But the ending of series 1 never made sense to me. Joe Miller giving himself up rather than being caught through good detective work. Why would he do that when it looked like he was going to get away with it. Maybe he saw how much pressure Ellie was under and made himself a fall guy to give her a result and take the pressure off her in an act of true love...which he is now regretting given that he is faced with life in prison.
End of series 1 never made sense to me either, giving himself up etc but I think he is covering for his son. He knows he didn't do it hence the not guilty plea, he has no remorse about using Ellie's beating him to get off as he is not doing it to protect himself but his son. He won't say he didn't do it because he doesn't want a re-investigation in case it leads to the real killer. Does a man in his mid-30s suddenly get paedophile tendencies?
The scenes with Mark and Tom could be to expose the twist, maybe that's how it comes out.
Sandbrook - how bad a DC is Alec if he has got both murders wrong? Doesn't make sense for Claire to have gone willingly, she could have met up with him anytime rather than hiding from him.
Joe was a gentle and caring man in series 1 if memory serves me right but is now been portrayed as out for himself. It doesn't make sense to me. If he did it, it was an accident, he couldn't bear the guilt so confessed. If that is who he is surely he would now, in keeping with that portrayal, plead guilty to spare the family further grief,
I don't object to the way Beth is written in her responses this series (although I did find some of her behaviour a bit odd in the last series).
A mother losing a child would be blaming herself, blaming her husband, blaming the child... blaming just about anyone that came into view on whom she could focus her grief. Ellie is a perfectly reasonable focus (at this stage of Beth's grief) because in Beth's head, 'how could Ellie not have known / realised / DONE SOMETHING..?'
So, however unfairly - and this does happen in RL - as far as Beth is concerned, Ellie is a fair target. And Ellie is asking herself that too, of course, because how could a wife not know? Very easily if you're just living your life and nothing jumps up to bite you. Even if someone were to think a partner is behaving a bit differently, being secretive, whatever, you'd assume troubles at work, having an affair, etc, way before omg, he's abusing the boy next door. Well... I would.
I agree that Ellie is the obvious target for blame. It happens in real life too. Ellie doesnt defend herself to Beth because she feels guilty. This is completely realistic to me. It's only been about nine months so Beth's anger is understandable though unfair. In time she will realise Ellie is a victim too as will ellie
Chibnall has said in interview that he saw Broadchurch as a one off in its entirety, but then rushed to get a second series out to order for ITV. That would explain the differences. Series I was a labour of love where he FELT the story.It was afterall his childhood home with many memories. Series 2 was about deadlines and money where he THOUGHT the story. Some might say its over thought and forced out too consciously to be politically correct.To reach deadlines he fell back on something hed done before, the court room drama. Series 2 doesnt have the authentic feel that is there in series 1.
Chibnall has said in interview that he saw Broadchurch as a one off in its entirety, but then rushed to get a second series out to order for ITV. That would explain the differences. Series I was a labour of love where he FELT the story.It was afterall his childhood home with many memories. Series 2 was about deadlines and money where he THOUGHT the story. Some might say its over thought and forced out too consciously to be politically correct.To reach deadlines he fell back on something hed done before, the court room drama. Series 2 doesnt have the authentic feel that is there in series 1.
One of the best incentives for NOT watching a show I have ever seen.
“I think there’s a sense, with the whole show, that if it’s not broke, you’re not really out to fix it,” Tennant said during a phone interview. “There’s a huge populist audience who haven’t seen it yet, and they are, I think, who we’re principally aiming at.”
Um - then tell them to hunt down the original and watch it.
It's an interesting concept to base a detective drama on a detective who's no bloody good.
Miller walked into Hardy's hands. Without him giving himself up he was nowhere near to finding him in terms of evidence. Then when he got the confession he still managed to drop the ball by letting Ellie beat him up.
Now it seems he's either got Sandbrook wrong or endangered a witness through incompetence. Also how is he paying for that cottage she's living in?
Finally why does Miller put up with him? He constantly has a go at her about things he gets wrong.
Makes me sound like I don't like Broadchurch, but I do. It's a leaky ship though.
Chibnall has said in interview that he saw Broadchurch as a one off in its entirety, but then rushed to get a second series out to order for ITV. That would explain the differences. Series I was a labour of love where he FELT the story.It was afterall his childhood home with many memories. Series 2 was about deadlines and money where he THOUGHT the story. Some might say its over thought and forced out too consciously to be politically correct.To reach deadlines he fell back on something hed done before, the court room drama. Series 2 doesnt have the authentic feel that is there in series 1.
