staveDarsky

I think given the history with Joe, that Ellie is going to go off on Tom for such things. I wondered if they might throw some suspicion on Tom this year or show us his POV of what it's like to be Joe's son, still using the same last name. Ellie's dad got haughty with her remarking "Isn't it always?" when she said something had come up to keep her at work. I'm curious to see what story he'll bring to the series. I laughed at him asking her to bring home bread since last series/season, she ate all of Hardy's bread (and tea and milk) while she worked on the Sandbrook files. I certainly hope Olivia and David work together again and often. I remember reading that Chris Chibnall asked them not to do other projects together while Broadchurch was still in existence but now that it's ending, my fingers are crossed for some more projects. Here's some trivia. Before he was cast as the Doctor, David and Olivia met and read for the pilot of a sitcom. The BBC passed on that show.

I'm a little concerned that Trish might start changing stories the way Claire did in series 2. Claire's red herrings gave a lot of fans headaches. So I hope Chibnall kept the switching stories idea to a minimum this time. One recurring thing now in all the series is someone withholding info because they think it's not important to the case or the police's business. Mark's silence on is whereabouts landed him in jail for a day in series 1. Jack's silence on his marriage ultimately led to his suicide. Hardy even covered for his wife in Sandbrook and also refused to answer Ellie's questions about an affair with Claire. So now we have the cagey suspects from the party. More of the same. The best part is the partnership between Ellie and Hardy. He's treating her as an equal in team meetings and out in the field doing interrogations. A friend noticed that David Tennant tends to slouch down to be closer to Olivia's height when Hardy's being nice. But when Hardy's angry with her, he stands to full height. Their initial scene when he brought her coffee and she asked if he'd slept was very much one of close friends. And she got indignant on his behalf when he told her he'd only been able to get 2 detectives to help out. He's also asking her advice about parenting. And there have been tons of funny bits and snarky comments from them so far. It's a real treat. So it was a shock when Hardy pulled rank and forced the issue of Trish's ABE interview and then asserted that Ellie isn't responsible for potential further attacks as he'll be. Katie being related to Ed is a repeat of the earlier cases when Ellie was blindsided by being so close to everyone and Hardy over-identified with Ricky Gillespie, completely missing that Ricky should have been suspected. So now we have Katie potentially trying to protect her dad plus she's already thrown shade on Trish by bringing up the drinking, I suspect from previous knowledge via her dad. Let's hope Hardy's taken his pills just before he finds out Katie's involvement or he'll have a heart attack!

Just checked the BBC America schedule. Nothing coming up in the next two weeks. They announced they'd have it starting in March. No word since then. The Canadian broadcast (on Showcase) looked like it was videotape, not film. It had a really yellow glow. That happened with one of the episodes last time.

I rewatched the episode. So here's what else I noticed. Hardy's still impatient. He was mostly gentle with Trish, but he asked leading yes/no questions and sometimes two or three in a row. It often took Ellie to ask a simple open-ended question before Trish would answer. She also tended to whisper her answers to Hardy but use her voice with Ellie. So Hardy still has some people skills to learn! I was surprised he was allowed in the room at the clinic, given that he's male and Trish needs to feel as safe as possible. Despite them being back to DI Hardy and DS Miller, there is more of an equality between the two. They've had a few investigations together since Hardy's been back because Ellie admonished him for forgetting to make the tea, which he's done before. So they have a routine during interviews. I don't remember Hardy making tea for the Latimers or anyone on the Sandbrook case, so this is new. I suppose some of the equality comes from them both being strangers to the victim and her community, unlike with Broadchurch and Sandbrook. They're both working from the outside this time. In the first half of the episode, the music was minimized with a lot of gaps of silence. I thought that was brilliant. It made it all the more unnerving and creepy. Music used later had the familiar strings or piano over a base or drum beat at heart rate. The music has been superb through the entire trilogy so far. It was interesting that when we finally saw the teenagers they were shown almost in sequence -- Tom, Daisy and then Chloe. I wonder if their paths will cross. Also each of the girls got asked about school work. The mystery is why is Daisy living with Hardy in Broadchurch? Did Tess suffer some fall-out from the Sandbrook case? The whole sequence with SOCO (Dirty) Brian was hilarious. I wonder how they all keep straight faces when they're swearing at Hardy. For those who don't know, Peter de Jesus (Brian) played Horatio to David Tennant's Hamlet -- that is, the "best friend". Anyway, a lot of fiction writers had imagined Hardy finding out his sh!tface nickname. Now it's canon. The cinematography, especially around the estate was terrific. Hardy and Ellie are wearing the similarly-coloured suits. Ellie's now sleeping on Joe's side of the bed, for what it's worth. The choice to have the victim be a middle-aged mum rather than a young girl is really interesting. As an older woman myself, there's an arrogance I'd get left alone if an attacker had to choose. Obviously no one should be so naive. I figure Trish is around the same age as Ellie so I suspect there may be some parallels drawn between the two -- even if it's Ellie considering her own sexuality and history in light of this case. Hardy too. You could see him take pause and stare blankly for a few seconds while labelling evidence bags. Excellent first episode.

