S01.E10: Episode 10

[Magic]

Well, this is my feeling about the writers.  They sat around and decided how they wanted it to end. e.g. having Tom protecting Danny and accidently killing him instead.  Then they came up with these "red herring" characters like Vince, and Susan, and Mark, and the druggie sister, and Paul the priest, and Jack, and Dean the boyfriend, and the psychic dude, and the hitchhker, I'm sure I'm forgetting a few.  They were just there so the writers could have an episodes for 9 weeks debunking each one as a suspect.  That was their story at least how it unfolded to me.  Completely unsatisfying and except for sometimes ok acting, a waste of my time.

 

As an example of how far off they were from being realistic, Yes Elle would say "How could you not know"  because at that time she didn't know what was going on in her own family, so it worked.

But Beth, in real life, would NOT be able to utter those words because she had already found out how little she knew about her cheating husband, lying/stealing son, and drug running (barely) daughter who was going out with an undisclosed boyfriend.  She would not be able to make herself utter those words after all that.  Because she KNEW how it is about how you didn't know.

 

I don't even want to put in more time discrediting the stupidity of Joe taking the fall for an accidental death versus owning up to being an almost practicing pedophile.  Or Elle throwing away her entire detective training to as if her already screwed up son will ever be able to live any semblance of a normal life with the guilt over Danny and his dad he will carry to his grave.  Much less Carver does not let anything go and no one is going to get away with anything he knows about while he is alive so forget about protecting Tom anyway.

So much promise........

[MaryPatShelby]

I thought that there was some type of "track and field day" at school, and that's what Beth was on her way to attend, only to find out that Danny hadn't gotten to school that day. I could be wrong though.

[missy jo]

So, with not one prior hint to suggest it, Joe turns out to be a pedophile and Danny his target.

 

I'm with netfoot (above) and thedancinmonarch about nine weeks of red herrings, and then an ending that comes out of nowhere with no foreshadowing. Huh?

[Mittengirl]

I also recall Danny coming up missing when he was not at a school field day. It was in the morning and during the week and it seemed like the whole school was there.

I was very disappointed in the show as a whole and in the conclusion. Maybe with better acting I would have cared about the people involved, but I just couldn't.

I have never seen any of these actors before and I don't think a single one of them has enough talent to star in a cheesy Hallmark Christmas movie, let alone an entire 10-part series.

Ellie made no sense as a cop and I fail to see why Carver was presented as a great cop. Not doing background checks ASAP on people like Jack and Susan makes no sense. Not looking at Tom's computer right away makes no sense.

Maybe if we had met Danny before he was killed, it would have made me care more about why he was killed. As it was, mostly I just didn't give a damn.

[Guest]

I thought that there was some type of "track and field day" at school, and that's what Beth was on her way to attend, only to find out that Danny hadn't gotten to school that day. I could be wrong though.

No, that sounds right to me, and would explain why Mark wasn't there (it wasn't soccer) and why Beth expected Danny to be there.  

[beaker73]

No, that sounds right to me, and would explain why Mark wasn't there (it wasn't soccer) and why Beth expected Danny to be there.

Yes, that's what happened. Danny wasn't at the house in the morning before school and they all assumed that he had left early to do his recording of the sea life thing he did for Jack's group. When Beth showed up at track and field day that's when everyone realized he was missing.

[saber5055]

 

No, it doesn't really. I think American audiences who watch Fox, and have watched things from OZ to The Sopranos to Breaking Bad to Hannibal to Homeland and House of Cards can deal with a reflection of real life- that sometimes kids kill. Generalizing about an audience that was watching a murder mystery/crime procedural,  when NBC's Law and Order franchises have been showing child/teen killers for over twenty years, is misguided, at best. Maybe infantilizing with the verbiage used.

There is a huge difference here in what networks will allow. All (except one) of the shows listed above are cable shows: Oz, Sopranos, Breaking Bad, Homeland, House of Cards. I do not have cable but watched Oz on DVD, Breaking Bad and Homeland online. I've never seen one episode of Sopranos or House of Cards. Network shows have advertisers that paid big bucks to have their commercials in Gracepoint. The only network show listed above is Hannibal, which I watched every week ... EXCEPT the week that episode four was PULLED because it depicted kids being killed. So THAT is the point I was making, that Gracepoint would not dare show a kid intentionally killing another kid, commercial-based networks would not allow it. They would risk offending viewers (face it, everyone is offended by everything these days) and therefore lose advertisers. (I've never seen Law and Order so cannot comment on that.)

 

I agree with what Netfoot posted a while back: Why not put Danny's body on the curb somewhere, like he fell off his skateboard and cracked his head on the cement if they weren't going to cop to the accident. I'm still confused why they had to put him on the beach via a stolen boat. So much work to cover up an accident. It had to have taken forever to play out.

