonderful as the mystery. The Killing has nothing else to offer. Veena Sud is not a very good writer, and from reading her interviews she seems to be very arrogant and quite frankly dumb. She thinks she has developed this great, unique show but there really is nothing about The Killing that is great or unique. It’s quite a standard show, with some great moments, that has not lived up to its promise.

  44. Kit-Kat says:

    I loved it. Haters gonna hate, but I seriously don’t get the overreaction.

  45. Kaylee says:

    I understand some of the viewer’s frustrations – you were set up to believe that the case that we have been following for 13 episodes was going to be solved. Yet that being said, a killer named at the end of season 1 was NEVER promised and in fact I’m surprised that people are so angry. Annoyed yes, angry – really? If the show was so terrible, the writing so uneven and the character development so minimal – why stick around at all? Were you really sticking around just to see who they pinned the murder on at the end of the season? Those looking for a quick who done it should tune into a different show (there’s a handful of network procedurals – take your pick) and you can get your satisfaction that way. It’s silly to get angry just because this particular show isn’t doing what the rest have been doing for years. Obviously what this ending suggests is that this show is about more than just the superficial hook of “who killed Rosie”. Those who didn’t like the way this season played out – it’s not your cup of tea, not your thing. Cool, watch something else! The angry bashing of the show, Veena and the writers is unnecessary. The Killing has more to offer than just a simple reveal (which the audience will learn eventually, just not yet) and plenty of people will still tune into to see strong characters and a different kind of storytelling.

  46. MamaLarson3 says:

    Maybe the pacing and outcome of this show is what is meant when people use the phrase “It has a European sensibility” … ?

  47. Steph says:

    I, for one, loved the finale. Yes, I was yelling at my TV at the end, but it was in a good way. I love when TV shows can surprise me and leave me hanging until next season. Yes, the whole season felt really slow at times, and I was getting bored there for a few episodes, but I felt like the last few picked it back up. What I would’ve been disappointed with? The councilman really being the murderer, especially since everyone called that on day one when they found her in one of his cars. When they were saying it was him, THEN I was disappointed and angry. However, with the twist that he didn’t do it, and that Holder really is a bad guy like I’d suspected, I was happy again. I’m excited for Season 2. If this had been a series finale and we hadn’t found out – that’s another story.

  48. JeniLee says:

    How do Enos and Sud not realize that what is the most ridiculous about all this is that she planned NO ALTERNATE ENDING if they got cancelled and we would have never known who killed Rosie!?!?!?!?

  49. Matt says:

    The thing I have found to most strange and disappointing is that apparently, no journalists had a problem, or even followed up with this crazy statement that Veena made.
    No one followed up, no one jumped out of their chair and asked her that question–what do you mean you won’t solve it?
    Because if they had, it would have been reported widely. It wasn’t, by anyone. Why? Why did no one call her on that?

  50. Neil says:

    So Ms. Enos is just as arrogant as Veena Sud. I watched this series loyally for all 13 episodes. The assertion by these ego maniacs is that they never promised. Where have we heard that before? Every child in the world caught in a lie uses that line.
    It wouldn’t hurt me in the least if Ms. Enos got her hollywood elitist A** fired. She is a terrible actress and has brought nothing to the part. The only decent actors on the show are Findlay, Kinnaman and Sexton. Go back to Salt Lake City and leave the series to people who know how to act you T**t!!!