I don't really count a lot of the criticisms on that list.
I take the prosecution selection thing very differently to most on here: I don't think it was ever a case of the Latimer's choosing the prosecution - they were told the crown would choose, but they would want Jocelyn, though she probably wouldn't take the case. They wanted to PERSUADE her to take it. The meeting with the witnesses wasn't planned, and she left soon after. If you take it that way it's just a bit of artistic licence.
It was also pointed out by Hardy and Miller that protecting Claire was well outside the norm!
And I really don't give a damn about the wig, they just wanted to make up the numbers on that list.
As for the last one, Lee HASN'T been able to track Hardy wherever he's gone, otherwise finding Claire would be easy.
I can't understand why the inaccurate legal proceedings annoy people so much.
Silent Witness is on its 18th series whilst the basis of each plot is ridiculous - namely that pathlogists are involved in the investigations as if they are police. In addition DNA test results are obtained in seconds rather than than days.
Obviously fans of Silent Witness are able to enjoy it despite all this.
Anyway, I'm enjoying Broadchurch despite its flaws.
I can't understand why the inaccurate legal proceedings annoy people so much.
Silent Witness is on its 18th series whilst the basis of each plot is ridiculous - namely that pathlogists are involved in the investigations as if they are police. In addition DNA test results are obtained in seconds rather than than days.
Obviously fans of Silent Witness are able to enjoy it despite all this.
Anyway, I'm enjoying Broadchurch despite its flaws.
It looks as though DNA testing is becoming available at a speed closer to fiction (according to the Daily Mail...)
I think nitpicking about the legal parts is silly - all TV shows take creative license with these sorts of things. However, I think the problem is that there are a few really stand out *what!?* moments that even the general public who don't have any idea what goes on in court are left thinking that what happened just doesn't make sense.
Striking the confession from evidence for one. Logically they didn't present any evidence of police brutality leading to a confession and common sense tells anyone that given that the jury have already heard he confessed to the murder, its a bit late to suddenly strike it from the record.
I don't really count a lot of the criticisms on that list.
I take the prosecution selection thing very differently to most on here: I don't think it was ever a case of the Latimer's choosing the prosecution - they were told the crown would choose, but they would want Jocelyn, though she probably wouldn't take the case. They wanted to PERSUADE her to take it. The meeting with the witnesses wasn't planned, and she left soon after. If you take it that way it's just a bit of artistic licence.
It was also pointed out by Hardy and Miller that protecting Claire was well outside the norm!
And I really don't give a damn about the wig, they just wanted to make up the numbers on that list.
As for the last one, Lee HASN'T been able to track Hardy wherever he's gone, otherwise finding Claire would be easy.
BIB
That was how I saw it as well. The Latimers had NO control over who was chosen to lead the prosecution, but, logically, if there is a good barrister who lives locally and has a great reputation, they why wouldnt they at least speak with her and ask her if there was any way she could consider it - presuming that she was chosen.
I find that quite a natural thing for distressed parents to do.
Just read the last couple of pages and some very interesting thoughts! Mainly that Joe wasn't the killer and that he was covering for someone else. I hadn't really given that much thought, but it was strange he just gave himself up and that no history has been unearthed.
I do feel though, that if the whole flashback we were shown of how Danny died in the last episode of series 1 turns out to be fake, the audience would be really angry.
At the risk of piling on, the biggest failing with Series 2 is the heavy reliance on the courtroom setting.
1) We've all seen countless courtroom dramas, whether standalone (eg The Escape Artist with Tennant again) or as part of a greater narrative. It's a lazy way out for a writer since witness testimony or barrister questions can be used to introduce shocking revelations and, of course, the suspense of waiting for a verdict affects everyone involved.
2) But the scenery literally never changes. If you've seen one courtroom you've seen them all. Broadchurch's appeal was based on the three-legged stool of characters, setting and plot. The writer is voluntarily (?) taking away one leg and this new game of Cluedo isn't half as interesting without locations: a hotel, a beach, a caravan, a vacant house, a police station, etc. Who's there? Why are they there? Have they been there before?
