The scene at the end with Brad Garrett giving the presentation on why the organization should take over the Gerhardt business was amusing, in that it was treated as a business proposal (“the boys in research”) even though they were talking about an organized crime deal.
Maybe they injected him with all the fat they sucked out of Anna Gunn between BB and Gracepoint. 
Took me a bit to figure out that it was Ted Danson under the hat and facial fur. Kirsten Dunst was unrecognizable to me, as was Jean Smart. I picked out “Todd” right off. As a season opener, it was okay, although I didn’t like the music score. The split screen was mostly unnecessary. But the acting, directing, etc. was on the money, and it promises to be a good season once all these elements come together. I thought there some elements reminiscent of the movie “A Simple Plan”, which isn’t surprising, as that movie is reminiscent of “Fargo”.
Technically, he did it for a role he just finished, but Noah Hawley wanted him to keep the weight on for his Fargo role. Fargo Stars Talk Gaining Weight, Growing Beards and More - E! Online
I assumed it was to give him that Midwest, packed full of beer and cheese look.
I didn’t realize how much I missed this show until I watched the premier today. You betcha it’s good
I liked the split screen. I thought it was a great homage to TV of the late 60s and early 70s. I would think anyone who grew up watching tv then would get a kick out it! 
Think of the Mannix opening. I loved that show!
Okay then.
okay then
At the very end of the first episode the guy whose face we can’t see makes a noise. Or maybe he said a word. If so, what word was it?
“Approved,” or a synonym. He was the boss, and was agreeing to the proposal to take over the Gerhardt’s territory.
I have a question/comment about Season One. I don’t think it’s worth starting a new thread or dredging up a very old thread for this. But if people here feel strongly that it’s wrong to post this in this thread, I won’t object if a mod wants to movie and I will post in another thread from now on. I just expect it will take a few episodes before interest in S2 overcomes interest in S1. But I hope you all may have some fun with the following:
I think that I finally figured out the meaning of that riddle that one of the Feds told the other one. Do you remember it? It went like this: If someone has a Fox, a Rabbit and a Cabbage on one side of a river and wants to cross to the other side but can only take one of those things at a time, how do they do it? If they leave the fox and rabbit alone together, the fox will eat the rabbit. If they leave the rabbit and cabbage alone, the rabbit will eat the cabbage. (it suddenly occurs to me that it may have been a lettice and not a cabbage - but that is a small matter).
The answer to this riddle is not very difficult when it’s laid out and you can see it as above. It’s more difficult to come up with the answer “on the spot” and you can’t see the question in text. I’m not really interested in seeing the answer to this riddle. After all, it is presented in the show in the same episode. I’m more interested in asking: What is the relevance of this riddle to the story in Fargo? Why is it introduced into the story and how does it relate to the plot?
I’ve watched every episode of S1 several times and I think I’ll be watching every episode of S2 multiple times as well … because I think this show is one of the very best shows on the air. It took me many viewings to understand most of the small elements of this show. Dang! I’m not phrasing this as well as I’d like. I’m sure that it could be phrased a whole lot better.
But, I’m interested to know if anyone else thinks they know the reason for introducing this riddle into the show and just how it relates to the episode (I believe it was E9). I’ll wait a few days to see if anyone here has a good answer (which I’m pretty sure they will - at least people will likely come up with a reason or reasons that are better than mine. But I was real happy when I thought that I finally understood just what the significance was of this riddle.
After figuring it out, I’d like to try the other riddle - the one about the gloves. I know there is one sort of obvious answer. But it is too easy and I think there is like a deeper meaning behind that riddle.
As far as S2 goes so far, I think it was a real shame the Judge was killed. She would have likely been a magnificent character and I think people would have enjoyed her very much.
There are two kinds of people in the world. 1) Those who will take the time to logic out a solution, and then run back and forth, because to them it is inherently important that everybody makes it to the other side intact. and 2) Those who just see it as a bundle of atoms to be transported, and would let the rabbit eat the lettuce and then the fox eat the rabbit so they only had to make one trip. Or possibly eat the lettuce and the rabbit themselves, and make one trip with the fox.
What was the glove riddle?