Gathering my thoughts. Previous cast we saw: Hardy - already back and is a DI again. Ellie - Back to DS. Was hoping she'd made DI by now. She's still Miller. Even gets called Mrs Miller at one point. Yikes! Tom - who's very tall and distributing something he shouldn't! Daisy now lives with Hardy and has friends in Broadchurch. Beth has trained to be a sexual violence counsellor. Mark is separated from Beth and only visits once a week. Chloe is taking French. Had her hair chopped off too. Paul - trying to calm Mark down. Maggie - Wrote a book about Danny based on interviews with Mark. Mark regrets this. SOCO (dirty) Brian -- who had the nerve to call Hardy Shitface to his face! New characters Trish Cath their boss Ed Cath's husband Beth's supervisor Katie, an overly eager detective More later...

Three more video interviews with David and Olivia! Thinking back to series 1 On their abilities as detectives On the new cast members.

I just searched the BBC America schedule. The schedule's posted up to March 10th, but Broadchurch is nowhere to be seen on it. At one point there was a Broadchurch preview scheduled for Sunday but it's gone from the sched now. For what it's worth, Australia is getting the series starting next Friday, March 3; New Zealand starts Sunday, March 5 at 8:30 PM; and Canada (ShowcaseTV) starts Sunday, March 5 at 10 PM. So once again, New Zealand and Canada get it BEFORE the US. Woo hoo!

Lots of press as we're in one week of the premiere of series 3. Beware. The press kit has spoilers and synopses of the first 3 episodes. So don't read if you don't want to know. http://presscentre.itvstatic.com/presscentre/sites/presscentre/files/broadchurch_s3_press_pack.pdf Also a video interview with the two stars on their characters in series 3.

ITV released a very short trailer. It states series 3 starts in the UK in February. Several fans have figured out it will probably be Mon., Feb. 27 at 9PM. The words superimposed over the cliffs in this come from Thomas Hardy's Tess of the d'Urbervilles. https://www.facebook.com/ItvDrama/videos/1214409538614891

It occurred to me that they might end it at Charles' second marriage, or even the death of the Queen Mother. The Queen and the Duke stopped doing the frequent travelling and it would be respectful not to go into these recent years of Phillip's failing health.

Broadchurch fans will know that Chris Chibnall has borrowed Hardy's fictional "County of Wessex" (and other Hardy references) for his show.

Bringing this over from the episode 10 discussion: (http://forums.previously.tv/topic/50067-s01e10-gloriana/?do=findComment&comment=2723550) Other differences between Charles remarrying in 2005 vs Anne remarrying in 1992. In 1992, Anne was 42 and still theoretically capable of having another child, even though she was far down the line of succession. Charles' separation from Diana had just been announced 3 days before Anne's second wedding. Andrew's marriage had broken up earlier in the same year. And the Windsor Castle fire had just happened raising the public's attention and ire regarding how much money the Royal Family got from them. It was far better to hold Anne's wedding away from all that anger and unhappiness happening in London. By contrast, in 2005, Camilla was over 56, and certainly past menopause. Charles already had an heir and a spare. So the matter of Charles and Camilla producing children together who could be in line to the throne was moot. That must have relaxed some of the reservations the Queen and the government might have had. Diana had been gone for 7.5 years. The Queen Mother, and Princess Margaret were dead, taking with them any objections they might have raised about Charles marrying a divorcee. Plus the Queen had received a major wake-up call regarding her popularity in the wake of her initial response to Diana's death. A lot had changed in the 12+ years between the two siblings' remarriages.

deleted and moved to history discussion.

My comment wasn't just about the name. It was about him not being able to call the shots in much of his own life.

I don't know that he is being skewered to any new extent. He's long had a reputation of being a bit out of control -- especially with saying inappropriate things within earshot. This series shows how frustrating it was for Phillip to be corralled at age 30, when he'd had such an exciting active life before. He had little say over his life once Elizabeth ascended. Any guy going through the same thing today would be just as frustrated.

