Jump to content

Broadchurch (tv show)


AncalagonTheBlack

Recommended Posts

Miller's sister is going to damage the case more than she helps, oh dear...

I wonder, it flashed to Miller's son afterwards...are we supposed to be thinking that Joe is not guilty and protecting his son? That would be a twist, though not sure if I believe it. I'm sure the brief scene with him is supposed to be of some relevance though. We'll see I guess. He did act suspiciously last Season, enough that I suspected him then.

Crown have finished their case now. Very underwhelming, she is supposed to be this spectacular Barrister yet hasn't been particularly great imo.

Hardy and Clare sleeping together really would not surprise me. I had a niggling suspicion that there was *something* between them.

I liked the Defence Barrister's "These are people...have some sensitivity!"

:crying: oh Tom :crying: that scene :bawl: poor boy :(

The Defence really is great, she is so professional and good at her job. (I'm writing while I watch btw, so please bear with me if I am.rambling)

I don't like Ollie...

Oh, seems I forgot that fact about Sandbrook. I thought both girls were confirmed as dead.

I can't be the only one who thinks Hardy and Miller going away together is not a good idea. If the Defence were to find out they were away together, and stopped in a room with a Double bed together...

Susan! :D omg, yes! I'm so pleased she came.back. Love her blunt attitude.

Uh, Clare and Lee...hmm...

Erm, this certainly is not a good idea on Ellie's part. Surely that is breaking some sort of law.

I think if Beth couod agree to the sex offender charity thing...I think that would be a very hard but very decent thing of her to support.

:eek: Susan dying?! I did like the matter-of-fact way she said it though. Very in-character. I do not like her son though. I didn't like him last Season either. I suspect Susan is back for some plot reason too though. Perhaps as the Defence's alternative suggestion for.Danny's killer? Assuming they do not.accuse his father that is. I would assume not, since the hotel owner can provide an alibi. Still, I think that we will probably know by the end of this episode who they wre trying to paint as the killer. Danny's father would be consistent with their earlier approach in Court.

Well, Ricky was a creep. What a thing to say to a young girl "I had a daughter your age and its your father's fault her killer escaped!"

Ooooh! Ricky and Clare in contact?! :eek: !

Susan to the stand for the Defence? Hmmm...

What the hell?!

Ok, so the end of the episode has left me more.confused than ever. Stop changing your statements people!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are aspects of this show that are becoming increasingly stupid/frustrating

how can Miller's sister be that stupid? I mean that has to be learning difficulty stupid with a touch of autism to think that was a) a clever idea and b)thought it went down well


Rest of the episode was ok



As for who might take the fall instead

It was joe's son in the US version so they could try and do that. Given the ending and the similarity (from a distance) I think they'll try and pin it on Nigel. It's hard to explain how he had access to the Miller's phone and home computer though. The thing with Nigel is that he was going off on secret poaching trips with the kid.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

When they said they nedsomeone to accuse I thought they will bring up that postman that was seen arguing with dani or something,but this was a twist.

I like Claire less and less every episoded and I like Lee more and more,he is creepy but he is playing that game of his,whatever it might be so good.

The reveal about the

Claire being with all three men involved in the case blew my mind. Hardy I expected, Lee was understood, but the father??? And he "made syre" the wife was watching. Sick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Finally caught up on last week's episode. Things I'm wondering about:

Re. Hardy and Ellie Miller

I think that was really stupid of them to sleep in the same room like that. I can't believe Ellie was all like "Oh well, they already think we're sleeping together, what does it matter if we share a room?". Surely the answer is: Well if anyone ever finds out about your sleeping arrangements tonight, they're gonna use that as evidence you are sleeping together and say your whole handling of the case is corrupt. I've a really bad feeling the reporter who's now snooping around Lee Ashworth is gonna find out about these two and make matters even worse.

Re. The defence team

How come Joe Miller's defence team aren't totally convinced that he's guilty? The younger lawyer who was representing him from the start had been told he was going to plea guilty, so surely her belief from the start was that he

was guilty. And when he put in the 'not guilty' plea, he never said to them "I swear I didn't do it" He just kept saying "I can't go to prison for this", which I took to mean "I did it, but I want you to get me off the hook for this". And at no point when the pair were discussing the confession did they say "He might have been forced to confess by a corrupt police team on the case" they were just like "Ah ha! Maybe we can use what Ellie did as an excuse to imply that the confession may have been forced."

