Broadchurch ITV/TV3 [** Spoilers **]

It's pished off a lot of people at this stage to make a decent recovery. Follow up seasons to a series where the first season was based around a strong premise that ended with the the end of the first season (i.e. the who did it of the first season) are rarely that good e.g. homeland with the "they don't know that I'm a terrorist" premise followed by crappy season 2 and 3's (4th was ok but changed completely) and prison break (went to crap once they actually broke out of prision).

_Whimsical_

I have a theory as far as Danny's murder goes

I think the Miller kid did it and the Joe then tried to cover it up so the child doesn't end up in the justice system and with a record as a murderer. Now he's not so keen on life in prison as a child killer and he's realised that all that needs happen is that his defence team create reasonable doubt that he's not the murderer and then he'll be out and that he doesn't have to implicate the child.We already know that the priest seems to be aware that Joe didn't do it.

The rest of it is not all that enthralling. Lee Ashworth clearly had a look of nervous recognition when they argi business with the furness was mentioned. It's just off on wild tangents now. It's really taken a dive, I'm not sure why I'm still watching.

Gael23

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

I have a theory as far as Danny's murder goes

I think the Miller kid did it and the Joe then tried to cover it up so the child doesn't end up in the justice system and with a record as a murderer. Now he's not so keen on life in prison as a child killer and he's realised that all that needs happen is that his defence team create reasonable doubt that he's not the murderer and then he'll be out and that he doesn't have to implicate the child.We already know that the priest seems to be aware that Joe didn't do it.

.

Im starting to think that too. As someone else said, there is far too much going on, they really need to close off some of the events going on if they want to retain viewers. Not half as good as series 1

ruskin

I think one of the problems with season 2 is that it is essentially dragging out the story from season one that itself had a very contained story and a definitive ending- i.e. we know Joe killed Danny and we even saw it in detail in a flashback, so its hard to really to care about the case anymore (even them introducing doubts about Joe's guilt would make his capture and confession pointless) Still though, I am really enjoying the series- I think Joe will be found not guilty, go back to living in Broadchurch, when one morning he is found stabbed to death on the beach- cue season 3.

K-9

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

I think the Miller kid did it and the Joe then tried to cover it up so the child doesn't end up in the justice system and with a record as a murderer. Now he's not so keen on life in prison as a child killer and he's realised that all that needs happen is that his defence team create reasonable doubt that he's not the murderer and then he'll be out and that he doesn't have to implicate the child.We already know that the priest seems to be aware that Joe didn't do it.

The priest seemed pretty sure in the church with the defence lawyers though, though he does look very troubled. It just seemed he was torn between 2 sides, but maybe there is more to it.

_Whimsical_

K-9 wrote: »

The priest seemed pretty sure in the church with the defence lawyers though, though he does look very troubled. It just seemed he was torn between 2 sides, but maybe there is more to it.

Remember though when the priest went to visit Joe in Prison Joe said something like "look you know I wasn't the only one at involved here" and the priest seemed to agree with him, he certainly didn't refute that point at all.
Of course then I suppose the waters are somewhat muddied with the priest running a child sex offenders support group, you'd imagine if there had been others involved,it just might be them

Speaking of which, how weird to invite Danny's mum up to meet them at all not to mention during the murder trial of her child. That seemed such a mad thread to pull into the story that you'd have to wonder if it'll be relevant somehow.

Sideshow Mark

ruskin wrote: »

I think one of the problems with season 2 is that it is essentially dragging out the story from season one that itself had a very contained story and a definitive ending- i.e. we know Joe killed Danny and we even saw it in detail in a flashback, so its hard to really to care about the case anymore (even them introducing doubts about Joe's guilt would make his capture and confession pointless) Still though, I am really enjoying the series- I think Joe will be found not guilty, go back to living in Broadchurch, when one morning he is found stabbed to death on the beach- cue season 3.

