I guess we know what happens to him as they've practically shown what happens in the trailer for next weeks show. :rolleyes: Why can't they show trailers at the end of the credits in case viewers don't want to see spoilers.
Because the clever people who make TV think that the people who watch TV are a bunch of numpties.
I thought it was good and well-acted etc but I do think that in far too many dramas the plot is based on a woman or women being terrorised and / or killed. There just aren't that many killers out there! And I'm tired of women being perceived as convenient victims. I will watch this through to the end because it is gripping but I think I'm going to avoid other (serial) killers targetting women for the time being because I'm simply bored with the plot... and I really shouldn't be getting desensitised like that.
I thought it was good and well-acted etc but I do think that in far too many dramas the plot is based on a woman or women being terrorised and / or killed. There just aren't that many killers out there! And I'm tired of women being perceived as convenient victims. I will watch this through to the end because it is gripping but I think I'm going to avoid other (serial) killers targetting women for the time being because I'm simply bored with the plot... and I really shouldn't be getting desensitised like that.
That is exactly what I thought last night. Here we go again, always a woman who gets mutilated andmurdered and I was going to switch off but I like DT and so carried on watching.
I did find it scary and entertaining ( for want of a better word) thought some of the plot was very far fetched ie going back to the cottage in the dark :eek: but think I'll stay with it till the end
So have we got close to explaining why there was no retrial? or have we given up on that?
Re other evidence, I'm assuming there was lots, which is why DT's character had to go down the fair trial, computer evidence route as all the other other evidence was pretty damning.
I think DT's character said there should be no retrial because the computer evidence had been reported on social media & in the press, so it wasn't just the exisiting jury that would be prejudiced, but also anyone who could be called up to sit on the jury in a retrial. Not sure that's quite convincing, but at least they tried for some explanation!
It reminded me a little of A Certain Justice by PD James - same set up of a barrister defending a murderer successfully, and then finding that it has unforseen consequences.
Originally Posted by fallfallfall View Post
so does he get off each week? also how can Sophie Okonedo defend the man if she knows the victim, should you not have some one impartial? Last question was the only evidence his porn site on his creditcard bill? no dna or people who saw him at the time?
Will try to get a law degree before next week.
Because she is career mad. She doesn't actually care. Vile woman.
Because she is career mad. She doesn't actually care. Vile woman.
I dont mean morally. but if you know people in the case before hand. she couldnt be on the jury. or if your friends wife is killed can you be involved in the trial?
Kept hoping it would get better but: DT doing usual eye-bulging performance, hideous sadistic murders described in detail as if that somehow makes the whole thing more convincing, a pile of pants from start to finish,
It was rubbish. Predictable, cliched and I've had longer dumps than that laughable trial. Wish the BBC would screen some of this original British drama they keep banging on about.
I think DT's character said there should be no retrial because the computer evidence had been reported on social media & in the press, so it wasn't just the exisiting jury that would be prejudiced, but also anyone who could be called up to sit on the jury in a retrial. Not sure that's quite convincing, but at least they tried for some explanation!
It reminded me a little of A Certain Justice by PD James - same set up of a barrister defending a murderer successfully, and then finding that it has unforseen consequences.
That's exactly what I thought.
The Escape Artist had some brilliant acting, but the writing was just a bit too wobbly to make it wholly convincing.
A Certain Justice (both book and TV adaptation) was better written, and slightly more plausible.
I think DT's character said there should be no retrial because the computer evidence had been reported on social media & in the press, so it wasn't just the exisiting jury that would be prejudiced, but also anyone who could be called up to sit on the jury in a retrial.
If that's so, then it would be pretty easy to get every defendant off, wouldn't it? Just leak stuff to the media and set up people talking on the likes of FB, Twitter and forums like this.
a big fan of DT and good acting as usual. I did enjoy but aspects of the plot I thought were disappointing, notably the aquittal. I also find it somewhat strange that a serial killer would then go after the family of the lawyer who got him off. refusing to shake hands with someone just doesnt add up to me
The title The Escape Artist kind of hints that the guy will get off scot-free at the end. That would be a bit far-fetched, but in keeping with the drama as a whole.
I thought it was good and well-acted etc but I do think that in far too many dramas the plot is based on a woman or women being terrorised and / or killed. There just aren't that many killers out there! And I'm tired of women being perceived as convenient victims. I will watch this through to the end because it is gripping but I think I'm going to avoid other (serial) killers targetting women for the time being because I'm simply bored with the plot... and I really shouldn't be getting desensitised like that.
Exactly what I thought as well. Watched the rubbish film Alex Cross the other day and it was similar plotline.
I also find it somewhat strange that a serial killer would then go after the family of the lawyer who got him off. refusing to shake hands with someone just doesnt add up to me
Yeah. Serial killers... always being made out to be less than rational, subject to strange whims... apt to take offence, great offence :eek: at odd things... doesn't add up, does it?
