I was bored after episode 2! I actually recorded last Monday's episode so at least I could ff the adverts and any obvious slo-mo bits (the show does seem to have quite a few). I thought the most recent episode moved a fraction faster than the previous ones and I did like the dinner scene!
I still think this series is at least three episodes too many though! There really is no need to stretch a VERY thin story over eight episodes.
Sheila dear, every week so far you've complained about the pace of the series and said you're going to stop watching it, yet every week here you are back again making exactly the same complaint... do you just enjoy complaining, or don't you have any other channels on your TV?
That would suppose a degree of sophistication from Tom, which I suppose he could have, bearing in mind his mum's a police officer, though he would also surely know that they could recover deleted posts.
I'm not sure he would know that, even though his mum is a policewoman??? The texts might not have any bearing on the circumstances of Danny's death, in the mind of a 10 year old boy there are a lot of things you wouldn't want your parents to read! We should find out more when they interrogate DAnny's phone.
Thinking about it, Pauline Q's threat to the editor has even more to it. It's a very odd and harrowing threat particularly from a woman to a woman but if you put that aside and take it at face value, she literally knows men who can / will rape. Who are they and are they central to this murder or events leading up to it?
Surely this isn't a red herring but a big massive clue.
I've had a problem with this as well - it was a very unusual thing to say, so if it turns out to be a red herring I'll be unimpressed!
I'm going back to thinking the dad is involved. Or that he is up to some dodgy buisness, which could've led to Danny's death. I feel there were too many holes left with him. Which I'm hoping is deliberate and not bad writing!!!
Maybe he is involved with Susan and the 'men that rape' that Susan threatened the journo with. I'm wondering if the reason she didn't tell the cops Mark did work there, because that night there was dodgy dealings going on and was trying to move them away from the hut, which could be dodgy dealing central!! Of course it could be someone else altogether, but for the moment (well today!) I'm now thinking it's Mark!
He was going for dinner with Miller on the Tuesday night, unless I missed they changed it - the next morning its Sunday, The Sunday Herald is on the doorstep and there all going to church!
Jack Marshall was convicted for underage sex -was it with boys or a 15 year old girl? Instead they just leave us with he had underage sex. They accused him of taking lots of photos - really, so we'll just let you nip off home and destroy any potential evidence!!! This guys house would have been raided at dawn and searched from top to bottom to find te photos and any other evidence before he was questioned.
The blazing boat - they found a hair where the fire had been raging - hair would have disappeared in an instant in the blaze!
Was that really the best hose they could find to wet the paps with? I pee harder than that hose, perhaps the actors didn't want to get too wet!
There were many other points in the plot and dialogue that had us pausing and saying What the hell.
I am enjoying it and intrigued to know who did it but it does feel it's been a bit thrown together to stretch the story out.
I've just caught up with this series. I only just saw it on ITV Player a couple of days ago and so have watched all 4 episodes over the last couple of days
I'm enjoying the series so far. I can appreciate what some are saying about the pace but I quite like that and I suppose it is as it is meant to be. I do think that the creators have been influenced by the 'Nordic Noir' rise of the last few years but I think that isn't necessarily a bad thing. I can see shades of The Killing 1 especially in the pace (although for the Killing 1 we had 20 episodes arghhh the torment of waiting :eek:) family scenes (shots in the kitchen, lighting etc...). I loved this about The Killing but I supposed with our Brit crime drama we are probably more used to and expecting of a 'rougher, in your face' kind approach so for some maybe this can come across a bit pretentious? Especially without the Danish language (Not to me though but I can appreciate others views on this...and it did take a couple of episodes to get used to this new approach of the Brit crime drama genre).
Anyway, I'm not sure my theories can top any of those already expressed. Some brilliant ones. I haven't a clue who what or where although I think there is a drug smuggling thing going on (with the burning boat having previously been involved). I think there are a number of different stories interweaving (drug smuggling, child abuse, affairs etc) with Danny's death exposing these but I think his death may have been accidental and has been a catalyst for bring these stories and secrets out. Psychic Steve is a strange one.........
In regards to who killed him I'm at the moment leaning toward Tom and his dad having a hand in it (accidental death covered up by dad - Ellie's husband). But, as with the Killing, I am sure this is subject to change each week.
There was one scene that stood out for me.. it was when Danny's dad, the plumber mate and Ellie's husband were stood at the fence spraying the paparazzi with a hose and dad said 'what have we become...' and looked at the other 2 and it just jarred with me a bit and I do think these chaps are involved with some kind of secret but not necessarily Danny's death.