Am enjoying it, but not as much as the first series. My theory is that the only logical reason for continuing with the original story is that it is part of a much larger child abuse conspiracy, possibly with a connection to Sandbrook. Makes sense that Hardy would be appointed to that area as he was considered washed up and not capable of running a successful investigation. I can see a third series covering this aspect.

FloatingVoter

I see the reason for the second season as the unforeseen success of the first. A rushed writing job and the result is apparent. I really hope if the writers are on the ball they'll go full The Colby's and have a spaceship land.

I'll link to the clip here for the moment when 1980s TV said we've done enough coke and we're going home now and we'll be back with Nirvana.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ju8YH6ewoqQ

That is how you end a show going nowhere.

donalh087

Just as an aside - it is filmed beautifully. Visually, the set-ups are fantastic.

_Whimsical_

donalh087 wrote: »

Just as an aside - it is filmed beautifully. Visually, the set-ups are fantastic.

I agree completely but I think they go over board sometimes with the artistic licence. I have to admit I have cringed at the picturesque shots of Lee topless,glistening in the sun doing whatever he is doing in that lovely field. Particularly when Dr Who went to visit him and Lee spent the time posing and flexing and staring off into the middle distance before a backdrop of a beautiful stone hut and luscious wheat sheaves blowing in the wind.

Gael23

Thoughts on tonight?

HeidiHeidi

Haven't seen it yet, but the silence on here is deafening.....

FloatingVoter

Recorded it. Was watching the latest Hugh Grant movie instead. How the mighty have fallen.

FunLover18

Gael23 wrote: »

Thoughts on tonight?

The prosecutions random allegations and harassment of the witnesses is ridiculous.

Olivia Coleman is fan-bloody-tastic.

The Pooka

Pretty dire alright! I have a theory, though, re. Sandbrook:

The girl's mother did it

ThunbergsAreGo

I think the Wlesh girl and the babysitter were having an affair.

And the babysitter did it

K-9

K-9 wrote: »

I do think it will improve now the obvious plot holes are out! There's too much going on for me but we've Olivia to entertain us and there's enough intrigue to keep me watching.

nah - it's still muck.
the flashbacks are such a crap way of telling a story. the trial scenes are bad in general I think and overall having the trial going on in conjunction with the new case with Lee and yer wan is a complete failure. Should have left out the trial completely but I guess it was a way of keeping the existing cast but it has ruined the whole thing.
All this praise for Olivia Colman - I mean she is ok - she was better in peep show.

ThunbergsAreGo

glasso wrote: »

nah - it's still muck.
the flashbacks are such a crap way of telling a story. the trial scenes are bad in general I think and overall having the trial going on in conjunction with the new case with Lee and yer wan is a complete failure. Should have left out the trial completely but I guess it was a way of keeping the existing cast but it has ruined the whole thing.
All this praise for Olivia Colman - I mean she is ok - she was better in peep show.

Whenever Olivia Colman uses the word ****, i cannot help but think of Peep Show

FloatingVoter

It's pretty obvious David Tennant murdered everybody using the TARDIS. Upon being found guilty he will use time travel to escape to West End Shakespeare and better paying roles (possibly a villain in Star wars / Star Trek ).

_Whimsical_

naughtb4 wrote: »

I think the Wlesh girl and the babysitter were having an affair.

And the babysitter did it

Oh!Interesting, I hadn't seen it before but that could work!

It's jumped the shark officially now. There would've plenty meat in it already if they properly explored any of the characters, there was no need to throw the kitchen sink at it.

Why are they telling us about the barrister's son and other barrister's eye condition and elderly mother?
Next week we discover the priest has a bad case of athletes foot and the blonde hotel owner's aunties friend has won 50 quid on the lotto?
There are several pieces I feel like an idiot for not fastforwarding through.

Cartman78

Can anyone offer a semi-plausible explanation about what is going on with the pendant?

Makes zero sense at the moment.