Watchable throughout but crassly manipulative and illogical. Why didn`t she tell him it was Foyle at the window? She must`ve seen his face in newspapers and she got a good look at him but for the purposes of the plot it was decided she didn`t recognise him. Why didn`t he shake his hand? It`d been established early on that he didn`t have much of a moral compass so as a plot-point on which the whole thing hinges it was very weak indeed. I hate Ashley Jensen (as an actor, nothing more) so I was relieved to see her killed off although it was a bit of a surprise.
It reminded me of a silly series called "Injustice" from a couple of years ago about a barrister who insisted that his clients must tell him they were innocent and if he ever finds out they were guilty he kills them. His name was Will too, which doesn't help. He had had some kind of breakdown in the past ,so the wife in this one going on about holes in Will's brain made me wonder if he has too:?
And the bit with the wife holding her breath under the water in the bath made me think of "Hunted", again not a good idea.
The title The Escape Artist kind of hints that the guy will get off scot-free at the end. That would be a bit far-fetched, but in keeping with the drama as a whole.
I think the escape artist is the DT character - there was some allusion early on to a (or the) defendent needing Paul Daniels - ie, a magician - whereas what was needed was an Houdini... DT. Or maybe I imagined that exchange?!
I thought it might be a bit like the film Primal Fear, but it was just bad. I like Ashley Jensen in Extras, but I didn't like her in Ugly Betty or this. Plot holes you can drive a bus through and cliched woman carved up with gratuitous photos. Not sure why we need 3 parts to it.
I think the escape artist is the DT character - there was some allusion early on to a (or the) defendent needing Paul Daniels - ie, a magician - whereas what was needed was an Houdini... DT. Or maybe I imagined that exchange?!
that's what I thought too, (and I'm sure i read it in an interview with DT) but maybe there's a double meaning
I think the escape artist is the DT character - there was some allusion early on to a (or the) defendent needing Paul Daniels - ie, a magician - whereas what was needed was an Houdini... DT. Or maybe I imagined that exchange?!
You're right, they did say that.
Something I'm confused about - I thought that when David Tennant and the solicitor were asking Liam Foyle questions near the beginning, he was saying things like, "We thought the blood on our shoes was from a dead squirrel", "We do the washing on a Tuesday", etc. So who is "we"? Did he have an accomplice, or does he have multiple personalities / imaginary friends?
Comments
Because the clever people who make TV think that the people who watch TV are a bunch of numpties.
That is exactly what I thought last night. Here we go again, always a woman who gets mutilated andmurdered and I was going to switch off but I like DT and so carried on watching.
I did find it scary and entertaining ( for want of a better word) thought some of the plot was very far fetched ie going back to the cottage in the dark :eek: but think I'll stay with it till the end
I think DT's character said there should be no retrial because the computer evidence had been reported on social media & in the press, so it wasn't just the exisiting jury that would be prejudiced, but also anyone who could be called up to sit on the jury in a retrial. Not sure that's quite convincing, but at least they tried for some explanation!
It reminded me a little of A Certain Justice by PD James - same set up of a barrister defending a murderer successfully, and then finding that it has unforseen consequences.
so does he get off each week? also how can Sophie Okonedo defend the man if she knows the victim, should you not have some one impartial? Last question was the only evidence his porn site on his creditcard bill? no dna or people who saw him at the time?
Will try to get a law degree before next week.
Because she is career mad. She doesn't actually care. Vile woman.
I dont mean morally. but if you know people in the case before hand. she couldnt be on the jury. or if your friends wife is killed can you be involved in the trial?
It's because the defendant isn't guilty until convicted. How would you have it?
That's exactly what I thought.
The Escape Artist had some brilliant acting, but the writing was just a bit too wobbly to make it wholly convincing.
A Certain Justice (both book and TV adaptation) was better written, and slightly more plausible.
If that's so, then it would be pretty easy to get every defendant off, wouldn't it? Just leak stuff to the media and set up people talking on the likes of FB, Twitter and forums like this.
Did he follow them there at some point or was it more simple than that? Land records etc...
Apologies if this has already been covered and I missed it..
It was Liam Foyle, presumably because of the whole refusing to shake hands business.
This was one of many things left unexplained.
Exactly what I thought as well. Watched the rubbish film Alex Cross the other day and it was similar plotline.
And the bit with the wife holding her breath under the water in the bath made me think of "Hunted", again not a good idea.
that's what I thought too, (and I'm sure i read it in an interview with DT) but maybe there's a double meaning
You're right, they did say that.
Something I'm confused about - I thought that when David Tennant and the solicitor were asking Liam Foyle questions near the beginning, he was saying things like, "We thought the blood on our shoes was from a dead squirrel", "We do the washing on a Tuesday", etc. So who is "we"? Did he have an accomplice, or does he have multiple personalities / imaginary friends?
Toby Kebbell was absolutely frightening as Foyle, kudos to him.