 

Maybe if there were a S2, Tom would come forward and admit he accidentally killed Danny and Joe would get out of jail and the Millers would all live happily ever after. But I did like this ending the way it did. Carver knows the big secret and Ellie loses her family. Ellie deserves it for pretending to be such a swell friend to everyone when in reality she was one great big snot.

 

ETA: I'm a huge DT fan, but that neck hair ... ACK, so grossly nasty. Someone buy the man a razor.

Edited December 13, 2014 by saber5055

[alias1]

I don't think Ellie deserves what happened to her but she really is clueless.  And encouraging Tom to keep quiet about his involvement not only makes her a terrible cop but a terrible mother as well.  I have to say she grated on my last nerve, every time she talked to Tom in a baby like voice and said "Are you ok?" like he was 3 instead of 12.  I didn't see anything great about Anna Gunn's acting.  I can only think she was terribly miscast.

[Guest]

I agree that the cable network shows can be TV-MA but I don't think the 'free' networks would not allow a show where a kid killed another kid intentionally.  I think the writers just didn't want to make it about that, just like how they also skirted child molestation.  The end had to be about not seeing what's right in front of you.  Tom being capable of murder isn't really something Ellie would be expected to have been aware of, like a husband who's into boys.  

 

The Hannibal episode was about a woman training kids to kill other kids.  That's a whole other realm of horror, to me.  

[Desperately Random]

 Network shows have advertisers that paid big bucks to have their commercials in Gracepoint. The only network show listed above is Hannibal, which I watched every week ... EXCEPT the week that episode four was PULLED because it depicted kids being killed. So THAT is the point I was making, that Gracepoint would not dare show a kid intentionally killing another kid, commercial-based networks would not allow it. They would risk offending viewers (face it, everyone is offended by everything these days) and therefore lose advertisers. (I've never seen Law and Order so cannot comment on that.)

ETA: I'm a huge DT fan, but that neck hair ... ACK, so grossly nasty. Someone buy the man a razor.

The reason that episode of Hannibal was pulled was because there had been school shooting and several children were killed. If that hadn't happened then the show would have been broadcast. Bryan Fuller felt that it was not appropriate to show it so close to the tragedy at the school.

As for Law & Order:SVU, I have seen every episode and I can tell you there have been plenty of episodes where children have killed other children. There also have been episodes where adults kill children. I believe that Criminal Minds has also had those kind of episodes. So commercial based networks have definitely allowed that and have for years.

I do agree with you about the neck hair though. I wish he would have shaved it. It distracted me in every scene he was in and I really do love DT but ....yuck.

 

 

The Hannibal episode was about a woman training kids to kill other kids.  That's a whole other realm of horror, to me.  

Right and that would have been shown on network TV had the RL shooting at the school not occurred.

[Netfoot]

I gave up on Doctor Who when Tom Baker regenerated into Tristan Farnon.  (And frankly, Tom Baker was only barely passable.)  So I've not seen David Tennant's portrayal.  I can only assume it was stellar, since everything I've ever seen him in was pretty rotten, and Gracepoint is no exception.  Yet he receives so much acclaim!   Yes, the neck-beard makes him look like the scruffy git I've always taken him for.  I've not seen him in this Broadchurch I've heard so much about, and honestly, given his miserable performance in Gracepoint, and the general awfulness of that show, I certainly don't intend to watch Broadchurch now. 

 

Gracepoint has soured in my stomach.  When it opened, I had every hope and expectation that it would be a gripping, thought-provoking and exciting show, with well crafted plot, intriguing twists, and a satisfying conclusion.  Well, I've seen more exciting plots and better writing on a week-day episode of Sesame Street.  And Elmo would be a better surprise villein than Joe.  The actors can claim that they only followed their direction, and spoke what lines were in the script.  But the writers and directors of this show should be ashamed of themselves.  Whoever backed this:  I hope they lost all their money.

 

I've wasted 10 hours and counting. (I tip my hat to the poster who said similar, but implied that the adverts were less wasteful than the show.)  I'm not wasting any more of my time on this and will "un-follow" this thread. 

 

Un-follow.  What a 21st-century word! 

[saber5055]

I watched this show because of Tennant. I did not know Anna Gunn was in it until I saw the first episode, and I didn't recognize Nick Nolte until I read here that he was in it. I've never seen a single episode of Dr. Who. I just know Tennant has been voted UK's most popular actor for a zillion years in a row so wanted to see what he was like. I did like him in the Masterpiece short series he starred in. Plus what else am I going to do with my Thursday nights? This show was more realistic than Prison Break, which I loved. Gotta take a non-reality pill when watching any tv show these days.

 

I agree with what Netfoot posted a while back: Why not put Danny's body on the curb somewhere, like he fell off his skateboard and cracked his head on the cement if they weren't going to cop to the accident. I'm still confused why they had to put him on the beach via a stolen boat. So much work to cover up an accident. It had to have taken forever to play out.

I'm replying to my own statement. Because if they had set up that Danny fell and killed himself off his skateboard, then this would have been a one-episode show. Which I guess would have pleased a lot of watchers! Still, I didn't find Gracepoint any more poorly written or acted than 95 percent of other commercial network shows.