The court case is getting a bit far-fetched as well at this stage....seems like the concept of witness preparation has been completely overlooked by both defence and prosecution

gazzer

Cartman78 wrote: »

Can anyone offer a semi-plausible explanation about what is going on with the pendant?

Makes zero sense at the moment.

The court case is getting a bit far-fetched as well at this stage....seems like the concept of witness preparation has been completely overlooked by both defence and prosecution

The pendant belonged to the older girl who went missing and who's body has never been found. It was initially found in Lee Ashworth's car. It was taken as evidance by Hardy's wife who left it in her car when she went to a hotel room with the guy she was having the affair with. Claire robbed the pendant from the car and started to wear it and that was how Ellie recognised the pendant when she saw the photo in Claire's portfolio.

Cartman78

Cartman78 wrote: »

Can anyone offer a semi-plausible explanation about what is going on with the pendant?

Makes zero sense at the moment.

The court case is getting a bit far-fetched as well at this stage....seems like the concept of witness preparation has been completely overlooked by both defence and prosecution

the pendant belonged to one of the two murdered girls afaik. it was found in the main suspect's (man in field who fixes fences staring into distance) car. it was a key bit of evidence against him. but then it was "lost" and seems to be have been a key reason for the collapse of the case against him. in the last episode the police woman recognises it in photo of double-chin hairdresser ex-wife of suspect (on her neck) in a hairdressing photo shot when cutting police woman's hair . it's then revealed that doctor who had taken the blame for losing the pendant, when in fact it was in his wife's possession at the time. Finally it's also revealed that double-chin was the one that stole the pendant, making it look like a car break-in, presumably to get her husband off. In present day she burns the photo, realising that policewoman copped it. (sorry don't really remember any of the characters names even tho I have been watching it!)

donalh087

I love the fact you haven't taken in any of the characters names. Brilliant.

On an aside - was any character more badly / over acted than Nigels mother Susan Wright ?

Cartman78

Cheers to Glasso & Gazzer.....that kinda makes sense I guess in a Broadchurchian kinda way.....basically yer wan stole the evidence to get your man off :cool:

Seems a bit of an odd choice for her then to actually wear the pendant afterwards but there seems to be a whole bunch of pyscho-sexual hoo-hah going on there so god knows what she's up to

FunLover18

donalh087 wrote: »

On an aside - was any character more badly / over acted than Nigels mother Susan Wright ?

Nigel himself

Realtine

donalh087 wrote: »

On an aside - was any character more badly / over acted than Nigels mother Susan Wright ?

Oh I though Pauline Quirke was great, I still associate her with her Birds of a Feather character so seeing playing the manky Susan Wright part was totally different.
I liked her more in series 1, but only because she had more to do.

I liked Monday's episode, although the series feels dragged out I think it's finally coming together.

It's still one of the most watchable TV series out there.

Realtine

Realtine wrote: »

Oh I though Pauline Quirke was great

I found the whole gravelly-mouth 60 Rothams-a-day howya voice a bit over-the-top.

_Whimsical_

Cartman78 wrote: »

Cheers to Glasso & Gazzer.....that kinda makes sense I guess in a Broadchurchian kinda way.....basically yer wan stole the evidence to get your man off :cool:

Seems a bit of an odd choice for her then to actually wear the pendant afterwards but there seems to be a whole bunch of pyscho-sexual hoo-hah going on there so god knows what she's up to

Or to get herself off!
(no "sexual ho ha" pun intended)
She seems more guilty than Lee, she could've taken his van that day the girls went missing.

Why the hell would she ever be wearing a murdered child's necklace for a professional photo though. That was really dropping the ball after going to the trouble of stealing it in the first place.

K-9

glasso wrote: »

nah - it's still muck.
the flashbacks are such a crap way of telling a story. the trial scenes are bad in general I think and overall having the trial going on in conjunction with the new case with Lee and yer wan is a complete failure. Should have left out the trial completely but I guess it was a way of keeping the existing cast but it has ruined the whole thing.
All this praise for Olivia Colman - I mean she is ok - she was better in peep show.

