staveDarsky

I've seen Lucy Cohu in a few other things -- two with David Tennant, coincidentally. One (The Minor Character) where she played a drunk, slutty dinner group member who Tennant's character described with a lot of scathing disdain. A few years before that, she was in a TV movie with David and also Andy Serkis, though I don't remember her too well. The third thing was Ripper Street. She did have a bit of Tess' stand offishness in that, but she was playing a Jewish orphanage matron so her character wasn't very respected in 1880s London. Anyway, she gives me a Gillian Anderson vibe.

At this point in series 2, things we thought we saw as being solid proof in series 1 were uncovered, largely by the defense attorney, to have holes. For example, in episode 3 (the one before this one), when Hardy took the stand, Sharon Bishop exposed that he'd made some assumptions such as "only Joe had access to the computer that was used to email Danny's alternate phone". Viewers began to wonder if all of series 1 would turn out to have holes like that, including the "59 days earlier" sequence. Could it, like on Gracepoint, have been a partial fiction according to Joe because he was trying to cover up for Tom or a conspiracy? At this point (episode 4) we were also still in the dark about why Tom wasn't speaking to Ellie. It was possible, in viewers' minds, that Tom had been involved and he didn't want to be with Ellie because he didn't want her to figure it out. All I'm trying to do is take us right back to the date of Secnarf's posting and why viewers were questioning the reality of the "59 days earlier" sequence and speculating what might be the reality in a way that couldn't happen once series 2 had been seen in full in the UK.

Looking at the posting date on Secnarf's comment, I see it was during the original British airing of series 2. At that point, any theory was possible. I remember that thanks to the story spinning going on with the Sandbrook case, I was doubting aspects of the Broadchurch case.

The sneakers were a one-time replacement while her shoes (the ones she was buried with) were being resoled and repaired. She was so devout she was walking around in worn-out, holes through the soles, shoes until one of the other sisters caught her and made her get the shoes fixed. So she was buried with the right shoes.

In the end, I think that Tom believed Ellie set Joe up to get out of the marriage. But once she called him on the damage he'd done to Mark by implying Mark might have indicated he was guilty, Tom came to his senses. Tom should have been 12 in series 2, but the actor had grown so much, his age was jumped to 13, which in some jurisdictions, is old enough to decide where to live. It was strange that Tom had no bullying or other fall-out from his dad being Danny's killer. I think in real life he would have been shunned. I am wondering if we'll see some fall-out in series 3. I agree. Chibnall seemed to prioritize Bishop's feud with Jocelyn over being professional. It was enough that he had Abby be so inappropriately competitive and unprofessional. The Sharon Bishop story was the weakest in all of series 2.

So many of the actors in Broadchurch had, at some point, played characters with American accents, making it really frustrating that they didn't just remake it with the UK actors in a US setting. I suppose in the end, Anna Gunn, Michael Pena, Nick Nolte, Kevin Zegers, and Jacki Weaver looked like they were big enough names to pull in audiences for Fox.

I am holding out hope that somewhere in series/season 3, we'll find out what delusion Joe was under that he could confess and then later rescind and plead not guilty. I would have loved it if, once Mark's visit to Joe in jail was made public, then the content of their conversation would have been entered into court, because, yes, Joe did tell Mark he left the body on the beach so the Latimers would get a definitive answer to Danny's disappearance. Obviously Sharon Bishop would not have pursued the content of the conversation unless it helped Joe, but why Joceline didn't follow up is a head-scratcher.

I agree. Don't worry about spoiling. Pretty much the only way I can watch the UK episodes here in North America is via YouTube. 95% of them will never be shown on TLC. I watch online with the knowledge that comments abound on YT and in any forums or articles. It's unreasonable to ask you to withhold.