Anyway, enough waffling drivel from me. Sorry about the long post!... ta ra for now
Oh and I also think that Susan/Elaine is mum (or some close relative) to Nige (Plumbers mate) - as soon as I was watching the exchange with them in the alley it felt more a family related doodah than anything...... although...oh never mind! I need a coffee
Sheila dear, every week so far you've complained about the pace of the series and said you're going to stop watching it, yet every week here you are back again making exactly the same complaint... do you just enjoy complaining, or don't you have any other channels on your TV?
That's why I decided to record it and - to give it one more chance - safe in the knowledge that I could ff the boring bits (most of it). Don't worry your pretty little head - I shan't complain anymore (not until after episode 8 - I DO want to see what the reveal is - even if it is as boring and predictable as I believe it will be!):D
BTW - I do have other channels and whilst Broadchurch was running real time - I watched an EXCELLENT episode of Law & Order (the US one) - the Yanks seldom let us down!
One of the benefits of a slow-running mystery drama is that it allows viewers enough time in between episodes to let their leetle grey cells tick over, read other people's emerging theories on forums ike this one, re-watch bits of past episodes on ITV Player (warning - Episode One is only available for a few more days now), and generally let things brew until new observations and ideas come to mind.
(Perhaps that's what the detectives in this series are also doing, since they don't seem to be doing a whole lot of actual detecting! )
One thought that's occurred to me now is that Danny and Tom are just about at an age when they may be becoming aware of their sexuality. And if that sexuality is gay, or they are still unsure but think they may be, perhaps they may have turned to an adult for advice and support. Someone they know, like Paul the vicar maybe, or even Jack? And even if not, they could have had a secret life of experimentation and discovery with each other, which would account for Tom's secretiveness and furtive text-deleting. So far that's just a theory with little supporting evidence, but you never know what revelations the next episode may bring.
I still want to hear more from/about the postman or 'postman' who Danny was supposed to have argued with according to Jack. I think that he still belongs on the list of suspects, as do Joe Miller, Mark Latimer, Psychic Steve and Dean The Dodgy Boyfriend. How on earth could Ladbroke's leave that lot out of their betting odds?
Convinced it's Ellie's husband either killed him or covered up for his son have little evidence but I predict this is how it will pan out.
Hardy and Ellie became closer throughout the investigation. By the end of the series this relationship is fractured as Hardy becomes suspicious of her husband she becomes furious with Hardy. Hardy is right and he either did it or helped the son to cover it up. The one thing i know about Ellie's husband at the moment is he loves his kids. He seems to be some sort of stay at home dad. I reckon that when it comes down to it that will be key.
Having put this on paper now I will no doubt be proved wrong !
One of the benefits of a slow-running mystery drama is that it allows viewers enough time in between episodes to let their leetle grey cells tick over, read other people's emerging theories on forums ike this one, re-watch bits of past episodes on ITV Player (warning - Episode One is only available for a few more days now), and generally let things brew until new observations and ideas come to mind.
(Perhaps that's what the detectives in this series are also doing, since they don't seem to be doing a whole lot of actual detecting! )
One thought that's occurred to me now is that Danny and Tom are just about at an age when they may be becoming aware of their sexuality. And if that sexuality is gay, or they are still unsure but think they may be, perhaps they may have turned to an adult for advice and support. Someone they know, like Paul the vicar maybe, or even Jack? And even if not, they could have had a secret life of experimentation and discovery with each other, which would account for Tom's secretiveness and furtive text-deleting. So far that's just a theory with little supporting evidence, but you never know what revelations the next episode may bring.
I still want to hear more from/about the postman or 'postman' who Danny was supposed to have argued with according to Jack. I think that he still belongs on the list of suspects, as do Joe Miller, Mark Latimer, Psychic Steve and Dean The Dodgy Boyfriend. How on earth could Ladbroke's leave that lot out of their betting odds?
I agree cubic (daren't call you square eyes again as there is another of that name on here)
One of the benefits of a slow-running mystery drama is that it allows viewers enough time in between episodes to let their leetle grey cells tick over, read other people's emerging theories on forums ike this one, re-watch bits of past episodes on ITV Player (warning - Episode One is only available for a few more days now), and generally let things brew until new observations and ideas come to mind.
I must not have enough leetle grey cells to work I think, as I don't do that - ponder about whodunit that is. Don't know why. But I do like reading everyone else's theories on here
Thinking about it, Pauline Q's threat to the editor has even more to it. It's a very odd and harrowing threat particularly from a woman to a woman but if you put that aside and take it at face value, she literally knows men who can / will rape. Who are they and are they central to this murder or events leading up to it?
Surely this isn't a red herring but a big massive clue.