I propose a few reasons why Albert was able to be more involved. 1. Phillip renounced the titles he was born with in order to marry Elizabeth. Did Prince Albert also give up all his birth claims or did he remain a prince throughout? I know he was naturalized British just before his marriage and allowed to be called "Royal Highness" in the UK. If he retained his own titles, he had more power than Phillip. 2. Politically in the 1950s, Britain had just come through World War II in which Phillip's home countries were under fire. The first episode gave the sense that Phillip was distrusted because of his birth heritage and what that meant during the war. Politically, it would have been quite scary in 1952 to give Phillip much power. Albert was from a much earlier more peaceful time. 3. All the damage done by Edward VIII abdicating was still very raw. You can see in a later episode how Tommy Lascelles saw his job as royal secretary to protect the Crown from any damaging rot and he stood against the Queen at times and WON. He had massive power which likely earlier courtiers did not. That means it was easier for Prince Albert to slip into the role of Queen's private secretary and advisor where Phillip couldn't. In the end, the moment that Elizabeth, having just landed at the airport, receives the note from Queen Mary directing her that the Crown has to have higher priority than her family, and she honours it, you can see Phillip's role shrink. Even if the note didn't actually exist, it is well known that Queen Mary was very strict and Elizabeth obeyed her. This series is doing a great job of painting how the Queen's public persona came to be and sticks to the way things were in the 1950s. Had the story been set 30 years later, she'd likely have bucked some of her elders' advice and defined things her own way. You can also see the seeds of trouble that happened when Diana and Sarah Ferguson joined the family and dealt with the palace staff and royal advisors.

In the show, they had Charles riding a bicycle and Anne riding a trike before George VI died. In reality, Charles and Anne were a little younger than Prince George and Princess Charlotte are now. So my nitpick is the actors playing the little kids are too old. They've also prettied up Anne. Her hair was short and curly until Prince Andrew was born.

As I'm re-reading sources, I see that part of the judge's job is to decide the intensity of the provocation, thus determining whether the charge is murder or manslaughter. Chris Chibnall, Broadchurch's writer, claimed he got lots of legal counsel as he wrote the court proceedings. Whatever he was told, he decided the charge would be murder. Danny had threatened to go and tell Mark and others. After one unsuccessful escape, Joe locked the cabin door. While it may not have been the final straw, it had started the escalation that ended in Joe strangling Danny.

Manslaughter would apply if Danny's death had been completely an accident. But Joe was trying to harm Danny. He may have lost control and not planned the killing in advance, but in the moment, he was trying to prevent Danny from leaving and telling other people about their relationship. In several jurisdictions what Joe did is classified as "second degree murder".

I am actually quite suspicious that what got photographed by the papparazzi will make it to the broadcast. It seems like the production team were a little too obvious in announcing ahead of time when and where they'd be filming and for onlookers to stay away. It was like an invitation to photographers to come and try to get a picture. Chris Chibnall and the crew went to great lengths to keep the surprises in the earlier series from leaking out. So why make such a blunder now with series 3? I think Chibnall's a savvy writer with this trilogy and wouldn't put it past him for this to be a trick or one alternate storyline that doesn't come to pass. I've recently become a big fan of Orphan Black and see on that show the things they can achieve with CGI. Sooooo, I'm wondering if they'll doctor what was filmed on location with extra filming in a studio to make it look very different from what was spoiled.

Photos that point to a huge spoiler for series 3 were posted on several UK news sites this morning. If you really want to be spoiled, then the quickest way to them is by doing a Google news or Twitter search for broadchurch. I'm not sure how spoiled everyone wants to be in this thread. That's why I didn't state the spoiler.

No announcement about air dates yet. They finish filming in October -- about parallel to when they finished filming series 2 in 2014. So going by that, maybe January in the UK? It depends on when ITV thinks it will draw the most audience. It would be great if BBC America broadcast it closer to the UK showings too.

I heard that filming is going into October. Then David Tennant is off to Portland, OR play a villain in a film. No announcement about air dates yet.

The only people truly unspoiled for the rest of a series are those watching the debut broadcast. To illustrate, I invite you to go and look at comments I made in the episode threads dated in January-February 2015 versus those I made later, after I'd seen the full series. The ones later on are subtly missing speculation because once I'd seen the whole thing I could no longer speculate on things that were eventually confirmed or denied. And just after the finale aired, Chris Chibnall took to social media to confirm definitively that Joe was guilty and that what happened in the "59 days earlier" sequence had really happened as shown. Once he declared that in real time virtually all speculation about him disappeared from the episode forums. So of course now, a subsequent viewer like you has no doubt that sequence happened as shown. You have no reason to question it, because no one else is questioning it in the forums any more. But in those days when the series hadn't finished airing for the first time, all this speculation was legitimate. Much of the point of series 2 was to get the viewers questioning what was real and what wasn't. We were confused and skeptical, so everything was being thrown into doubt.