According to a fan who talked to David Tennant after his last Richard II performance on Friday, Broadchurch 3 begins production tomorrow (May 2, 2016). From the April 12th press release about new cast members, here's what we know about the story. The new series will herald a brand new case for Miller and Hardy with the detectives reuniting to investigate a serious sexual assault. “This is the final chapter of Broadchurch,” said Chris Chibnall. “We have one last story to tell, featuring both familiar faces and new characters. I hope it’s a compelling and emotional farewell to a world and show that means so much to me.” The series explores the consequences of a serious sexual assault as a Dorset community comes under the scrutiny of Hardy and Miller’s investigation. Based on a year of research with Dorset-based organisations who specialise in dealing with victims of sexual assault, and police advisors who specialise in investigating crimes of sexual violence, Broadchurch’s final chapter looks at the emotional cost to all of those involved and the irreparable damage to friendships and relationships. So, given this bit of info what do you hope might be some of the details. I still hope they are searching for evidence to nail Joe for good. Maybe it will come from a connection to this new case. I know many fans would like some answers to why Hardy recalls being at the Broadchurch beach as a boy and what may have happened when his family visited there. I would bet that Chibnall is going to put in more fall-out from Danny's murder for the Latimers and the rest of the town. Perhaps that will come in the form of Tom being bullied or suspected of a crime because he's Joe's son. I'm glad to see Adam Wilson is going to be back as the teen, but I wonder how much older he's going to look! I doubt Susan Wright will be in it since she had "9 months to live" when we saw her in series 2. It would be fun to see either the psychic or Karen White come back from series 1. What do you think?

The new actors: Julie Hesmondhalgh, Georgina Campbell, Sarah Parish, Charlie Higson and Mark Bazeley. Returning cast announced: David Tennant, Olivia Colman, Andrew Buchan, Jodie Whittaker, Carolyn Pickles, Arthur Darvill, Adam Wilson There's some speculation in fan forums that Sarah Parish, who's played David Tennant's lover in Blackpool and wife in Recovery, might be Hardy's love interest. But then, people thought Eve Myles was going to play Hardy's ex-wife in series 2 and that turned out to be untrue. In fact, Lucy Cohu, who did play the ex and Shaun Dooley, who played Ricky Gillespie, were never announced in the cast ahead of BC2, even though both are established actors. So there could be more cast that they won't announce to keep the audience guessing. Charlotte Rampling announced last fall that she would not be in the third series.

Great news.

Logic issues / questions Olivia Colman said they were trying to hide her real-life pregnancy in the earlier timeline using props, costuming and framing. Angela was not supposed to be pregnant in the earlier scenes. But Olivia was in her 2nd and 3rd trimesters as they filmed so it was hard to make it look like Burr wasn't pregnant.

After the way Corky acted in the restaurant, I honestly expected the US agent to find him among the dead in the Spaniard's house.

I'm sure the date of the change in the entail law coinciding with the end date of Downton's story was no coincidence. It's also interesting to me that less than four months later the present monarch was born. So Mary's second baby would be about the same age as QE2 and George is about the same age (at least the same year, 1921) as Prince Philip. Probably not a coincidence either on Fellowes' part. Interesting too that it only came into effect three years ago that the throne can pass to the eldest heir of the monarch, regardless of gender. There's a symmetry in the law changes of the past and now. I do find the accepting of Marigold to be out of synch with the times. In my own family history, when one of my great aunts was faced with childlessness and wanted to adopt, she and her husband were forbidden to adopt by her father - a strict Church of England man. Unrelated adopted children were seen as a huge risk to a family because their roots were usually in the lower classes. Even through the family knew Edith was the real mother, it would cause tongues to wag amongst the townsfolk who would assume Marigold was from a poor background. Dr Barnardos and agencies like them were still in existence to ship children of poor families off to hard labour in the colonies until after World War II.

With A LOT of added sound effects!!! LOL.

By contrast, Call the Midwife with a 9-10 week delay doesn't seem so bad. But maybe it just doesn't get the level of conversation because the episode stories are self-contained as compared to Downton's serial mode.

I can think of only a few cases where they actually recast the character, and in all cases the replacement was never liked as much as the original (Darren Stevens on Bewitched; Miss Ellie on Dallas; Becky Connor on Roseanne). More often than not, shows did what Downton did with Sybil/Rose -- wrote out the original and brought in the new one. They managed to replace two of the characters on M*A*S*H without killing off the original (Trapper John & Frank Burns).

The British are done with their comments. Very few commenters come back to check out comments from a later airing in another country. This is the truly frustrating part of PBS not simulcasting with ITV. That sense of global conversation is destroyed and the big reason why so many in North America find a way to watch the show as it airs in the UK. I hope this is the last show PBS does this with == especially with such a delay. 15 weeks is shameful.

Surprise, surprise! A little bit of filming for series 3 has started. http://metro.co.uk/2016/01/03/broadchurch-begins-filming-in-dorset-before-danny-latimers-murder-house-is-demolished-5598123/ I guess Chris Chibnall must be worried the house won't be there in the summer when they do the main filming on the new series. This makes me really curious as to what look David Tennant is going to have when he starts his run as Richard II on Wednesday!