Yep, I'm a bit lost after the end of the last episode. Having the 2 plots side by side isn't working.

gjc

I'd love to post my theory however don't know how to cover it over to hide it

K-9

glasso wrote: »

the pendant belonged to one of the two murdered girls afaik. it was found in the main suspect's (man in field who fixes fences staring into distance) car. it was a key bit of evidence against him. but then it was "lost" and seems to be have been a key reason for the collapse of the case against him. in the last episode the police woman recognises it in photo of double-chin hairdresser ex-wife of suspect (on her neck) in a hairdressing photo shot when cutting police woman's hair . it's then revealed that doctor who had taken the blame for losing the pendant, when in fact it was in his wife's possession at the time. Finally it's also revealed that double-chin was the one that stole the pendant, making it look like a car break-in, presumably to get her husband off. In present day she burns the photo, realising that policewoman copped it. (sorry don't really remember any of the characters names even tho I have been watching it!)

Double chin was Gwen in Torchwood I think.

AnonoBoy

gjc wrote: »

I'd love to post my theory however don't know how to cover it over to hide it

When you are posting there's a SPOILER button above the Smilies. Click that and it will put SPOILER tags up. Whatever you type within those tags will be covered.

K-9

K-9 wrote: »

Double chin was Gwen in Torchwood I think.

yeah she used to be hotter but now has a poundage problem. when yer man (Lee) had her up against the wall in the last episode holding her neck there was a serious double-chin flab issue.

ThunbergsAreGo

gjc wrote: »

I'd love to post my theory however don't know how to cover it over to hide it

Its a theory, feel free to share

gjc

Right so here goes

pauline quirks son is not nige it really is joe she knows it hence her reason to implicate Nige and biological son gets off another theory I have is that Tom did it really and dad is taking the blame as for sandbank or whatever it's called the writer likes to blame the least suspicious person grasping at straws here but hardys ex wife is not entirely what we think of her

[/SPOILER]

gjc

gjc wrote: »

Right so here goes

pauline quirks son is not nige it really is joe she knows it hence her reason to implicate Nige and biological son gets off another theory I have is that Tom did it really and dad is taking the blame as for sandbank or whatever it's called the writer likes to blame the least suspicious person grasping at straws here but hardys ex wife is not entirely what we think of her

[/SPOILER]

Jeez I'm hooked on this program but does nobody just go for a coffee instead they all like to tramp around the cliff or the beach

AnonoBoy

gjc wrote: »

Jeez I'm hooked on this program but does nobody just go for a coffee instead they all like to tramp around the cliff or the beach

If I see one more person staring out at the sun rising from a cliff top! :mad:

mrsdewinter

I only caught up with Mon night's programme this evening. Running the trial alongside Hardy's Sandbrook investigation is head-wrecking. Where is Sandbrook exactly? From S1, I formed the impression that it was the other end of the country. But Hardy and Ellie seem to visit it with the regularity of trips to Tescos, so it must be nearby. But then Broadchurch wouldn't be the ideal location for Hardy's relocation of Claire, would it?
Nothing would surprise me at this stage because nothing makes sense and as more and more plot rabbits are pulled out of hats, my interest wanes. I'll stick with it but meh...

Snoopy1

I hadn't realised that when Claire smashed the carwindow that was a flashback.
Also I must have missed this but did david Tennant save someone from drowning?
Hopefully now he has his pacemaker we won't get the scenes of him getting dizzy

AnonoBoy

Snoopy1 wrote: »

Also I must have missed this but did david Tennant save someone from drowning?
Hopefully now he has his pacemaker we won't get the scenes of him getting dizzy

No he found the body of the girl in the river I think.