Also a really naive question as I know nothing about the law: If you believe your client is guilty, does that mean you're not allowed to defend them with a 'not guilty' plea, or is that only if they tell you that they're guilty themselves?

Re. Claire Ripley

How come she didn't tell the court at the time what she told Ellie about being drugged and waking to find Lee cleaning the whole house? I thought she had testified against him in court, which was why she had to go into hiding when he got let off. If she was already testifying in court, why keep such damning information back?



It's all very murky and shady, I'm looking forward to tonight's episode anyway!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with the "new" case is that it is making Hardy look like an idiot. Why didn't he look at all these angles before Miller did?


The lawyer showdown was fun

did the defence lawyer want the prosecutor to prosecute her son and throw the case? Or can lawyers switch from prosecution/defence?



I was talking to my mum the other day and I was surprised at her interpretation of who the killer is. At first I dismissed it as crazy but after the latest episode I' starting to wonder if I was being too hasty.

she thinks Joe is genuinely innocent (of the murder at least). The only way I can see that working is if Joe's son was the killer - it's pretty much the only reason someone would take the blame for such a crime. I still think it's out there but now his son is giving evidence I'm starting to wonder



oh and spoiler about the US version of the show

Apparently Miller's son was the murderer. This clearly adds some weight to my above theory of Joe actually being innocent


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Red Snow, I had a moment where I thought like your Mam did (I think I might have posted it here actually). It was E2 that got me thinking iirc.

Loving the dynamic between the Defence lawyer and the prosecution. As I understand it she refused to Defend her assistant's son. I dont recall that you need to choose either prosecution or defence

eddard;

everyone is entitled to legal representation in the UK whether you are guilty or not. Its the whole right to a fair trial thing. As long as Joe doesn't confess to being guilty to his lawyer thwn she has to try and defend him. Sure he was going to plead guilty, but that doesn't mean he told her he wAS guilty. Doing that can reduced the minimum sentence though (well, tariff since its a mandatory life setence

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chris Chibnall is an exceptionally terrible writer, but Season 1 of Broadchurch made me reconsider that. Now Season 2 has made me realise that actually, no, he really is awful and just got incredibly lucky and/or inspired during S1. Even more ridiculously, he's said he kind of knew that S1 should have been a one-off, but then hey, wads of money.



What's more annoying is that in the hands of some good writers, this could have worked. Having the detectives tie up a harrowing case by catching the killer almost red-handed, a confession, overwhelming evidence...then having it completely destroyed in the actual court case the following season by having the defence use all the plot holes and daft writing decisions made during the first season. It's a brilliant concept wrecked by very clumsy writing, poor acting (Tennant and Rampling are way, way below their normal level of quality) and the other mystery being so far-fetched that it might as well involve aliens and/or robots.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chris Chibnall is an exceptionally terrible writer, but Season 1 of Broadchurch made me reconsider that. Now Season 2 has made me realise that actually, no, he really is awful and just got incredibly lucky and/or inspired during S1. Even more ridiculously, he's said he kind of knew that S1 should have been a one-off, but then hey, wads of money.

What's more annoying is that in the hands of some good writers, this could have worked. Having the detectives tie up a harrowing case by catching the killer almost red-handed, a confession, overwhelming evidence...then having it completely destroyed in the actual court case the following season by having the defence use all the plot holes and daft writing decisions made during the first season. It's a brilliant concept wrecked by very clumsy writing, poor acting (Tennant and Rampling are way, way below their normal level of quality) and the other mystery being so far-fetched that it might as well involve aliens and/or robots.

Agreed, I've been so underwhelmed by Rampling's performance so far! This is the first English-language thing I've seen her in, so part of me had thought it was to do with to that (which on reflection makes no sense at all) , but reading someone else's opinion has made me realise, no, it is just a poor performance. I think Tennant has given a competant performance, but hasn't really shone. Do you think that's a result of the writing, to make him this fairly 2D grumpy / grizzled character? I do think Olivia Colman, Pauline Quirke and the actor playing Sharon Bishop have all put in great performaces so far though.