The glove riddle was posed to Lester by Molly shortly after the police released Lester in the murder of his second wife. Molly told him a story about a man who had a pair of leather gloves and was on a train that was leaving a station. The train started moving when he saw one of his gloves lying outside, on the ground, in the station. He realized that he had dropped that glove and he then threw the other glove outside so it landed near the first glove. Remember?
The point was that in that way, whoever found the gloves - instead of just finding one glove, would find the pair and then the gloves might be put to good use instead of just becoming garbage.
Molly never asked Lester why this man would throw the glove out, but it seemed to me to be a riddle she posed to Lester so that he would think about the greater good. I think she wanted Lester to try and answer why the man would throw his other glove away. The simple answer is that he did that so that someone might get some use out of the gloves instead of them just going to waste.
But I think she wanted Lester to think about that so he would realize that some people think of the greater good and see the value in selflessness above selfishness.
However, if she believed that Lester had indeed murdered his first wife, she should have realized he was on the run for his life and would never come to believe in the greater good and confess to her. I think the train had left the station on that one. (so to speak).
I think it was an opportunity to show that Lester is always thinking and scheming. He’s despicable, but no idiot and always has a plan.
Having experienced (multiple times) being in that Sheriff’s shoes confronting 3 people who “just don’t seem right”, I think they did a fine job showing the anxiety of such an encounter. As a cop, you know you’re in a potentially deadly situation, and you’re trying to walk a fine line between not getting enough info and over-reacting or pushing too far.
My only real complaint about the show, and it’s quite minor, is the “silent Indian helper” character - it’s really much more of a cliche than I would have expected in this show.
And, like some others, I’m not sure I appreciate the “split screen” affect they use at times. It does help show comparisons/contrasts, but seems clunky.
Mathias from Longmire, Zahn McClarnon?
Excellent! Well done.
The very next scene was Lester examining the trap (the thing that looked like a bear trap). That was the trap that eventually nailed Malvo and was responsible for his death.
Lester answered the riddle correctly and then he used the bear trap to defeat Malvo.
So, the riddle showed Lester was no dummy who just stumbled onto that plan. He had the brains and the inclination to figure it out from the start.
IMHO, the producers introduced that riddle into the story and showed Lester solving it in order to show that he had what it takes to defeat Malvo.
Anyway, I think I should move on now to S2.
Did anyone else catch all the symbolism that suggested this familly was not German but was in fact - Jewish (although I suppose they could have been German Jews).
Did you see the bread that the grandmother (Floyd - played by Jean Smart) put on the dinner table? It was shaped in the form of the traditional Jewish bread used for the Sabbath.
Also, that family used at least two Jewish expressions.
I don’t know what the significance is of that. But these producers don’t seem to introduce things just for the heck of it. They usually are significant to the plot.
Maybe the legal system has evolved somewhat. But today, when the cop asked the passenger in the back seat to show ID, I would expect him to reply, “You have no right to ask me for ID. I wasn’t driving and you have no reasonable grounds for thinking I’m doing anything wrong. You can ask the driver or the front seat passenger for ID. But not me.”
Most people don’t realize the law makes a distinction between people in the front seat and the back seat.
I was sitting in the front seat of a car (in the passenger’s seat) one time. The engine wasn’t running and the keys weren’t in the ignition. Some cop decided she didn’t like me sitting and parking in a gas station lot (the gas station was closed) and she decided that she would roust me.
I told her she was harassing me and I didn’t have to show her any drivers license because I wasn’t driving. But, it turned out I was dead wrong. Anyone who is sitting in the front seat of a car must show ID and must show a drivers license providing no one is sitting at the wheel. I never knew this before and I almost learned it the hard way.
Thankfully, this cop was a lot nicer and more sensible that I was. She explained things to me and told me that I really didn’t want to do this the “hard way”. She was right and I was grateful to her. I learned an important lesson without having to pay the penalty for it. She was a nice lady and I was mistaken in the belief that she was “rousting” me for no reason.
As far as the silent Indian character goes, we really don’t know where that is heading yet.
If there is no good reason for them to use an Indian, then I will agree with you. But I’m expecting they will have some good reason for using this guy - like maybe one of his relatives owe these gangster some money.
By the way, I find the entire notion that these guys are gangsters to be pretty hokey. The way they dress and the way they talk are nothing like any real criminals I’ve ever met.