HermitsUnited

Oh yeah, I can understand that actually. Although the trailer for Broadchurch 2 has me excited. Mainly because I wanted to know more about Hardy's background. Strangely, Gracepoint kind of got a little bit more out of their "Hardy" character by having Carver's daughter turn up. You get more closure on Carver's story in Gracepoint than you do for Hardy's story in Broadchurch. But I certainly don't want to simply see Miller and Hardy solving murder mysteries every "season". Apparently the second series isn't solving a murder, so I'm hoping it'll be different. Admittedly, little bit hard to trust given how similar Gracepoint ended up being. I feel like I spent 10 weeks re-watching a lesser version of Broadchurch with a couple of token scenes that mean I can't say they were actually identical. I'm glad Tennant got a chance to go over there and prove he's capable of doing an American accent, but honestly I'm not sure why they didn't just play Broadchurch on the mainstream TV and just make a new American TV show if they liked the idea so much. Ah well. I'll be curious to see if FOX comes out with an announcement regarding the future of the show. They've been oddly silent. And from the way people talk, they're not normally shy about cancelling shows.

No to Broadchurch season 2 as well? Did you not like either show? Did anyone catch watch Mark shouted at Joe in that scene. There's one line where I have absolutely no idea what he said. He looked super mad though!

The reveal takes a lot of punch out of the whole "whodunit" scenario. It wasn't a murder. In fact, it ended up being a whole boat load of unlucky circumstances that led to Danny being killed by accident. Which is odd considering how FOX marketed the whole program. That little last minute twist actually made it an incredibly tragic ending. One I feel FOX really didn't capitalise on. Particularly because they spent 10 episodes creating Broadchurch shot from shot. I'm still not a 100% sure what that random little sideline of Tom going off to the woods was about. Tom might have been the person holding the oar, but there's a whole host of people responsible for Danny's death really. Beth hasn't got the high ground on this one, in my opinion. Joe is quite clearly still the bad guy, but Beth and Mark really dropped the ball on Danny. I also can't believe the drastic change in Ellie Miller from what they had in Broadchurch. She totally reneges on every principle she ever had and covers up Tom's involvement. Admittedly, it's not entirely out of character. We've seen her willing to look the other way all through the series, but I really thought she had some standards. Particularly when the chances of her son actually going to jail are pretty damn slim if everyone knows the facts. Ellie's more likely to go to jail for perverting the course of justice than Tom. Also I think the Solanos deserve to know how Danny really died. At least Carver has his head switched on. That look in the final shot...would not want to be Miller. He's like a dog with a bone. Well it was clear they wanted a second season, but as mentioned above they kind of shot themselves in the foot a bit. Anyway, I watched this on DVD yesterday and I was wondering if the scenes with Carver talking to the media or the Solanos reminiscing over Danny made it into the TV version that just aired? There are stills in the promo pictures...but I definitely didn't see the scenes in the Australian DVD copy.

Intriguingly Gracepoint was released on DVD in Australia yesterday. Ended up getting it, but would love to know if there's anything at the end of the credits when it airs tomorrow in America. I get the impression they wanted to do a second series (based on the very last shot you get on camera) and am curious if there will be any message like in Broadchurch. I highly doubt it given the way it was marketed as the series finale...but still curious. Can't wait to check this forum out tomorrow once it has aired hahaha.

Actually, you can eliminate a fair few suspects based on those photos. One just has to remember that Danny's body couldn't be buried until the killer was caught. Based on that assumption, the following are "safe": Beth, Mark, Paul, Carver, Ellie, Dean, Chloe, Danny's Grandma, Kathy, and Vince. Noticeable absentees in the pictures: Joe and Tom. Honourable mentions: Susan and Owen. However, Susan left town at the end of the previous episode which implies she's out. And I'm 99% sure that the back of Owen's head is in the funeral picture. I'm guessing FOX really don't care about this at all anymore considering the content of those photos. Especially odd considering how careful ITV were in Britain when they aired Broadchurch. They went to painstaking lengths to keep the killer's identity a secret until episode 8 played. Jackie Weaver (lady who plays Susan) is the only person I've heard of who has actually used the words "different killer". Everybody else used "different ending". So did Tom catch Joe "hugging" Danny? I still think Joe is involved somehow (and not just covering up evidence). I think the twist will be that it was accidental that Tom killed Danny. Maybe he wanted to stop his Dad doing something and accidentally hit Danny instead? Not entirely convinced by the above scenario because there's a couple of things Tom says that imply he could still be innocent (the whole thing where he's worried about how long someone goes to prison for). But I really get the impression that in the end, Gracepoint wasn't that different from Broadchurch.