[Callaphera]

I admit, Gracepoint wasn't amazing. When talking to someone about it, I mentioned that if I binge-watched it rather than watching it week by week, I probably would have given up on it. But I think I went into this knowing that nine episodes were going to be filled with mostly crap and false clues and suspects that you know didn't do it, and that episode ten was going to be "Hey, look what we pulled out of our asses! Surprise!" 

 

I didn't think that I would be able to go back over every episode and connect every clue to what their conclusion was going to be. I'm not surprised to see some people disappointed, I think I just went in with a different mind-set because I'm so used to shows pulling a suspect out of nowhere in the last couple minutes (the 48 minute mark? I think we used to call it that for CSI). I used to have such high expectations for shows, but not so much anymore. And I think that I enjoyed it because I may have finally accepted that it'll never be as good as I hope or wish.

 

The one thing that bothered me the most about Gracepoint? Other than the shitty police work because whoa have I been harping on that? The cocaine. The fact that no one was ever arrested for possession or intent to sell or whatever. The surprise murder twist? Some kid awkwardly swinging an oar to smack his friend in the head and kill him? Eh. But no one getting arrested for the cocaine?! What the hell.

Edited December 13, 2014 by Callaphera

[Desperately Random]

I wish the Danny and Tom actors were switched. That Tom kid was... not good. The worst, though, was Mark Solano. I should look up these actors' names, but... Eh. On an acting spectrum of 1 to 10, that guy's range was about 1.0-1.5. 

 

I didn't understand why Tom's "I didn't see anyone else hit Danny" seemed suspicious to Carver, because I took it to mean "I didn't see anyone else (besides Mark Solano) hit Danny." Apparently it meant "I didn't see anyone else besides me hit him." 

 

I understand why that would make Carver suspicious. Tom never saw anyone else hit Danny because Tom wasn't there when Mark hit Danny so he never saw it. The only time Tom actually saw Danny get hit was when he did it with the oar.

I agree about the actor playing Mark Solano (Michael Pena). He was terrible in this. I have seen him in other things and have never had strong feelings one way or the other about his performance but in this part he really was bad, It's a shame too since Mark is such an important character.

[saber5055]

 

I haven't seen Broadchurch so I don't know who the killer is on that (DON'T SPOIL ME!

Just a warning, Chaos ... I didn't know David Tennant played Carver on Broadchurch as well, so I went to Wikipedia's list of actors for that series to see if any other actors crossed over. And right there I read, "Actor XYZ plays Character ABC, the killer." They really did not need to add that not-so-small detail. Maybe it's better to be spoiled so one can pick up the clues easier?

 

As for complaints that Beth's daughter looked older than Beth, that was one of my problems too, until I gave it some thought. What mom wouldn't want to be thought younger looking than her high school daughter? I'll take it any day! So, good on Beth for staying youthful. l bet she'd pop some grey hairs in S2, if there were one.

[Guest]

I'm tired of the tv trope where people's heads are like glass, too.  How much force would little Tom have to swing a wooden oar with to instantly kill Danny?  And how unlikely is the "he fell and hit his head just right on a rock and died"?  We'd all be extinct as a species if our heads were half as fragile as tv suggests.  

[Mittengirl]

The fragility of the human skull bothered me, too. And would a person really die instantly in that case? It seems like, IRL, when a person dies of a head injury it is after a period of time, usually after surgery to relieve swelling of the brain. Not because their heart instantly stopped.

I just cannot get past how flat the show was. Even the times they tried to get some emotion going, like Jack killing himself or the news lady being threatened, fell flat by the next episode. I never felt a real sense of fear amongst the townies that there was a killer loose, nor a sense of grief/shock from those who knew Danny.

I think maybe, for me, a little backstory would have helped. How did the Solanos relate to each other before Danny died? Did Ellie have a little spark before? Has Tom ever been anything but creepy? I thought Susan was scary-weird from the get-go - was she seen that way by the town? Was Jack a beloved old guy? Inquiring minds want to know.

[Happytobehere]

So. Since Joe knew what had happened to Danny the whole time, why was he so obviously reluctant to let Tom ride the last 3 minutes to school by himself the day he ran away? He KNEW there was no bad guy out there grabbing and killing children.

This is what happens when the original length of a show is stretched . Filler that later not only added nothing to the story, but causes confusion results.

[truthaboutluv]

Also, aren't head injuries typically very precarious things. I always think about the actress Natasha Richardson who fell in the snow, while skiing with her kids, and landed on her head. She was seemingly fine, said she didn't need help, just had a slight headache and then a few hours later she was in coma and pretty much brain dead. So I can totally buy Danny dying from the impact and blunt force trauma of the oar. Plus the head of that oar looked pretty thick. 

[Guest]

I know it's not impossible but I think it's rare.  Though it happens on tv all the time.  