Newspaper headlines somewhat predictably state that holiday bookings to Broadchurch real-life locales are up due to interest in the series but except for a precious few scenes (most of them interiors) how much of Broadchurch have we seen in Series 2?
I suppose the disappointment in Series 2 is driven by the lingering enthusiasm for Series 1 but it really does feel like a rush job.
David and Olivia said on The Graham Norton Show on Friday that most filming was interior rather than exterior this series due to the press following them round taking pictures of everything and they didn't want any secrets being exposed.
I think part of the issue that some are experiencing with this series is that they don't know what the narrative is. Series 1 was a straightforward 'whodunnit', everyone knew what we were building towards and what the end point would be (the reveal of the killer).
Series 2 is completely different:
Is is a courtroom drama?
Is it another whodunnit (Sandbrook)?
Is it a kidnap/ thriller?
Is it a morality tale, with the actions of all the locals about to come home to roost?
Fact is - it is potentially all of the above to some extent, with probably some other angles added in, but I think thats what some people are struggling with. Because they arent clearly being built up towards the culmination of a storyline which is abundantly clear from day one many seem unwilling to invest in it. For me that's a sad indictment of how much of TV has become dumbed down and viewers are spoon fed a lot more.
My suggestion would be to just sit back, enjoy, don't try to second guess and let it evolve. If you try to guess the direction and get set upon it, once it turns out to be incorrect you will only be disappointed.
One other frustration is 'Why is Beth Latimer suddenly being written as an unlike-able character'? Answer: She isn't. She is simply being written as a character who is full of anger, bile, frustration and torment. If those emotions manifest themselves by way of her mood and demeanour being more nasty and blunt then so be it, as someone mentioned above thats probably realistic.
In terms of the small continuity errors in relation to the courtroom scenes, they are just a little bit of artistic license, surely not severe enough to spoil enjoyment?
My advice would be just let the story progress, let it take you wherever it goes and don't compare it to Series 1 as it's a vastly different storyline, but with the same writer and majority and same excellent cast - trust them to tell the story!
My advice would be just let the story progress, let it take you wherever it goes and don't compare it to Series 1 as it's a vastly different storyline, but with the same writer and majority and same excellent cast - trust them to tell the story!
My advice would be to watch it one more week and if it doesn't improve drastically stop watching .
You see, it's all very well saying don't compare it to season 1, but it was season 1 that gained the substantial audience for Broadchurch and guaranteed Chibnall a second series to write.
What I don't like is that Chibnall is relying to a large degree on us staying with the second series out of loyalty to the first.
Well, sorry, but the first one never was that good!
edit:
And I'm only still watching because I can record the program while I watch Silent Witness.
My advice would be to watch it one more week and if it doesn't improve drastically stop watching .
You see, it's all very well saying don't compare it to season 1, but it was season 1 that gained the substantial audience for Broadchurch and guaranteed Chibnall a second series to write.
What I don't like is that Chibnall is relying to a large degree on us staying with the second series out of loyalty to the first.
Well, sorry, but the first one never was that good!
edit:
And I'm only still watching because I can record the program while I watch Silent Witness.
So you weren't a major fan of series 1, and less of a fan of Series 2.
Have you ever considered that Broadchurch maybe just isn't for you?
That was how I saw it as well. The Latimers had NO control over who was chosen to lead the prosecution, but, logically, if there is a good barrister who lives locally and has a great reputation, they why wouldnt they at least speak with her and ask her if there was any way she could consider it - presuming that she was chosen.
I find that quite a natural thing for distressed parents to do.
I'm sure that in episode 1, the question of who was going to be the prosecuting barrister was introduced by somebody saying, "The Latimers need someone to represent them." I took this to be a fairly unimportant issue, as this suggested to me they wanted someone to give them legal advice about their own testimony as witnesses, until it became clear that they were actually talking about who was going to be the prosecuting barrister.
So it was certainly presented as though the Latimers were choosing the prosecuting barrister.
One other frustration is 'Why is Beth Latimer suddenly being written as an unlike-able character'? Answer: She isn't. She is simply being written as a character who is full of anger, bile, frustration and torment. If those emotions manifest themselves by way of her mood and demeanour being more nasty and blunt then so be it, as someone mentioned above thats probably realistic.
True enough. But there's only so much people will let you get away with, even if you are grieving. There comes a point when people just aren't willing to let someone, no matter what they've been through, act the way Beth is acting and let them get away with screaming in people's faces and taking their anger out on them the way Beth is abusing Ellie. I hope Ellie reaches that point sooner rather than later. IMO someone needs to tell Beth some home truths.