^ Interesting points. Couple of things. Firstly, I think it was Danny not Tom who went out hunting with Vince. If I recall correctly, this is what Dean told the Solano family at dinner. I don't think Tom was part of that. After all, the pair had apparently parted ways by all accounts now. The hunting thing is how Vince and Danny knew each other so well (and the slightly unbelievable reason that Vince has the Danny tattoo). Secondly, I think Carver's reasoning for not telling Ellie about the computer was completely sound. He knows exactly how she works. We've seen all season how she makes excuse after excuse for the townspeople. So when Carver suddenly finds himself in possession of her son's bashed up computer (which comes with a threat against the Vicar) is he really going to be straight with her? Imagine if he had told her he'd been handed Tom's computer. She'd have become Tom's advocate within a second. That's her right as his mother of course, but she's also the second in command of a murder investigation. She can't have that sort of bias. Also if you've suddenly got evidence pointing towards the Miller family would it really be wise to tip off Ellie? It's a totally left field line of inquiry that neither Carver nor Ellie have considered previously, and as far as Carver's concerned you really can't trust anyone. He's been burned before by fellow police officers (even worse, she also happened to be his wife). Is he really going to risk blowing this case by giving Ellie a heads up? She could be in on it for all he knows - and his suspicions are bound to have been raised because he hadn't considered the Millers until now. What he's done is plant the seed of suspicion in Ellie's mind. He's letting her come round to the idea that maybe she's missing the obvious. To my mind it seems much safer, and almost kinder. Finally, your points regarding Joe's possible involvement. I don't think he's a background character at all. He's been so obviously in frame all along that if it's him, we're going to feel like kicking ourselves for not considering him. In my opinion he's no less "creepy" than any of the other residents. The point of Gracepoint is to show you that if there'd never been a murder in the first place, why weren't residents ever bothered by what was going on behind the scenes all along? It's like real life. Nobody pays any attention to anything until something major happens. Think about it. Nobody in Gracepoint ever would have cared about Jack's background before Danny's murder. Nobody felt the need to question his past. Nobody was aware of the soft drug dealing that the kids were involved in before the murder. Admittedly nobody is bothered with that even now...but as has been established Ellie's a forgiving cop *rolls eyes*. Gemma and Mark were carrying on behind Beth's back regardless. How many other husbands or wives are cheating in Gracepoint? If the murder had never happened Vince would still be out hunting wildlife every night. Pastor Paul would still be pining over Beth. Creepy Susan would still be attempting to reconnect with Vince. All that stuff would still have happened without the murder, it's just nobody would have cared or noticed. The point is to make you think...well what goes on that I'm not aware of? It's a reminder that everybody has secrets in this world. And the stuff in Gracepoint - it comes across as so bizarre because people reacted to the murder. They changed their behaviour. And admittedly some of them became creepier *coughVincecough*

I don't think the sister knew it was Joe. She just described a man. And again she was an unreliable witness at the time I think. The audience only knew it was Joe because they showed a brief clip of him doing it when they recapped the murder in the final episode.