Re Joe -- I felt the same thing. That Joe's problem is tied to his identity as a paramedic. So when he quit to take care of the baby, he was no longer a hero paramedic saving lives or giving comfort, but stuck in the doldrums of daily life. Then Danny shows up with a fat lip from Mark and in need of comfort and Joe became his hero for a while. At one point in series 1, he lamented Tom having his own interests to pursue and Ellie being busy at work. I honestly believe he has a hero complex which drove the relationship with Danny more than sex did. It also gives some credence to his convincing himself in series 2 that he could get his boys back and go back to living at home. But that's my theory. Re Jonah -- I highly doubt that will be the case because whatever the case is has to have some interest for Hardy and Ellie to pursue. Only Sharon and Jocelyn had any connection to Jonah and Jocelyn's interest in helping Sharon get him acquitted pointed to a conclusion for his story. Charlotte Rampling has announced she won't be in series 3, so I think the lawyers' stories are done. We do have the mystery of what happened to Hardy when he was a kid visiting Broadchurch with his parents. I wouldn't be surprised if series 3 delved into that back story. We've certainly seen him thinking about being a boy sitting on that beach A LOT!

There was also some negative press coming from the Daily Mail which seems to have a hate-on for David Tennant. They raised the issue of complaints about not being able to understand what he was saying. And there were a lot of fans who expected series 2 to be another who-dun-it with clues to spot and solve. The Sandbrook case needed unravelling it was more a "WTF happened?" story and the constantly changing stories put forward by Claire, Ricky and Lee confused viewers until the end. They didn't like that. Viewers also really disliked the court case exposing mistakes made by people in series 1 and felt Chris Chibnall had reinterpreted a solid story presented in series 1 --- what they called "retconning". -------------------------------------- To finish, I LOVED series 2. And I loved that we were constantly sparked to go back and review parts of series 1 to see on rewatch if we'd missed details or misinterpreted things that happened in series 1. I thought it was a brilliant move to send the audience back to the first series for things being raised in series 2. And on rewatch I saw no "retconning". I saw a lot of deeper levels to the stories -- both the trial and Sandbrook. My comments are scattered all over the discussion threads so I won't rehash them here. I'm looking forward to series 3 bringing up things we thought we saw in both series 1 and series 2 but that we have to go and rewatch because we probably missed something. It's frustrating that now it looks like we're waiting at least another year for it.

I realized after the finale that Thomas' promotion to butler of Downton was telegraphed by George having a special friendship with him -- in parallel to Mary having a special relationship with Carson when she was a little girl. It was a nice symmetry.

Olivia Colman was interviewed on the BBC radio show, Loose Ends. Clive Anderson asked her about Broadchurch 3. She said they start filming next summer and she doesn't know what the story is yet. So.... we're waiting till at least the end of 2016. Here's the link to the radio show (good for a limited time). She's on in the first 9.5 minutes. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06hywnl#play

FYI, the cliffs in Gracepoint were digital effects. There's a short video on how they added them in. You never would find a place that looks like that on the west coast. I recently listened to the commentary tracks for episodes 1 and 8 of Broadchurch 1. What struck me, especially on episode 8, when Chris Chibnall was one of the commentators, was the care taken in filming Broadchurch. When they did the crucial scenes, the cast were kept apart and didn't rehearse together beforehand so that when they went to do the scenes, the actors were seeing each other for the first time that day and the rawness could be captured. And for the most part, they used the first take. e.g., Hardy and Ellie telling the Latimers the victim was Danny in episode 1; Hardy telling Ellie the murderer was Joe in episode 8; Ellie going to see Joe and attacking him; and Hardy going by himself to inform the Latimers about Joe's arrest. It meant the camera people had to be really on their toes and couldn't do the intricate measurements for lighting and focusing on the faces, but that probably helped with the impact of each of those scenes. I wonder if they went to the same lengths when filming the similar scenes for Gracepoint. Yes, the Thomas Hardy tie-ins are fun. Episode 2 introduces us to Alec's ex-wife, Tess, a very fitting name for her!

Hm - I wonder if there's a reason Nurse Crane is a spinster?... Would be interesting, given how "square" they think Phyllis is, if she introduced Patsy to the underground London gay scene. To my mind, it would be far braver to delve into her background as an illegitimate child and its bearing on her not finding a mate -- whether intentional or not. There are a lot of single people who are so because of emotional scarring from different sources. And there's a lot of intolerance and rejection toward the unmarried to this day.