Okay, with all due respect, everyone needs to calm the hell down about the second season of True Detective.

I’ve seen some reviews that basically trashed it. But heading into the premiere - Sunday, June 21 on HBO and HBO Canada - I need to provide a balancing voice.

It’s not terrible, all right? God, far from it.

Now, is it as cool as season one?

Having seen three episodes of season two, I’d have to say, no, it’s not. At least, not yet.

But there’s a big gap between “not as good as season one” and “bad,” if you know what I mean. We need to keep things in perspective.

The first season of True Detective starred Matthew McConaughey and Woody Harrelson. The story was indecipherable at times, but seriously, I could have watched those two guys play checkers. It was spooky, mystical, magical TV.

The second season of True Detective obviously has to deal with sky-high expectations. Numerically speaking, maybe bets were hedged by doubling the size of the main cast, with Rachel McAdams, Vince Vaughn, Colin Farrell and Taylor Kitsch stepping to the forefront.

The “bad guy” is Vaughn’s character, Frank Semyon, a criminal who has transitioned into the world of legitimate entrepreneurship. But the difference is subtle, right? Things start to fall apart for Frank when a business associate is murdered, which threatens to scuttle an important deal into which Frank has poured virtually everything.

“Never do anything out of hunger, not even eating,” Frank advises at one point. But inadvertently, has he stopped taking his own advice?

Be forewarned, I found the first episode of True Detective’s second season to be a bit muddy, as far as deducing the basics of who’s working for whom, and what the agendas are. The simplest way to describe it is, three very different cops, at three very different points in their careers, from three very different jurisdictions – Ray Velcoro (Farrell), Ani Bezzerides (McAdams) and Paul Woodrugh (Kitsch) – wind up working the murder case together.

Their superiors are more concerned with protecting turf than finding the killer. At one point Ray asks his bosses, “Am I supposed to solve this or not?” He really isn’t sure. The situation is thick with personal paranoia and police politics.

All four main characters in the second season of True Detective are deeply troubled, but Farrell and McAdams tend to have the best lines.

When Farrell’s Ray asks McAdams’ Ani why she carries so many concealed knives, she answers, “Could you do this job if everyone you encountered could physically overpower you? I mean, forget police work, no man could walk around like that without going nuts ... the fundamental difference between the sexes is that one of them can kill the other with their bare hands. Man of any size lays hands on me? He’s gonna bleed out in under a minute.”

To which Ray replies, “Well, just so you know, I support feminism. Mostly by having body-image issues.”

There really isn’t much levity, though. I’ve written this before, but it applies here again. In this golden age of television, sometimes when shows go for “dark,” they get “bleak.” They are not the same thing. I am interested in “dark.” I am not interested in “bleak.”

So do I have issues with the second season of True Detective? Sure. But the second and third episodes definitely were better than the first. Who knows what I’ll think by the end?

And even if it never becomes as mesmerizing as season one, don’t let anyone tell you it’s crap. That’s going way, way too far. This still is high-end TV.

The second season could have had a different title, since it has nothing to do with the first. So I wonder: If it weren’t called True Detective, would it be judged so harshly?

Twitter: @billharris_tv

Bill.harris@sunmedia.ca