[Tippi Blevins]

I understand why that would make Carver suspicious. Tom never saw anyone else hit Danny because Tom wasn't there when Mark hit Danny so he never saw it. The only time Tom actually saw Danny get hit was when he did it with the oar.

 

Ah, I understand now. I lost track of who had seen what and when. 

 

On another note, the only surviving character I really cared about in the end was Archie. The dog.

 

Random: Sometimes when I see the name of this show out of the corner of my eye, I think it says "Grease paint."

Edited December 14, 2014 by Tippi Blevins

[helen60]

Geez. Talk about a waste of 10 weeks. I have been watching fitfully buoyed by the repeated assertion that the show was different fundamentally from Broadchurch with a different killer and ending and different character arcs but what we got was a tacked on stupid ending just to prevent Fox from technically lying. I really hate the arrogance of Fox in pushing this as some kind of event tv and a quality product when they simply ripped off Broadchurch badly and threw a couple of big names at it like Anna Gunn, Nick Nolte and Jacqui Weaver. I do feel sorry for them in being lured into this, although it wouldn't have hurt if Anna Gunn could have given us a more consistent performance. She finally clicked in the last episode but way too late by then. David Tennant was awful throughout - dull, disengaged and with a growly attempt at an American accent which only made him look more ridiculous, along with the clichéd dishevelled 'tec look. Any police force would have told him to sharpen up or ship out or at least had him up on bullying charges for the way he behaved in the show. I don't know why people keep hiring him as he has no discernible talent beyond teeth gritting and a soulful stare - perhaps its a cultural thing and in the UK that passes as acceptable acting for television. He was probably the worst actor out of a bad bunch, although the others were equally amateurish and I was surprised in particular by how poorly Michael Pena, a good actor, came out of this. Maybe the direction and writing are partly to blame.  Broadchurch itself wasn't that great, although the female leads were all good and it did have a certain something which allowed you to overcome the shoddy writing and plot holes. I thought Tennant was passable in Broadchurch but he did have the benefit of being carried throughout by Olivia Colman. In Gracepoint, Anna Gunn probably gave him one look after their first scene together and realised she'd be doing all the work for both and decided to let him sink. A sorry mess but one which will be quickly forgotten.

[photo fox]

Eh, I enjoyed it. I see the flaws and acknowledge that it wasn't great television, but I thought it was a decent way to spend an hour a week.

I wasn't bothered by the red herrings, as I feel that's kind of par for the course with this kind of story. I think the abbreviated timeline made them more obvious, because with a ten-episode series, they're not going to reveal the killer in episode six. But if the show was open-ended, the truth could come out at any time.

I'm okay with Ellie hiding her kid's involvement, except for how it affects him (lack of therapy, etc.) In reality, Joe was the cause, and Tom was innocent, so in my mind, justice was served. I don't think the Salanos gain anything but more agony by knowing that Danny's best friend was the actual "trigger" man.

[LisaM]

Now that Broadchurch dropped on Netflix, I binge watched 4 episodes last night. It's pretty interesting to watch that show and make the comparisons now that I have seen all of Gracepoint so recently. Even before I started watching Broadchurch, I thought that the actor playing Mark Solano was terribly miscast.

 

I'm fanwanking that Ellie would have gotten Tom into therapy after concealing his involvement from Carver thus redeeming herself as a mother. I've never seen Anna Gunn in anything before and was expecting great things but I don't think she was very good here.

[ZoloftBlob]

I wasn't bothered by the red herrings, as I feel that's kind of par for the course with this kind of story. I think the abbreviated timeline made them more obvious, because with a ten-episode series, they're not going to reveal the killer in episode six. But if the show was open-ended, the truth could come out at any time.

 

I don't mind red herrings, my objection to Gracepoint is that there's no way the audience could have solved the mystery. I mean, we really didn't have any hint that Joe was a proto-molester or that Tom was anything other than a weird kid. I mean, I don't mind it being difficult but there was exactly one hint that Joe was a potential molester and that was when he vaguely twitched over signing the petition against Jack.

 

And too many of the red herrings were too easily solved in the real world. I'm sorry, but if Jack's job was with the school or affiliated with the school in ANY WAY, then the school would have run a background check on him long before he got caught up in the Danny mystery. And as fun as the "how could you not know" line was for Ellie to shoot at Susan over the molested daughter etc was.... how could Ellie the COP not know that Susan was involved in a personal tragedy that no doubt had some *legal history* attached to it.

 

There's also the fact that Grace Point was meant to suggest an insular small town where everyone knows everyone - there's no way that Grace Point was small enough for that. In a really small town - everyone would know that Susan had a background and that Vince was maybe her son. Everyone would know that the preacher had a thing for Beth, *especially* if they went to high school together. Everyone would know Ellie's sister had a gambling/drinking problem.

 

And everyone would have something to say about Joe being a house husband with two young boys at home. In a small town, that would mean there would be *talk*.

 

But my main gripe is that it felt like a cool idea that went unrealized. All the elements were there, the cast was good, the idea was clever and I am open to the short miniseries but it just didn't work.

