I wish people would get off their high horse and stop acting like theyre tv critics. If you dont like broadchurch anymore then dont watch it. Simple.
I think its a refreshing show and had a hell of a lot of tension and drama for an itv drama. Exciting stuff. I love hearing what others think and different theories. Its a shame some people have to spoil it by constantly slagging off the inaccuracies. Eastenders and Coronation Street have been going dor decades and theyre hardly realistic.
No, it is not that simple. Many of us loved the first series, and think this season is not good. But we keep watching in hope it will improve.
Like I did with Sherlock. The first two series were wonderful, the last was awful, but I kept watching in hope it would improve.
Its the people that have moaned about it constantly since series two started. After 4 episodes if people think its that bad and that inaccurate then why would you keep watching? People like to have something to moan about and I think its a shame. Especially those who pick at the slightest thing. Its just a tv show. Its there to be enjoyed. And if you dont enjoy it then I dont see what the point is in carrying on with it and then moaning about it on here. The first series wasnt so amazing that it makes series two look shameful and I think people reflect on it like it waa groundbreaking. It was good but it was just as inaccurate and just as slow burning as this series.
I don't really understand posters than come to a chat forum and then get annoyed with people talking about what they liked and didn't like about a show??
If you're the kind of person who just likes to watch something and enjoy it without analysing, fair enough. But surely this kind of place is catering for the kind of viewers who find half the fun is in discussing and dissecting various scenes afterwards? People are much naturally inclined to talk about things they didn't enjoy from my experience (often myself included). If those kinds of posts annoy you - simply skip them.
Im happy to discuss and disect things but not simply tell everyone that its all crap now and I have stopped watching it. No one cares. I thought the point of forum dedicated to a programme was for people who like the programme to discuss it not pull it apart.
Im happy to discuss and disect things but not simply tell everyone that its all crap now and I have stopped watching it. No one cares. I thought the point of forum dedicated to a programme was for people who like the programme to discuss it not pull it apart.
You're missing the point. Most people who've been watching S2 will have watched and enjoyed S1. Including myself. S1 wasn't 'pulled apart' because it was a well written and constructed programme. S2 has been because many people think it's been flawed and lost some of the magic. There are plenty of reviews and 'episode by episode guides' which echo much of what's been 'pulled apart' on here.
I'm glad that I can come on here and read that people have similar concerns about the plot, writing and character development of S2 because I think it's been very poor but my wife continues to enjoy it. I like discussing the bigger picture about TV programmes. Also I think most people on here (including myself) continue to watch because they are hoping it may improve.
Telling people what they should/shouldn't do on a forum is a lost cause.
Its the people that have moaned about it constantly since series two started. After 4 episodes if people think its that bad and that inaccurate then why would you keep watching? People like to have something to moan about and I think its a shame. Especially those who pick at the slightest thing. Its just a tv show. Its there to be enjoyed. And if you dont enjoy it then I dont see what the point is in carrying on with it and then moaning about it on here. The first series wasnt so amazing that it makes series two look shameful and I think people reflect on it like it waa groundbreaking. It was good but it was just as inaccurate and just as slow burning as this series.
It may have been 'inaccurate' in places....but it was tense, you couldn't wait for the next episode...10 MILLION watched the finale!
This time round...? Nothing like as good, overbloated BROADCHURCH adverts by ITV haven't helped, and sadly there IS no tension, just a lot of hot air, silly storylines and RED HERRINGS THAT THIS TIME ROUND DON'T HOLD YOUR ATTENTION. BUT i WILL KEEP WATCHING in the hope......!
...I believe Claire and Lee have convinced Lisa that she is somehow to blame and have told Lisa to disappear.... wonder if she may be found in France, where Lee was
Yes, I've wondered if Lee got Lisa safely settled in France.
I thought the point of forum dedicated to a programme was for people who like the programme to discuss it not pull it apart.
No, the point of the forum is for people who watch a programme to comment and discuss. Frankly, I often find the negative comments more entertaining than the fawning ones which have little to say other than to indicate they want to give Hardy a hug. Or more.
To take it broader than Broadchurch, some of the fun of these forums is to read something you - at first sight - disagree with and then if a point is well made, sometimes I'll come around to agreeing with the point being made - or certainly understanding it, anyway.
If you want a pure 'appreciation thread' where negative comments are not allowed, you need to start one. It does happen but often they simply fizzle out before a couple of dozen posts have been made.
I don't really understand posters than come to a chat forum and then get annoyed with people talking about what they liked and didn't like about a show??