I also agree with previous comments that her character so far is really not showing any evidence of her Kick-Ass Lawyer reputation she's supposed to have, but that's another matter. My speculation:

that the writers are deliberately downplaying her performance in court so we'll be surprised and blown away by a long awaited transformation to Queen of Lawyers right at the end just before the jury go out.

eddard;

everyone is entitled to legal representation in the UK whether you are guilty or not. Its the whole right to a fair trial thing. As long as Joe doesn't confess to being guilty to his lawyer thwn she has to try and defend him. Sure he was going to plead guilty, but that doesn't mean he told her he wAS guilty. Doing that can reduced the minimum sentence though (well, tariff since its a mandatory life setence

Thanks for the explaining how it works.

It hasn't been clear at all what he's said to his defence team (well, what we've seen him say to them), but I can see now he obviously has

not told them outright he was guilty, just that he was initially going to plead guilty. I wonder if it's just that the writers are deliberately withholding from us what he has said for dramatic reasons that have yet to unford.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I enjoyed this episode

Ellie-Tom interaction, as well as Ellie-Beth interaction. Was really great seeing her taking control of the situation. I guess there is only so far someone can be pushed before they snap.

The Defence asking to have the case dismissed because of the PACE breaches (Police and Criminal Evidence Act, for non-Brits who dont know. Basically protecting suspects from abuse of police power and ensuring procedural justice by making police follow the correct procedure - e.g. Can't abuse suspects etc.)

Hardy's pacemaker thing. Explains why he made out the will before.

Beth giving Mark what for. Seriously, I'm shocked she stayed with him.so long, though I guess the baby played a part. But maybe I am biased, because I think he is a prick.

Paul (the vicar) ending the prison visits.

Jocelyn's heart-to-heart with Ben about her failing sight was well done.

What I didn't like:

The whole Ashbrook thing. Really can't get interested in it now tbh.

Ollie and the lawyer's assistant having sex. The hell was the point of that littpe side story. In fact, Ollie just annoys me in general, I could do without him in the show.

Convenient pendant picture is convenient and lazy.

And also

Lee and Claire's relationship is all kinds of fucked up and destructive

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:wideeyed:

well okay, they aren't sisters :p

Other stuff:

Thought the panoramic shot of the Court room was great.

Ellie and Beth was touching, I'm glad they seem.to be getting past it

:rofl: at "You're a really...awful person" to the Defence's help

Fuck. What a cop out ending to the episode.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We won't find out till next week’s finale,it ended on a cliffhanger ! :bang:

Which I knew all along was going to happen and it pissed me off throughout the episode.

At one point I'd have sworn half the jury were crew members of Kirk's enterprise, red shirts and all the other designations.

Miller's sister isn't getting a fraction of the scorn she deserves. I also enjoyed the "you're a truly horrible person line" as it was built up to be a clumsy "fancy a drink".

To all those thinking it was a sister relationship - I hope they are better at picking up vibes in real life (usually it's more subtle!)

Was it me or was the defence's final comments basically if you think it's remotely possibly the dad did it then the defendent is innocent desptie all the evidence?

I also think Tennant misdelivered his "I'm reborn" line. I'm sure it was supposed to be "I've regenerated"

Maybe the TV reviewers were ahead of me as while I was strongly defending the first few episodes I can sort of see their criticism now. The last episode needs to be a belter to have a chance of putting this season near the first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is this coming back for a 3rd season?

I certainly hope not. The story is done, dont milk it any further.

red snow:

Yeah, about the sister thing...that was probably me jumping to conclusions. I mean, the actresses look alike so I immediately thought they were related and latched on to that conclusion. And once you have your conclusion in mind I'm sure you know yourself it skews how you see things. But never mind.

Well the Defence KNOWS how difficult there case is. Since the standard of proof is to be sure beyond all reasonable doubt, all they need to do is have the jury considering whether Mark could have done it and by rights they would need to acquit Joe. It probably to most sensible route for them.to go down, given what they have to work with.

And I dont think this season can come anywhere close to the first, no matter how good the last episode might be. Sure, its had its great moments but overall its been far inferior.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...