 

Speaking of red herrings - with all the hype and "Who Killed Danny" website stuff, it reminded me of Battlestar Galactica's Last Supper photo and the promise that all would be revealed.... and that was another one where the audience was never given enough to solve it.

[truthaboutluv]

I mean, we really didn't have any hint that Joe was a proto-molester or that Tom was anything other than a weird kid.

 

 

In the very first episode, Tom, after hearing that his best friend was murdered, waits for his parents to leave his room and proceeds to clear out his cell phone of text messages and delete his hard drive. Then he later asks his uncle about whether messages can be retrieved from a hard drive after it's been deleted and proceeded to try and smash his computer to bits.  He then all but threatened a priest after the priest took his computer. Not to mention his going through his mother's bag when she was talking about a possible suspect and looking him up and later, after disappearing, coming up with some story that he was trying to "catch the bad guy so his mom could be home more." Tom was more than just a "weird kid" in my opinion - that kid very much acted like someone with something to hide and someone who was guilty of something. So I cannot agree that there was no hint of Tom's involvement in the crime.

 

I'm sorry, but if Jack's job was with the school or affiliated with the school in ANY WAY, then the school would have run a background check on him long before he got caught up in the Danny mystery.

 

 

Unless I missed it, I don't think that Jack's job was in any way affiliated with the school. He had a wildlife store and started a wildlife group for the kids in the neighborhood. It seemed like something entirely voluntarily and nothing to do with the school. As for it being a small town and people would know about his past, considering Jack's wildlife group had been around long enough that Owen was in it when he was younger, clearly he'd been in that town a long, long time. And since he married the girl he had the inappropriate relationship with, it's more than reasonable that they moved to the town as a married couple and no one questioned anything about them because why would they?

 

everyone would know that Susan had a background and that Vince was maybe her son.

 

Susan changed her name, likely to escape her past. So no one suspected anything until the local reporter realized she had a different name and looked into why she would change her name which is how the truth about her past came out. Not to mention it seemed like Susan was just this creepy lady who lived on the outskirts of the town in a trailer and didn't interact much with anyone. 

 

Everyone would know that the preacher had a thing for Beth, *especially* if they went to high school together. Everyone would know Ellie's sister had a gambling/drinking problem.

 

 

I never got the impression these were big secrets in the town. They certainly weren't presented as such. It seemed common knowledge Beth and Paul went to school together and were close and considering Ellie's sister apparently was often evicted, I'm sure people did know about her and her issues. Plus I'm pretty sure Owen's boss asked about his mom at one point. 

 

And everyone would have something to say about Joe being a house husband with two young boys at home. In a small town, that would mean there would be *talk*.

 

 

Why would there be? Am I missing something...it's not like he was just some creepy guy hanging around two random boys. They're his kids. His wife makes more and so they decided she would keep her job and he stay home so someone could be there for the kids full time, no different than if it was a mother doing it. Why would that automatically make people talk?

[LeGrandElephant]

I imagine it might make old fashioned people talk about "who wears the pants" or his lack of masculinity, but I doubt it would make anyone think of pedophilia.

[ZoloftBlob]

In the very first episode, Tom, after hearing that his best friend was murdered, waits for his parents to leave his room and proceeds to clear out his cell phone of text messages and delete his hard drive. Then he later asks his uncle about whether messages can be retrieved from a hard drive after it's been deleted and proceeded to try and smash his computer to bits.  He then all but threatened a priest after the priest took his computer. Not to mention his going through his mother's bag when she was talking about a possible suspect and looking him up and later, after disappearing, coming up with some story that he was trying to "catch the bad guy so his mom could be home more." Tom was more than just a "weird kid" in my opinion - that kid very much acted like someone with something to hide and someone who was guilty of something. So I cannot agree that there was no hint of Tom's involvement in the crime.

 

Couple that with how the story of how his computer has secret emails between Danny and Joe and all the computer hoo haw over Tom really doesn't make much sense. Don't get me wrong - I knew Tom was sketchy as fuck the second he started deleting texts but did it really make any sense that ultimately he would cover up his dad's molestation of his friend after he actually was swinging the oar at his dad and only accidently killed Danny? Outside the hut where the forensic specialists said Danny was clearly killed? And does it make any sense that Joe then carted the body out by boat and deposited the kid on the beach? And then Susan found the body, smoked over it and took the skateboard for NO reason at all?

 

Unless I missed it, I don't think that Jack's job was in any way affiliated with the school. He had a wildlife store and started a wildlife group for the kids in the neighborhood. It seemed like something entirely voluntarily and nothing to do with the school. As for it being a small town and people would know about his past, considering Jack's wildlife group had been around long enough that Owen was in it when he was younger, clearly he'd been in that town a long, long time. And since he married the girl he had the inappropriate relationship with, it's more than reasonable that they moved to the town as a married couple and no one questioned anything about them because why would they?