If you're the kind of person who just likes to watch something and enjoy it without analysing, fair enough. But surely this kind of place is catering for the kind of viewers who find half the fun is in discussing and dissecting various scenes afterwards? People are much naturally inclined to talk about things they didn't enjoy from my experience (often myself included). If those kinds of posts annoy you - simply skip them.
Quite right. And to those who think they are king (or queen) of the boards, and think they have the right to tell others how to post - they don't.
kat180, you'd THINK this would be intuitive.............but sadly, it ain't.
Telling people what they should/shouldn't do on a forum is a lost cause.
If you want a pure 'appreciation thread' where negative comments are not allowed, you need to start one.
Brilliant, pubey and Normandie. Let's hope some here heed your words.
Interesting theory, that Lee and Claire are hiding the surviving girl (whose name escapes me) in France.
I could see it with Lee maybe,but not sure about Claire,she just seems dodgy.I wouldn't be surprised if it was her and the girls father who were guilty and Lee tried to cover things up to protect her.
I could see it with Lee maybe,but not sure about Claire,she just seems dodgy.I wouldn't be surprised if it was her and the girls father who were guilty and Lee tried to cover things up to protect her.
Oh yes, she is guilty of something. Murder or another crime.
Because she is, as you say, so dodgy.
I also think the vicar is acting strange, and he looks guilty of almost anythng. But, maybe that is a red herring?
And maybe Claire too?
Yes, I've wondered if Lee got Lisa safely settled in France.
No, the point of the forum is for people who watch a programme to comment and discuss. Frankly, I often find the negative comments more entertaining than the fawning ones which have little to say other than to indicate they want to give Hardy a hug. Or more.
To take it broader than Broadchurch, some of the fun of these forums is to read something you - at first sight - disagree with and then if a point is well made, sometimes I'll come around to agreeing with the point being made - or certainly understanding it, anyway.
If you want a pure 'appreciation thread' where negative comments are not allowed, you need to start one. It does happen but often they simply fizzle out before a couple of dozen posts have been made.
I have to say sometimes when I come on here and there's a wall of 'this is cr*p, not watching anymore' it's a bit disheartening, for want of a better word. But I normally find if I keep going, then there's other comments or theories, it's just this time round, you have to search for them a bit more It is quite a negative forum and feels like you have to work that bit harder for the positive!!!!
I do though find some of the slagging off funny, just because it is quite amusing ie Ian and his fence bashing. Doesn't make me not like the show, it's fun to read. I much prefer when there's chat about the show, theories, ideas more than the simple I hate this, I love this posts and not a lot else. But this is a public forum, moaning, groaning, cheering and praising is part of the way forums go and we all have a right to say what we feel, even if it is just 'this is pants,'!
Oh and I've been critical of this Broadchurch, but crititcal of bits and not all. So I'm not saying this as someone who thinks it shouldn't be criticised,
Oh yes, she is guilty of something. Murder or another crime.
Because she is, as you say, so dodgy.
I also think the vicar is acting strange, and he looks guilty of almost anythng. But, maybe that is a red herring?
And maybe Claire too?
I think maybe it is all based around Claire. She murdered Pippa and everyone else got involved because of her. She seems like the sort of character that could change from good to bad in a click. I really really can't bear watching her, so this may have clouded my judgement though:D
The vicar does seem to bring out suspicion whenever you see him, he looks guilty, alot! This could be I suppose him not thinking he's doing his vicar job properly so as you say could be a red herring. But I would like to know why he gives off the 'it was me, I'm guilty, don't tell anyone' vibe! Hope they do tell us.
I'm sure there will be a revelation of some kind about the vicar. Otherwise it makes him a bit of a dodgy character for no reason at all. If he was just being used as a red herring for Danny's murder then fair enough, but it's obvious that we're still meant to think something's going on with him, so it needs to be followed up.
I have to say sometimes when I come on here and there's a wall of 'this is cr*p, not watching anymore' it's a bit disheartening, for want of a better word. But I normally find if I keep going, then there's other comments or theories, it's just this time round, you have to search for them a bit more It is quite a negative forum and feels like you have to work that bit harder for the positive!!!!
I do though find some of the slagging off funny, just because it is quite amusing ie Ian and his fence bashing. Doesn't make me not like the show, it's fun to read. I much prefer when there's chat about the show, theories, ideas more than the simple I hate this, I love this posts and not a lot else. But this is a public forum, moaning, groaning, cheering and praising is part of the way forums go and we all have a right to say what we feel, even if it is just 'this is pants,'!