I agree cubic (daren't call you square eyes again as there is another of that name on here)
Hi Mink, nice to hear from you. I'm surprised there aren't many of the old Killing crowd on here - admittedly this isn't in the same league as the Killings were, but still plenty of scope for speculation for those of us whose leetle grey cells are in working order!
First post on this thread now I've finally caught up.
Got to say, I'm really enjoying it, and I think David Tennant is playing a good part in this (not a Dr Who fan).
So far, the dodgiest one for me is the bald guy, but the most shocking is Pauline :eek: Maybe she is the mother of the son who was molested/killed 5 years ago? Was it in Yorkshire? Hence the skateboard.
I'm not sure who it is - I have an inkling it's Miller's husband. Don't ask me why. The way he demanded Alec drink the wine (possibly to tell him more about the case?) struck a cord.
But - Will Mellor's character clearly knows exactly what happened (maybe he's involved in this drug ring?) - either he was up to no good on the night and spotted what happened, or he was actually involved (by force?) but doesn't want to implicate himself so is now using whatever method possible ('psychic abilities') to inform people what happened. First he tried the police, then he tried the family....
I also think the vicar saw what happened and is struggling to cope.
The shopkeeper is clearly supposed to be a bit of a Chris Jefferies (the Jo Yeates murder) type. The press are about to vilify him.
. . . . .
Anyway, I'm not sure my theories can top any of those already expressed. Some brilliant ones. I haven't a clue who what or where although I think there is a drug smuggling thing going on (with the burning boat having previously been involved). I think there are a number of different stories interweaving (drug smuggling, child abuse, affairs etc) with Danny's death exposing these but I think his death may have been accidental and has been a catalyst for bring these stories and secrets out. Psychic Steve is a strange one.........
. . . . .
I'm pretty sure you're right here. It makes most sense as it will be a way of explaining some of the red herrings.
This interesting thread makes me ask if we expect TV drama as an art form to reflect reality or do we accept the need to suspend disbelief, as for theatre? I subordinate holes in the plot to the overall picture and find Broadchurch entertaining, thought-provoking, and (despite some dodgy accents) finely acted.
For example in episode two when, in the supermarket, Beth reaches out to touch a familiar cereal box as if an inanimate object can bring back her son - I thought Jody Whitaker conveyed that silent and heartbreaking moment to perfection.
Is it a vicar or priest cos maybe someone confessed the murder. Their not allowed to tell confessions are they? That's why he's only started being weird in the last 2 eps.
Is it a vicar or priest cos maybe someone confessed the murder. Their not allowed to tell confessions are they? That's why he's only started being weird in the last 2 eps.
He's an Anglican vicar, not sure how 'confession' works in that denomination according to the rules. Certainly for us Catholics it's completely confidential and must remain that way, no matter how awful the thing that is confessed to the priest. Confession (or 'Sacrament of Reconciliation' to give it its proper name these days to reflect that it's all about forgiveness, not just about the confession bit ) is a Sacrament in the Catholic Church, on of the seven stages in a person's life as a member of it, only available through the actions of the priest of Bishop acting as God's representative on earth (so therefore a gift from God).
Sorry, that's all a bit heavy and theological (it's just that I used to prepare the children in our parish for the Sacrament of Reconciliation as part of their Holy Communion preparation classes!) but that's one of the bits that the Anglican Church wanted to get away from when they established themselves after the reformation - too much of a reminder of the 'bells and smells' approach they wanted to leave behind! So if anyone told Paul Coates what happened would he be under the same obligations as a Catholic priest would have been? Even if he is under the same confidentiality rules would the person doing the telling know the rules well enough to know he could trust Paul not to tell the police ... or if panic set in would the teller then target Paul as someone else to be 'kept quiet' if the net started to close in?
All of this assuming that Paul was told anything, of course! (Instead of being the killer himself, which seems a much more popular theory... but I really hope 'Rory' didn't do it!) But it's an interesting question, the idea of Paul being used as some sort of 'confession' listening ear, and it certainly has been used as a plot point in other similar stories - the 'caught between a rock and a hard place' feeling any priest must feel if they're told something so serious, and yet are unable to tell anyone else even if it involves murder. And it probably would make anyone told such a thing under those circumstances 'act a bit weird' afterwards!
I'm pretty sure you're right here. It makes most sense as it will be a way of explaining some of the red herrings.
She did and that means she knows rapists :eek: And seems pretty au fait with that kind of thing.
Sorry I misunderstood what you were getting at - that she did indeed know rapists but was merely giving a clue to the newspaper editor of things she knew about ie not actually threatening her.