 

If the wildlife group was purely voluntary, why were people petitioning the school to shut it down? If it's not school affiliated, you don't petition, you simply pull your kids. Also it was presented as a school affiliated program in that the kids were encouraged by the school to attend. Trust me, in this day and age - sending the kids down to the crazy old coot on the dock after school isn't done without a background check. Also - NO ONE knew Jack was ever married let alone had a tragic death of a son. Also registering sex offenders started in California in 1947. Assuming Jack was 40 when he was diddling the 17 year old, he's also old enough to have been caught up in Meghan's Law for registering. Regardless it's ridiculous that no one knew until Danny's death.

 

Susan changed her name, likely to escape her past. So no one suspected anything until the local reporter realized she had a different name and looked into why she would change her name which is how the truth about her past came out. Not to mention it seemed like Susan was just this creepy lady who lived on the outskirts of the town in a trailer and didn't interact much with anyone.

 

The fact that the small town has a significant enough population to afford a trailer park full of people says that its not really that small of a town that everyone knows everyone. More importantly, considering the nature of her crimes and tragedy, it's hard to believe she's not on the sex offender lists - aiding and abetting is a crime.

 

As for the rest - in the opening episodes, this is being presented as a *small* town where everyone grew up and settled in together. In an actual small town, and not a town of over 10k, which is what Gracepoint is - everyone does know each other and would know all these backstories and would be questioning why Elly's husband was staying home with the kids because people in really small towns where everyone knows each other tend to talk about each other simply because they do. My point is that this show never captured the small town vibe it was looking for because the town, with its own newspaper, hospital, hotel and tourist district, and police department is far too big of a place for the "we all grew up here, there's no outsiders, and we all know each other so how could any of us have killed Danny" concept to work.

 

This rather large town was *filled* with creepy strangers and no one ever seemed to notice that.

[saber5055]

 

I'm sorry, but if Jack's job was with the school or affiliated with the school in ANY WAY, then the school would have run a background check on him long before he got caught up in the Danny mystery. And as fun as the "how could you not know" line was for Ellie to shoot at Susan over the molested daughter etc was.... how could Ellie the COP not know that Susan was involved in a personal tragedy that no doubt had some *legal history* attached to it.

NBC''s Dateline this past Friday, the day after Gracepoint's finale, was about a murdered woman who was married to a nuclear physicist, MENSA member and Jeopardy champ, a man who was the No. 1 employee at a nuclear plant and had been for years. Only after the wife was murdered, it was discovered Paul Curry was not only not a nuclear physicist, he didn't even have a college degree. He quit his job before he was fired, and moved away.

 

So, if that can happen IRL at a nuclear plant, a high-end place of employment, then who would be checking on the background of some guy who rents canoes to tourists and counts whales in the bay? Or checking on the backgrounds of any residents of Gracepoint? The newspaper lady did check on Susan after she was threatened.

[ZoloftBlob]

So, if that can happen IRL at a nuclear plant, a high-end place of employment, then who would be checking on the background of some guy who rents canoes to tourists and counts whales in the bay?

 

Fair point but you are referencing something so unusual that it was made into an episode of Dateline because it was so surprising and shocking.

 

I mean, seriously, parents sending their young boys to the creepy old man who likes to be around young boys for an after school program not once registered? And he's a sex offender in California? His crime wasn't so old that it was before record keeping. Its 2014 - assuming Jack is 70 and his crime was 30 years prior - it was 1984, not 1954.

[saber5055]

 

On the other hand, on television (and movies, for that matter) people have beatings that would kill or at least injure a real person and yet they walk away from them without a bruise.  Even if they go to the hospital, they pop back out  and have amazing healing properties--I want their medical system!  Television is not where I go to for a realistic depiction of anything.

No kidding. I trip and fall down in my back yard and I'm whining for days about my aches and pains.

 

Fair point but you are referencing something so unusual that it was made into an episode of Dateline because it was so surprising and shocking.

No, not shocking and unusual. It was made into a Dateline ep because the guy was put in prison decades later after being found guilty of killing his wife. If he hadn't poisoned her to death, he'd still be a fake "nuclear physicist" earning a huge pay check at the nuke plant.

 

Excellent point about Abagnale, Whimsey. There are people all over the world who fake their resumes, for whatever reasons. I'll bet all of us know at least one, whether we realize it or not. An aside: I've seen Frank Abagnale speak in person, and he's remarkably compelling.