Oh and I've been critical of this Broadchurch, but crititcal of bits and not all. So I'm not saying this as someone who thinks it shouldn't be criticised,
Agree with all of the above, I am not, so far, as enthralled with BC 2 as I was with series one, but am sticking with it and enjoying all the comments, as everyone has the right to voice their opinion, is what message boards are all about.
I think maybe it is all based around Claire. She murdered Pippa and everyone else got involved because of her. She seems like the sort of character that could change from good to bad in a click. I really really can't bear watching her, so this may have clouded my judgement though:D
The vicar does seem to bring out suspicion whenever you see him, he looks guilty, alot! This could be I suppose him not thinking he's doing his vicar job properly so as you say could be a red herring. But I would like to know why he gives off the 'it was me, I'm guilty, don't tell anyone' vibe! Hope they do tell us.
Claire does seem to be the sort of character who does whatever she wants to, and then leaves it to others to clear up her mess. I am not overly impressed with the actress, but to b fair, maybe if she is making me dislike the character then perhaps she is doing a good job.
I have always thought the vicar was dodgy and that there is going to be more to his story than we have been told so far. I thought in series one, when he was revealed as an alcoholic, that this was the secret, but I now think there is more to come
This week's short story published on Amazon is about Tess, Hardys wife. I found it very helpful to get my head around her character.
Am really looking fwd to book 6 ...and it is interesting that although amazon showed the covers for books 1 to 6 fairly early on, they have not, so far, revealed the covers for books 7 and 8 , which makes me think they will have some good revelations, and may be about people such as joe and the vicar.
Am really looking fwd to book 6 ...and it is interesting that although amazon showed the covers for books 1 to 6 fairly early on, they have not, so far, revealed the covers for books 7 and 8 , which makes me think they will have some good revelations, and may be about people such as joe and the vicar.
I'd like to read one about Joe. Although it depends what point they decide to use to tell his story from. I'd like to know why he changed his mind about his 'guilty' plea. The vicar is just a mystery to me - any kind of enlightening story would be welcome!
I didn't watch the first series, but did read the book, and I don't think I've heard anyone say that it differs massively from what was shown on TV. What struck me was how completely out of the blue the sudden unmasking of Joe's guilt seemed to come. Unless I missed it (which is unlikely, because I was already aware of who'd dunnit before I started reading), we were given no clues whatsoever in the events that led up to it.
I'm wondering if we should be looking at the least likeliest person instead of Claire. It does seem that she has a special devotion to Lee and lets him drive her behaviour, despite the fact that she'll sleep with anything with a pulse (careful, Vince!), and the writers are being comparatively generous with clues to her sexual kinks. The 'tie me up this time' comment, her statement that Lee had never hurt her unless she'd 'asked him to' (Ellie's face!)... it's a lot compared to the 'nothing' we were given with Joe.
There may be more to it, but right now I think the reason the vicar looks so guilty is that he is visiting Joe and trying to help him. It's part of his job as vicar, but I don't imagine it will go down very well with the community when that comes out.
Comments
No, it is not that simple. Many of us loved the first series, and think this season is not good. But we keep watching in hope it will improve.
Like I did with Sherlock. The first two series were wonderful, the last was awful, but I kept watching in hope it would improve.
If you're the kind of person who just likes to watch something and enjoy it without analysing, fair enough. But surely this kind of place is catering for the kind of viewers who find half the fun is in discussing and dissecting various scenes afterwards? People are much naturally inclined to talk about things they didn't enjoy from my experience (often myself included). If those kinds of posts annoy you - simply skip them.
You're missing the point. Most people who've been watching S2 will have watched and enjoyed S1. Including myself. S1 wasn't 'pulled apart' because it was a well written and constructed programme. S2 has been because many people think it's been flawed and lost some of the magic. There are plenty of reviews and 'episode by episode guides' which echo much of what's been 'pulled apart' on here.
I'm glad that I can come on here and read that people have similar concerns about the plot, writing and character development of S2 because I think it's been very poor but my wife continues to enjoy it. I like discussing the bigger picture about TV programmes. Also I think most people on here (including myself) continue to watch because they are hoping it may improve.
Telling people what they should/shouldn't do on a forum is a lost cause.
It may have been 'inaccurate' in places....but it was tense, you couldn't wait for the next episode...10 MILLION watched the finale!
This time round...? Nothing like as good, overbloated BROADCHURCH adverts by ITV haven't helped, and sadly there IS no tension, just a lot of hot air, silly storylines and RED HERRINGS THAT THIS TIME ROUND DON'T HOLD YOUR ATTENTION. BUT i WILL KEEP WATCHING in the hope......!