I have to agree with the others they are trying to do to much to please everyone and is resulting in a very disjointed series.
For me it would have been better if Joe although unlikely was released on bail and murdered then we could have spent series finding out who killed with a twist been he was not actually the killer.
Comments
Sigh.
End of series 1 never made sense to me either, giving himself up etc but I think he is covering for his son. He knows he didn't do it hence the not guilty plea, he has no remorse about using Ellie's beating him to get off as he is not doing it to protect himself but his son. He won't say he didn't do it because he doesn't want a re-investigation in case it leads to the real killer. Does a man in his mid-30s suddenly get paedophile tendencies?
The scenes with Mark and Tom could be to expose the twist, maybe that's how it comes out.
Sandbrook - how bad a DC is Alec if he has got both murders wrong? Doesn't make sense for Claire to have gone willingly, she could have met up with him anytime rather than hiding from him.
Joe was a gentle and caring man in series 1 if memory serves me right but is now been portrayed as out for himself. It doesn't make sense to me. If he did it, it was an accident, he couldn't bear the guilt so confessed. If that is who he is surely he would now, in keeping with that portrayal, plead guilty to spare the family further grief,
I agree that Ellie is the obvious target for blame. It happens in real life too. Ellie doesnt defend herself to Beth because she feels guilty. This is completely realistic to me. It's only been about nine months so Beth's anger is understandable though unfair. In time she will realise Ellie is a victim too as will ellie
This article on Gracepoint, the American version that got cancelled, might explain some of the problems about series 2 Broadchurch:
http://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/tvandradioblog/2014/oct/02/fox-gracepoint-broadchurch-remake-why-bother
One of the best incentives for NOT watching a show I have ever seen.
“I think there’s a sense, with the whole show, that if it’s not broke, you’re not really out to fix it,” Tennant said during a phone interview. “There’s a huge populist audience who haven’t seen it yet, and they are, I think, who we’re principally aiming at.”
Um - then tell them to hunt down the original and watch it.
Duh.
Miller walked into Hardy's hands. Without him giving himself up he was nowhere near to finding him in terms of evidence. Then when he got the confession he still managed to drop the ball by letting Ellie beat him up.
Now it seems he's either got Sandbrook wrong or endangered a witness through incompetence. Also how is he paying for that cottage she's living in?
Finally why does Miller put up with him? He constantly has a go at her about things he gets wrong.
Makes me sound like I don't like Broadchurch, but I do. It's a leaky ship though.
10 reasons Broadchurch has totally lost the plot
Funny, I had heard that they always saw it as a trilogy but it depend on the success or not of the first series.
http://tennantnews.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/broadchurch-was-planned-as-trilogy.html
and
http://www.broadcastnow.co.uk/news/commissioning/featherstone-broadchurch-planned-as-trilogy/5062879.article
I don't really count a lot of the criticisms on that list.
I take the prosecution selection thing very differently to most on here: I don't think it was ever a case of the Latimer's choosing the prosecution - they were told the crown would choose, but they would want Jocelyn, though she probably wouldn't take the case. They wanted to PERSUADE her to take it. The meeting with the witnesses wasn't planned, and she left soon after. If you take it that way it's just a bit of artistic licence.
It was also pointed out by Hardy and Miller that protecting Claire was well outside the norm!
And I really don't give a damn about the wig, they just wanted to make up the numbers on that list.
As for the last one, Lee HASN'T been able to track Hardy wherever he's gone, otherwise finding Claire would be easy.
I am so glad I decided not to watch the 2nd series. I wasted 8 hours of my life on the first one.
Sounds dire.
Silent Witness is on its 18th series whilst the basis of each plot is ridiculous - namely that pathlogists are involved in the investigations as if they are police. In addition DNA test results are obtained in seconds rather than than days.
Obviously fans of Silent Witness are able to enjoy it despite all this.
Anyway, I'm enjoying Broadchurch despite its flaws.
It looks as though DNA testing is becoming available at a speed closer to fiction (according to the Daily Mail...)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2708277/DNA-testing-crime-scene-investigations-soon-identify-criminals-matter-HOURS.html
Striking the confession from evidence for one. Logically they didn't present any evidence of police brutality leading to a confession and common sense tells anyone that given that the jury have already heard he confessed to the murder, its a bit late to suddenly strike it from the record.