Edited December 14, 2014 by saber5055

[mrsh]

Geez. Talk about a waste of 10 weeks. I have been watching fitfully buoyed by the repeated assertion that the show was different fundamentally from Broadchurch with a different killer and ending and different character arcs but what we got was a tacked on stupid ending just to prevent Fox from technically lying. I really hate the arrogance of Fox in pushing this as some kind of event tv and a quality product when they simply ripped off Broadchurch badly and threw a couple of big names at it like Anna Gunn, Nick Nolte and Jacqui Weaver. I do feel sorry for them in being lured into this, although it wouldn't have hurt if Anna Gunn could have given us a more consistent performance. She finally clicked in the last episode but way too late by then. David Tennant was awful throughout - dull, disengaged and with a growly attempt at an American accent which only made him look more ridiculous, along with the clichéd dishevelled 'tec look. Any police force would have told him to sharpen up or ship out or at least had him up on bullying charges for the way he behaved in the show. I don't know why people keep hiring him as he has no discernible talent beyond teeth gritting and a soulful stare - perhaps its a cultural thing and in the UK that passes as acceptable acting for television. He was probably the worst actor out of a bad bunch, although the others were equally amateurish and I was surprised in particular by how poorly Michael Pena, a good actor, came out of this. Maybe the direction and writing are partly to blame. Broadchurch itself wasn't that great, although the female leads were all good and it did have a certain something which allowed you to overcome the shoddy writing and plot holes. I thought Tennant was passable in Broadchurch but he did have the benefit of being carried throughout by Olivia Colman. In Gracepoint, Anna Gunn probably gave him one look after their first scene together and realised she'd be doing all the work for both and decided to let him sink. A sorry mess but one which will be quickly forgotten.

I love David Tennant so it hurt my soul to hear him described as dull and talentless. Gracepoint was not his best work, he was much better in Broadchurch and fantastic on Doctor Who. Admittedly, I wasn't a huge fan of Gracepoint, except for the ending and extra episode it was an exact copy of Broadchurch. I didn't care for Anna Gunn though, her portayal of Ellie paled in comparison to Olivia Colemann. I was also surprised that Michael Pena wasn't very good in this, as I have enjoyed him in other roles. Although, I thought he did a good job in the scene where he confronts Joe.

[Guest]

On the other hand, on television (and movies, for that matter) people have beatings that would kill or at least injure a real person and yet they walk away from them without a bruise.  Even if they go to the hospital, they pop back out  and have amazing healing properties--I want their medical system!  Television is not where I go to for a realistic depiction of anything.

Oh very true.  But I consider it lazy writing.  It's like a reverse deus ex machina.  Instead of a god lowering from above to save the characters, death leaps up from the ground (or the coffee table or the oar) to instantly and accidentally kill a character who needs killed accidentally to serve the story.  

[saber5055]

 

But I consider it lazy writing.

Television is full of lazy writing. You can't pin it all on Gracepoint. Only The Wire I consider perfect, with Breaking Bad nearly so. Every other show, and I mean EVERY other show, can be picked to shreds by those looking for reality. The rest of us, we just watch to get away from reality for a while.

 

Mrsh, I share your David Tennant pain!

[Guest]

Gracepoint was probably among the better tv writing, all things considered.  But I still think the adaptation was much weaker than the original.  And if we don't voice our gripes about the weak writing of all shows, it'll never get better.  

[GreyBunny]

Gracepoint was terrible TV writing. Sleepy Hollow is sometimes more believable and, unlike Gracepoint, it is well cast, well acted, and has likeable characters.

[Bebecat]

Clubbing someone in the head is not really an "accident". If he pushed Danny and he happened to fall from the cliff, that would be an accident. This was at least involuntary manslaughter.

[saber5055]

 

Sleepy Hollow is sometimes more believable and, unlike Gracepoint, it is well cast, well acted, and has likeable characters.

Seriously? Please.

 

I agree with whimsey98, Tom was swinging the oar to keep his dad away from Danny and Danny ran into it. I guess one could say Danny killed himself. Although Danny was highly dramatic, threatening to jump off the cliff instead of just grabbing his board and riding home, away from Joe. Maybe that's an indication that his relationship with Joe had progressed to the point of his not seeing any other way out of it.

[Catherinewriter]

Some thoughts:

 

I don't see giving Joe credit for being a "good man." If he hadn't been able to convince Danny to keep quiet, I think there's a a good chance he would have killed him.

 

Also, what the heck did Danny think was going on all these weeks? There may have been no sexual behavior, but surely Joe was acting creepy. And when Danny says, 'you're sick," where does that come from? He must have gotten something from the "friendship", no?

 

Also, if Joe is a pedophile, isn't it strange that it's just coming out now? I'd like to know what the stats are on someone starting in midlife like that. What if he's had other victims up and down the coast? Not victims as in dead, but as in molested.

 

Very, very strange plot, IMHO. 

 

Also, I'm really conflicted about having such young actors playing roles with such adult issues. 

[walnutqueen]

Gracepoint was terrible TV writing. Sleepy Hollow is sometimes more believable and, unlike Gracepoint, it is well cast, well acted, and has likeable characters.

 

Or, Sleepy Hollow is a pile of steaming dog turd compared to Gracepoint.  Eye of the beholder ...

 

Whatever it's perceived flaws, I enjoyed the show and would like to see more limited run series like it.

[Sammich63]

Some thoughts:

 

I don't see giving Joe credit for being a "good man." If he hadn't been able to convince Danny to keep quiet, I think there's a a good chance he would have killed him.