But it's an interesting question, the idea of Paul being used as some sort of 'confession' listening ear, and it certainly has been used as a plot point in other similar stories - the 'caught between a rock and a hard place' feeling any priest must feel if they're told something so serious, and yet are unable to tell anyone else even if it involves murder. And it probably would make anyone told such a thing under those circumstances 'act a bit weird' afterwards!
A good example of this, is shown in Alfred Hitchcock's excellent film 'I Confess.'
What DCI? How many Jack's are there in this series?
.
One of the actors in Broadchurch used to be in The Bill and his character was called DCI Jack Meadows. I guess they can't remember his Broadchurch characters name
Comments
Sheila dear, every week so far you've complained about the pace of the series and said you're going to stop watching it, yet every week here you are back again making exactly the same complaint... do you just enjoy complaining, or don't you have any other channels on your TV?
I'm not sure he would know that, even though his mum is a policewoman??? The texts might not have any bearing on the circumstances of Danny's death, in the mind of a 10 year old boy there are a lot of things you wouldn't want your parents to read! We should find out more when they interrogate DAnny's phone.
I've had a problem with this as well - it was a very unusual thing to say, so if it turns out to be a red herring I'll be unimpressed!
Maybe he is involved with Susan and the 'men that rape' that Susan threatened the journo with. I'm wondering if the reason she didn't tell the cops Mark did work there, because that night there was dodgy dealings going on and was trying to move them away from the hut, which could be dodgy dealing central!! Of course it could be someone else altogether, but for the moment (well today!) I'm now thinking it's Mark!
He was going for dinner with Miller on the Tuesday night, unless I missed they changed it - the next morning its Sunday, The Sunday Herald is on the doorstep and there all going to church!
Jack Marshall was convicted for underage sex -was it with boys or a 15 year old girl? Instead they just leave us with he had underage sex. They accused him of taking lots of photos - really, so we'll just let you nip off home and destroy any potential evidence!!! This guys house would have been raided at dawn and searched from top to bottom to find te photos and any other evidence before he was questioned.
The blazing boat - they found a hair where the fire had been raging - hair would have disappeared in an instant in the blaze!
Was that really the best hose they could find to wet the paps with? I pee harder than that hose, perhaps the actors didn't want to get too wet!
There were many other points in the plot and dialogue that had us pausing and saying What the hell.
I am enjoying it and intrigued to know who did it but it does feel it's been a bit thrown together to stretch the story out.
I'm enjoying the series so far. I can appreciate what some are saying about the pace but I quite like that and I suppose it is as it is meant to be. I do think that the creators have been influenced by the 'Nordic Noir' rise of the last few years but I think that isn't necessarily a bad thing. I can see shades of The Killing 1 especially in the pace (although for the Killing 1 we had 20 episodes arghhh the torment of waiting :eek:) family scenes (shots in the kitchen, lighting etc...). I loved this about The Killing but I supposed with our Brit crime drama we are probably more used to and expecting of a 'rougher, in your face' kind approach so for some maybe this can come across a bit pretentious? Especially without the Danish language
Anyway, I'm not sure my theories can top any of those already expressed. Some brilliant ones. I haven't a clue who what or where although I think there is a drug smuggling thing going on (with the burning boat having previously been involved). I think there are a number of different stories interweaving (drug smuggling, child abuse, affairs etc) with Danny's death exposing these but I think his death may have been accidental and has been a catalyst for bring these stories and secrets out. Psychic Steve is a strange one.........
In regards to who killed him I'm at the moment leaning toward Tom and his dad having a hand in it (accidental death covered up by dad - Ellie's husband). But, as with the Killing, I am sure this is subject to change each week.
There was one scene that stood out for me.. it was when Danny's dad, the plumber mate and Ellie's husband were stood at the fence spraying the paparazzi with a hose and dad said 'what have we become...' and looked at the other 2 and it just jarred with me a bit and I do think these chaps are involved with some kind of secret but not necessarily Danny's death.
Anyway, enough waffling drivel from me. Sorry about the long post!... ta ra for now
BTW - I do have other channels and whilst Broadchurch was running real time - I watched an EXCELLENT episode of Law & Order (the US one) - the Yanks seldom let us down!
(Perhaps that's what the detectives in this series are also doing, since they don't seem to be doing a whole lot of actual detecting!
One thought that's occurred to me now is that Danny and Tom are just about at an age when they may be becoming aware of their sexuality. And if that sexuality is gay, or they are still unsure but think they may be, perhaps they may have turned to an adult for advice and support. Someone they know, like Paul the vicar maybe, or even Jack? And even if not, they could have had a secret life of experimentation and discovery with each other, which would account for Tom's secretiveness and furtive text-deleting. So far that's just a theory with little supporting evidence, but you never know what revelations the next episode may bring.