I couldn't care about Claire and not caring about Claire means there is no excitement for the next episode.
BIB
That was how I saw it as well. The Latimers had NO control over who was chosen to lead the prosecution, but, logically, if there is a good barrister who lives locally and has a great reputation, they why wouldnt they at least speak with her and ask her if there was any way she could consider it - presuming that she was chosen.
I find that quite a natural thing for distressed parents to do.
I do feel though, that if the whole flashback we were shown of how Danny died in the last episode of series 1 turns out to be fake, the audience would be really angry.
1) We've all seen countless courtroom dramas, whether standalone (eg The Escape Artist with Tennant again) or as part of a greater narrative. It's a lazy way out for a writer since witness testimony or barrister questions can be used to introduce shocking revelations and, of course, the suspense of waiting for a verdict affects everyone involved.
2) But the scenery literally never changes. If you've seen one courtroom you've seen them all. Broadchurch's appeal was based on the three-legged stool of characters, setting and plot. The writer is voluntarily (?) taking away one leg and this new game of Cluedo isn't half as interesting without locations: a hotel, a beach, a caravan, a vacant house, a police station, etc. Who's there? Why are they there? Have they been there before?
Newspaper headlines somewhat predictably state that holiday bookings to Broadchurch real-life locales are up due to interest in the series but except for a precious few scenes (most of them interiors) how much of Broadchurch have we seen in Series 2?
I suppose the disappointment in Series 2 is driven by the lingering enthusiasm for Series 1 but it really does feel like a rush job.
Series 2 is completely different:
Is is a courtroom drama?
Is it another whodunnit (Sandbrook)?
Is it a kidnap/ thriller?
Is it a morality tale, with the actions of all the locals about to come home to roost?
Fact is - it is potentially all of the above to some extent, with probably some other angles added in, but I think thats what some people are struggling with. Because they arent clearly being built up towards the culmination of a storyline which is abundantly clear from day one many seem unwilling to invest in it. For me that's a sad indictment of how much of TV has become dumbed down and viewers are spoon fed a lot more.
My suggestion would be to just sit back, enjoy, don't try to second guess and let it evolve. If you try to guess the direction and get set upon it, once it turns out to be incorrect you will only be disappointed.
One other frustration is 'Why is Beth Latimer suddenly being written as an unlike-able character'? Answer: She isn't. She is simply being written as a character who is full of anger, bile, frustration and torment. If those emotions manifest themselves by way of her mood and demeanour being more nasty and blunt then so be it, as someone mentioned above thats probably realistic.
In terms of the small continuity errors in relation to the courtroom scenes, they are just a little bit of artistic license, surely not severe enough to spoil enjoyment?
My advice would be just let the story progress, let it take you wherever it goes and don't compare it to Series 1 as it's a vastly different storyline, but with the same writer and majority and same excellent cast - trust them to tell the story!
You see, it's all very well saying don't compare it to season 1, but it was season 1 that gained the substantial audience for Broadchurch and guaranteed Chibnall a second series to write.
What I don't like is that Chibnall is relying to a large degree on us staying with the second series out of loyalty to the first.
Well, sorry, but the first one never was that good!
edit:
And I'm only still watching because I can record the program while I watch Silent Witness.
So you weren't a major fan of series 1, and less of a fan of Series 2.
Have you ever considered that Broadchurch maybe just isn't for you?
I'm sure that in episode 1, the question of who was going to be the prosecuting barrister was introduced by somebody saying, "The Latimers need someone to represent them." I took this to be a fairly unimportant issue, as this suggested to me they wanted someone to give them legal advice about their own testimony as witnesses, until it became clear that they were actually talking about who was going to be the prosecuting barrister.
So it was certainly presented as though the Latimers were choosing the prosecuting barrister.
True enough. But there's only so much people will let you get away with, even if you are grieving. There comes a point when people just aren't willing to let someone, no matter what they've been through, act the way Beth is acting and let them get away with screaming in people's faces and taking their anger out on them the way Beth is abusing Ellie. I hope Ellie reaches that point sooner rather than later. IMO someone needs to tell Beth some home truths.
For me it would have been better if Joe although unlikely was released on bail and murdered then we could have spent series finding out who killed with a twist been he was not actually the killer.