The "what do you do all day" line definitely happened in Broadchurch. In fact, that whole scene was more aggressive in BC than GP. It's at the end of the seventh episode. Ellie loses her shit because she can't find Tom's laptop at 2 in the morning. Joe is unhelpful, telling her to leave it until morning. They then both get really pissy at each other and she says something about "you can't even paint this room". The scene in GP last night seemed much more rushed and less charged. Probably because Anna Gunn was really unconvincing though... He wasn't faultless...it was more neither Ellie or Hardy thought to question him. There are plenty of suspect lines/scenes with Joe in BC. Enough that I definitely knew from the dinner scene that it was him. Yeah. I wonder how much significance it had because the plot went straight back to BC the moment Tom was found. At this point in time that entire diversion seems like a complete waste of time. Either Tom was looking to scapegoat the hiker or perhaps he was hoping the hiker was Danny's "new friend" as opposed to Joe. Although we haven't gotten too much of the "new friend" vibe in GP. Tom hasn't come out with the "why do you think I liked him. He wasn't my friend. I hated him" line that occurred at Jack's wake. In fact the whole Tom/Danny thing seems to be a bit nastier than BC. Tom has definitely been set up more as a bully than someone who simply fell out with his friend.

Yeah, I'm feeling that as well. It certainly seems to be exactly the same. Two differences from episode 7 of Broadchurch: 1) Vince was not released. Although the scene with Vince and Susan was a bit more shocking than the original, it shouldn't be forgotten that he also threatened her in her caravan at the end of Broadchurch. 2) Carver didn't get the email about the contents of Tom's computer. Episode 7 of Broadchurch finished with Hardy's "Oh shit" when he realised there were only 2 people Danny emailed. Still, Jackie Weaver has said explicitly that it's a "different killer". Either it's Tom (which is possible) or it's some last minute addition they've done simply so they can say "it's a different killer". I'll be really disappointed if that's the case. It'd be really lazy writing.

I don't think that "body" was Danny's at all in the final scene. Surely it was an animal carcass. After blatantly establishing that Vince likes to hunt in this episode it seems almost obvious. I don't know if there's laws about these things in the States, but perhaps he's unwilling to account for his movements because he's doing something illegal? Is it poaching? Also why would the killer randomly transport the body around various locations throughout the night after killing Danny? We know that the murder scene is the hut. Danny was then put into a boat and transported further down the coast where he was left at around 2am. Possibly a car was needed to transport between the hut and the sea, but that could easily be driven up to the car park outside the hut. Not that we have any idea where anything is in Gracpeoint, but why would the killer be parading the body around in a forest? That's simply ridiculous. The window of time between Danny on CCTV in the town centre and then the arrival at his body at 2/3am is surely only 2-3hours. The killer also had to clean the entire hut, find a boat and then get back to wherever they were. There's not enough time for them to be doing random stuff in forests...Why Ellie is now convinced she knows the killer, I'll never know. But then Ellie is a terrible cop. As established above. Pretty sure that none of her sister's testimony would stand up in court anyway considering she's completely unreliable and was paid money to "open up". All those lines. It's either Tom or Joe. Carver's "this is gonna crack open a fault line in this town" line is coming to get you Ellie. I hope Julianne comes back next week. Apart from the fact that Carver was coerced into giving that story (for really shitty reasons) I really want to see the fallout.

Just watched the promo clips Fox has put up for episode 9 and I honestly can't believe now that it's anyone other than Joe Miller. I thought they might switch it to Owen - because he's family to Ellie - but Carver still gives his backstory to the journalists so I really don't see it being him. Not to mention the whole beanie thing with Joe and Vince both sporting black ones. The Susan/Vince story also seems to be the same (based on the clips) so I don't think it's Vince either. There's also a bit of a mention of the "how could you not know" line. Which leaves Paul, I guess. But honestly can't see the American adaption going for the priest if the British version didn't. Plus the guy has just been obviously creepy the WHOLE time. Broadchurch was successful because it was subtle. There was a whole swathe of more obvious suspects before you began to suspect Joe. I suppose it could still be Tom. But really I'm guessing the whole "different ending" means it won't simply be Carver stalking a phone signal through the town, as opposed to "different killer". Who knows...maybe Carver gets shot in this series? That would certainly be different.... :(

Strangely I thought the reasons Tom gave were almost credible. There's been a bit of a theme about parent/children relationships in Gracepoint, and after the scenes with Carver's daughter last week Tom's story seemed to mirror it almost. So I've discounted that little trip. I think it was purely put in to provide a cliff-hanger and extra material for that episode. Because what do you know...tonight we're back with Tom being suspicious with his phone and laptop again. ETA: I'd love to have seen Olivia Colman do a missing Tom scene though. I think that really would have been something to watch!

