I watched it all, but it’s a testament to its quality that I don’t actually remember what happened at the end. It was an interesting premise without an interesting story.
It was probably made to look worse because the first The Terror was a difficult act to follow.
I did. It was OK. Not as good as Season One, and made worse by the fact that at the end it veered away from pure horror/suspense and delved into this mish-mash of Japanese mythology, Santeria, astral-plane projection and other stuff all in the name of jumping through hoops to arrive at a sort of happy ending. The show was well filmed, acted and produced, but it just felt like it was trying to do too many things at once, unlike the first Terror where it felt far more focused.
well, the first Terror was based on an excellent book.
AMC did… did a second season of Terror?
But, like, um…
ಠ_ಠ
Anthology series gonna anthology?
But… but the Terror was like, about a giant Inuit demon and ripping out tongues… one book… anthology?
Doesn’t AMC already have American Horror Story for their anthology?
It never was one. It was a one shot based on a novel that decided to sequel. I decided not to watch.
Had it at least been the same showrunner (or even composer…), I would have given the second season the benefit of the doubt, but really there was no connection beyond the title.
Season Three will be about a morally bankrupt New York City real estate mogul who rises to fame as a reality TV personality and gets political aspirations, becoming President of the United States on a terrifying Election Night that grows into a four year nightmare for 70% of the country’s population.
Too soon?
Too far fetched. Inuit demons are more likely.