I still want to hear more from/about the postman or 'postman' who Danny was supposed to have argued with according to Jack. I think that he still belongs on the list of suspects, as do Joe Miller, Mark Latimer, Psychic Steve and Dean The Dodgy Boyfriend. How on earth could Ladbroke's leave that lot out of their betting odds?
Hardy and Ellie became closer throughout the investigation. By the end of the series this relationship is fractured as Hardy becomes suspicious of her husband she becomes furious with Hardy. Hardy is right and he either did it or helped the son to cover it up. The one thing i know about Ellie's husband at the moment is he loves his kids. He seems to be some sort of stay at home dad. I reckon that when it comes down to it that will be key.
Having put this on paper now I will no doubt be proved wrong !
I agree cubic (daren't call you square eyes again as there is another of that name on here)
I must not have enough leetle grey cells to work I think, as I don't do that - ponder about whodunit that is. Don't know why. But I do like reading everyone else's theories on here
She did say who will rape you though didn't she?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2300856/Is-Broadchurch-star-Olivia-Colman-new-Helen-Mirren.html
Hi Mink, nice to hear from you. I'm surprised there aren't many of the old Killing crowd on here - admittedly this isn't in the same league as the Killings were, but still plenty of scope for speculation for those of us whose leetle grey cells are in working order!
Got to say, I'm really enjoying it, and I think David Tennant is playing a good part in this (not a Dr Who fan).
So far, the dodgiest one for me is the bald guy, but the most shocking is Pauline :eek: Maybe she is the mother of the son who was molested/killed 5 years ago? Was it in Yorkshire? Hence the skateboard.
But - Will Mellor's character clearly knows exactly what happened (maybe he's involved in this drug ring?) - either he was up to no good on the night and spotted what happened, or he was actually involved (by force?) but doesn't want to implicate himself so is now using whatever method possible ('psychic abilities') to inform people what happened. First he tried the police, then he tried the family....
I also think the vicar saw what happened and is struggling to cope.
The shopkeeper is clearly supposed to be a bit of a Chris Jefferies (the Jo Yeates murder) type. The press are about to vilify him.
I'm pretty sure you're right here. It makes most sense as it will be a way of explaining some of the red herrings.
She did and that means she knows rapists :eek: And seems pretty au fait with that kind of thing.
For example in episode two when, in the supermarket, Beth reaches out to touch a familiar cereal box as if an inanimate object can bring back her son - I thought Jody Whitaker conveyed that silent and heartbreaking moment to perfection.
He's an Anglican vicar, not sure how 'confession' works in that denomination according to the rules. Certainly for us Catholics it's completely confidential and must remain that way, no matter how awful the thing that is confessed to the priest. Confession (or 'Sacrament of Reconciliation' to give it its proper name these days to reflect that it's all about forgiveness, not just about the confession bit
Sorry, that's all a bit heavy and theological (it's just that I used to prepare the children in our parish for the Sacrament of Reconciliation as part of their Holy Communion preparation classes!) but that's one of the bits that the Anglican Church wanted to get away from when they established themselves after the reformation - too much of a reminder of the 'bells and smells' approach they wanted to leave behind! So if anyone told Paul Coates what happened would he be under the same obligations as a Catholic priest would have been? Even if he is under the same confidentiality rules would the person doing the telling know the rules well enough to know he could trust Paul not to tell the police ... or if panic set in would the teller then target Paul as someone else to be 'kept quiet' if the net started to close in?
All of this assuming that Paul was told anything, of course! (Instead of being the killer himself, which seems a much more popular theory... but I really hope 'Rory' didn't do it!) But it's an interesting question, the idea of Paul being used as some sort of 'confession' listening ear, and it certainly has been used as a plot point in other similar stories - the 'caught between a rock and a hard place' feeling any priest must feel if they're told something so serious, and yet are unable to tell anyone else even if it involves murder. And it probably would make anyone told such a thing under those circumstances 'act a bit weird' afterwards!
Sorry I misunderstood what you were getting at - that she did indeed know rapists but was merely giving a clue to the newspaper editor of things she knew about ie not actually threatening her.
The last time I saw her, her head was being mounted on a spike!
What DCI? How many Jack's are there in this series?
True! Half of those on that list can already be eliminated, especially Tom - they haven't got large hands.
I keep forgetting Danny was strangled.
A good example of this, is shown in Alfred Hitchcock's excellent film 'I Confess.'
One of the actors in Broadchurch used to be in The Bill and his character was called DCI Jack Meadows. I guess they can't remember his Broadchurch characters name