The best bit for me was where they're running about in the dark outside the hut at the end and Carver just pulls out his gun and shoots blindly into the night...solidddddd. I hope someone at least has a graze in the next episode. Or a suspicious limp ;) Well my money is still on Joe. I'm sorry, but if Paul Coates could hear Tom bashing his laptop up from down the street then there's no way Joe didn't hear the banging from the room 2m above Tom. So I suspect Joe wasn't in the house at all. Susan was in jail and Vince looked like he was spending the night with Archie (he definitely locked them both up pretty tight), so I can't see it being either of them. Although I'll admit I wondered if it could be Owen briefly (the guy looked shorter than Ellie in one shot). Ellie has no sneaking skills. At all. I kinda get the name thing with Carver. He used "Ellie" because he's not completely oblivious to everyone's feelings and she was in a difficult situation at the time. But then Tom was found and it was back to normal. The fact that she immediately started calling him Emmett makes me think he's got a point. She knew why he was calling her Ellie, and he's said before that he doesn't like the name Emmett. It just seemed tacky of her to suddenly use it in that situation. I have to admit I laughed when the promo came up immediately. Who puts those clips together? *shakes head*

Three interesting discrepancies I picked up tonight: 1) Carver's "dream" involved Tom Miller, Danny Solano, and ?Julie. Or was it the Rosemont victim? Whereas in Broadchurch the dream was a line up of his four suspects (Steve, Nige, Mark and Paul). Interesting that Carver's priorities seem to be the children this time around. Almost seems unusual for his character given how taciturn he has been in the last 7 episodes. 2) The "Ellie" scene occurred tonight. Interesting that the first time Carver uses Ellie's first name was now. In Broadchurch he didn't call her Ellie until he knew it was Joe. And that was a big moment. Perhaps it's a precursor for episode 10. But I thought it was interesting still. Once again, a different take on his character. Seems to care about the children much more than one might think. Particularly after his daughter's visit and accusation that he only ever cared about other people's children. 3) Tom asked Owen about computers. Understandable given Paul Coates doesn't take IT class in Gracepoint, but still interesting. Seemed very random to ask Owen...particularly when he was happy to bash the computer (quite loudly) outside his own house...There's no way the Dad didn't hear that happening... Did anyone spot anything else? Still think it is Joe. He's hitting all the same scenes that made me suspect him in Broadchurch. Although I did initially think the person leaping out of the hut was shorter than Ellie (thus possibly Owen) but I'm not so sure. I'm wondering if it'll end in a shoot out. In which case I feel badly for Det. Carver. The promo for 2 weeks time looks like he's lost his firearm :S

So despite the big divergence in this week's episode I still can't shake Joe Miller as my prime suspect. Particularly after the way he behaved with Carver. As for Tom, if the "Danny had a new friend" storyline is still the go I imagine Tom snuck off to stake out the hiker's house because he might have thought the hiker was Danny's new friend. Although his reaction when his mum asked him if he was sad about Danny at Jack's funeral was a bit weird. Having Carter's daughter was a cool addition. The Susan and Vince story still seems very much on track. All her lines still point to her thinking he's done it and him just being like who is this strange/creepy woman stalking me and claiming to be my mum. Based on the preview for next week episode 8 looks set to conclude with the hut scene. Considering episode 6 finishes the same way in Broadchurch is it possible that the last 2 episodes will be back in line with Broadchurch? Not entirely sure we've diverged that much expect to get a "missing Tom" storyline which I suspect isn't going to go very far. It seems too late in the piece to do much with it. Particularly since we still have to deal with Creepy Susan, Vince AND the priest. Mark's line about it possibly being someone right in front of their noses was very telling... My money is on same killer with a shoot-out at the end. What's everyone else thinking?