Seems to be is that lawyers are saying or doing things that CAN help him get off fully.
No, the point of the forum is for people who watch a programme to comment and discuss. Frankly, I often find the negative comments more entertaining than the fawning ones which have little to say other than to indicate they want to give Hardy a hug. Or more.
To take it broader than Broadchurch, some of the fun of these forums is to read something you - at first sight - disagree with and then if a point is well made, sometimes I'll come around to agreeing with the point being made - or certainly understanding it, anyway.
If you want a pure 'appreciation thread' where negative comments are not allowed, you need to start one. It does happen but often they simply fizzle out before a couple of dozen posts have been made.
This week's short story published on Amazon is about Tess, Hardys wife. I found it very helpful to get my head around her character.
Tess? Isn't her name Cate?
Edit. Ok, so it is Tess. I am obviously very slow.
Quite right. And to those who think they are king (or queen) of the boards, and think they have the right to tell others how to post - they don't.
kat180, you'd THINK this would be intuitive.............but sadly, it ain't.
Telling people what they should/shouldn't do on a forum is a lost cause.
If you want a pure 'appreciation thread' where negative comments are not allowed, you need to start one.
Brilliant, pubey and Normandie. Let's hope some here heed your words.
I could see it with Lee maybe,but not sure about Claire,she just seems dodgy.I wouldn't be surprised if it was her and the girls father who were guilty and Lee tried to cover things up to protect her.
Oh yes, she is guilty of something. Murder or another crime.
Because she is, as you say, so dodgy.
I also think the vicar is acting strange, and he looks guilty of almost anythng. But, maybe that is a red herring?
And maybe Claire too?
Well you obviously do, or you wouldn't be here.
I have to say sometimes when I come on here and there's a wall of 'this is cr*p, not watching anymore' it's a bit disheartening, for want of a better word. But I normally find if I keep going, then there's other comments or theories, it's just this time round, you have to search for them a bit more
I do though find some of the slagging off funny, just because it is quite amusing ie Ian and his fence bashing. Doesn't make me not like the show, it's fun to read. I much prefer when there's chat about the show, theories, ideas more than the simple I hate this, I love this posts and not a lot else. But this is a public forum, moaning, groaning, cheering and praising is part of the way forums go and we all have a right to say what we feel, even if it is just 'this is pants,'!
Oh and I've been critical of this Broadchurch, but crititcal of bits and not all. So I'm not saying this as someone who thinks it shouldn't be criticised,
I think maybe it is all based around Claire. She murdered Pippa and everyone else got involved because of her. She seems like the sort of character that could change from good to bad in a click. I really really can't bear watching her, so this may have clouded my judgement though:D
The vicar does seem to bring out suspicion whenever you see him, he looks guilty, alot! This could be I suppose him not thinking he's doing his vicar job properly so as you say could be a red herring. But I would like to know why he gives off the 'it was me, I'm guilty, don't tell anyone' vibe! Hope they do tell us.
Agree with all of the above, I am not, so far, as enthralled with BC 2 as I was with series one, but am sticking with it and enjoying all the comments, as everyone has the right to voice their opinion, is what message boards are all about.
Claire does seem to be the sort of character who does whatever she wants to, and then leaves it to others to clear up her mess. I am not overly impressed with the actress, but to b fair, maybe if she is making me dislike the character then perhaps she is doing a good job.
I have always thought the vicar was dodgy and that there is going to be more to his story than we have been told so far. I thought in series one, when he was revealed as an alcoholic, that this was the secret, but I now think there is more to come
Am really looking fwd to book 6 ...and it is interesting that although amazon showed the covers for books 1 to 6 fairly early on, they have not, so far, revealed the covers for books 7 and 8 , which makes me think they will have some good revelations, and may be about people such as joe and the vicar.
It's very good so far.
I'd like to read one about Joe. Although it depends what point they decide to use to tell his story from. I'd like to know why he changed his mind about his 'guilty' plea. The vicar is just a mystery to me - any kind of enlightening story would be welcome!
I'm wondering if we should be looking at the least likeliest person instead of Claire. It does seem that she has a special devotion to Lee and lets him drive her behaviour, despite the fact that she'll sleep with anything with a pulse (careful, Vince!), and the writers are being comparatively generous with clues to her sexual kinks. The 'tie me up this time' comment, her statement that Lee had never hurt her unless she'd 'asked him to' (Ellie's face!)... it's a lot compared to the 'nothing' we were given with Joe.
Who aren't we being clued up on?