But the flash back to it far too often.

gjc

Nothing came of toms hard drive being looked into I think this will need to be cleared up

ThunbergsAreGo

gjc wrote: »

Nothing came of toms hard drive being looked into I think this will need to be cleared up

Didnt it come out he had sent abusive emails to Danny?

gjc

naughtb4 wrote: »

Didnt it come out he had sent abusive emails to Danny?

Oh right so missed that thanks

Harry Angstrom

Has Charlotte Rampling ever heard of the word "Objection"??

El Diablo Blanco

I'll preface my remarks by saying that I actually have enjoyed the second series of Broadchurch, and still find it very watchable and entertaining. What I have missed from this series, however, is the same level of character development that made the first series so wonderful. The majority (if not all) of the new cast- while very well portrayed- are only sketched very broadly (understandably for the Sandbrook suspects), and it's hard to get a sense on who they are.

I've watched a good amount of shows over the last few years, and would state hand-on-heart that the first series of Broadchurch is up there with Game of Thrones for me, as one of my favourites. For what I look for in a dramatic series, it flawlessly ticked all the boxes and, moreover, it actually had a lot to say. It showed the cynicism of the media and the consequences of a witch-hunt, dealt with parental abuse and suspected paedophilia, highlighted the changing role of the church in modern-day England, and portayed a family's grief extremely effectively without being mawkish or overwrought; something exceptionally difficult to do. Along with that, the sense of mystery about who killed Danny was impressively compelling.

Personally, I would've happily left Broadchurch as a self-contained, one-series show. The conclusion of the first series- with the community showing their solidarity with the Latimers by lighting lanterns along the coastline, and showing that they had not been broken or irreparably damaged by the shocking events that had passed- was surprisingly moving, and a perfect place to leave things.

I was initially a little worried about how S2 would shape up, but found the first episode to be really good, and it left me optimistic about where the show would go. I'm not really bothered by what wigs are worn in the courtroom or what witnesses are hearing evidence or Beth's remarkable recovery time from giving birth(!)- I'm willing to suspend a little disbelief for the sake of drama. What I have been a little perturbed by, however, is (as I've said) the lack of any ostensible character development. Jodie Whittaker, in particular, has been done a huge disservice this series, I've felt; Beth has done nothing, really, but nag and flee a church full of sex offenders! Her contribution to S1, and the portrayal of her grief, was outstanding, and a key part of what elevated the show. She's not really done much this time around.

The trial and the ongoing investigation into what happened in Sandbrook is still interesting, but personally, I miss the little character moments that brought S1 up another level. Ellie going berserk at Tom was definitely a step in the right direction, along with a nice little scene with Chloe Latimer and Ellie on the stairs in the (I think) third episode. More moments like that, and a bit more background into some of the newer and previously-established characters would've had me a little more favourably disposed towards this series. I am still enjoying it, but would reluctantly agree that it's a bit of a step down from the first series.

Two episodes left (watching on TV3 in a little bit) - I hope they'll end it on a high.

languagenerd

In the US remake of season 1 ([Gracepoint), they changed the ending -

Tom killed Danny by accident, and Joe took the blame

. I wonder if that's what they're working towards here? I don't think we ever found out

why Tom deleted everything off his phone in Season 1, did we?

.

That said, I'll be annoyed if they say

Joe didn't do it after all, because of the flashback we saw.

.

ThunbergsAreGo

Didnt Tom delete stuff as he had sent Danny abusive text as Danny "had a new friend who understood him better"

ThunbergsAreGo

I was sure the lawyer and the journalist were sisters

languagenerd

naughtb4 wrote: »

Didnt Tom delete stuff as he had sent Danny abusive text as Danny "had a new friend who understood him better"

Oh right, sorry, I thought that was an email. Didn't he destroy a laptop at some stage too? It's been so long I can't remember... Anyway.

I hope they stick with the ending from Season 1, but also, we need a few twists in next week's episode to make the last 7 weeks worth it!