 

Also, what the heck did Danny think was going on all these weeks? There may have been no sexual behavior, but surely Joe was acting creepy. And when Danny says, 'you're sick," where does that come from? He must have gotten something from the "friendship", no?

 

Also, if Joe is a pedophile, isn't it strange that it's just coming out now? I'd like to know what the stats are on someone starting in midlife like that. What if he's had other victims up and down the coast? Not victims as in dead, but as in molested.

 

Very, very strange plot, IMHO. 

 

Also, I'm really conflicted about having such young actors playing roles with such adult issues.

I think it's possible that Joe had held back his urges until the opportunity arose with Danny. Danny coming over to get reassurance from Joe on a daily basis may have completely tipped him into having sexual urges from that point going forward.

[saber5055]

 

I still can't see the reason for the remake.

Lots of U.S. shows have been remakes of U.K. ones: The Office is maybe best known. It ran only a few eps in U.K.; several years in U.S. Then there's these ripoff remakes: American Idol, MasterChef, Hell's Kitchen, Cash Cab, House of Cards, Too Close For Comfort, The Ropers, Life on Mars, Three's Company, Queer As Folk, Mistresses, DWTS, Shameless, Veep, All In The Family ... the list goes on forever. BC/GP was remade to make the network $, just like all shows are made/remade/rehashed/drawn out beyond their prime. It was promoted as a 10-week series whereas other U.K. shows have been remade with the hopes they will be renewed year after year. I give GP credit for openly being a set number of eps and that's all.

 

I'd like to see more limited-run shows, too. So many shows I am addicted to for S1, then they start floundering in S2 and by S5 or 6, I could care less *coughsleepyhollowcough*.

[walnutqueen]

and filming in the U.S. brought nothing new to the series.

 

 

Perhaps because it was filmed in Canada, eh.  ;-)

Edited December 15, 2014 by walnutqueen

[saber5055]

I had never heard of Broadchurch and never would have EVER heard of Broadchurch if I  hadn't read here that GP was a remake. The vast majority of Americans are casual viewers who do not belong to any online tv-show-chat room and never knew that it was originally a show in Britain. I didn't know, I didn't care, I still don't care. I watched GP for Tennant, not even knowing he was in BC until I read it here. If I hadn't heard his name on a commercial promo, I might not have watched IF anything else had been on other stations. The 10-part-only thing was a draw, however.

 

The only people who complain about GP not being as good as BC are the very select few who knew/know BC even exists. The comparison means nothing to me. I didn't find GP any worse, and a whole lot better, than other shows I watch on a regular basis.

[Jpxfactor]

It could have been an hour show...just leave out all the stupid side stories.

[Kadlin Mormont]

Seriously? Please.

 

I think the main characters of Sleepy Hollow are more appealing than the creepy whiners of Gracepoint, the casting is better in SH (comparing the two roles, Nicole Beharie acted circles around Anna Gunn) and, taking away the supernatural stuff, the police work in SH is superior to that of Gracepoint.  At least the SH people DO police work.  Gracepoint's police are just a farce and it took an outsider to get anything done, and even he screwed things up.

[Guest]

Yeah, I only watched BC because I heard of it on TWOP and knew my daughter liked Tennant and might enjoy him and other Doctor Who alumni in a show.  

 

I don't think Fox could've just aired the BBC one, or at least people in the thread about the two of them claimed that.  So it was remake it or nothing.  

 

I'm ok with remakes overall, if they're good.  I like The Bridge and The Killing and the miniseries Fargo story.  And Bates Motel.  I actually enjoyed GP, I just would've preferred it be better.  

 

I don't think Tom meant to hurt Danny.  If he did, that cliff would've been a much better way than the wildly swinging oar.  

Edited December 15, 2014 by Guest

[truthaboutluv]

I didn't know, I didn't care, I still don't care.

 

 

This exactly. This comment may belong more in the Unpopular Opinions thread in the General TV discussion but for me, remakes aren't the problem, it's the attitude by SOME viewers who are determined to nitpick and point out all the ways the original was just so superior to the remake and the remake is so awful. That gets incredibly annoying and tedious to me.

 

Like take Shameless on Showtime for crying out loud. The show is about to debut its fifth season this January and from all I've heard, it long veered away from the British counterpoint (I think only the first season stayed fairly faithful and even then there were things altered from how how the original was) and yet there are still comments thrown in about how it just doesn't match up to the British version and is such a disappointment.

Edited December 15, 2014 by truthaboutluv

[SunnyBeBe]

If we accept the story they gave in the finale, then what reason was there for Tom to have gone missing that day?  We know he was lying when he said he was going to confront that suspect, because he knew that suspect did not kill Danny, so what was he doing?  Was he going to frame the suspect by planting Danny's magazine at the suspect's house?  

[Guest]

This exactly. This comment may belong more in the Unpopular Opinions thread in the General TV discussion but for me, remakes aren't the problem, it's the attitude by SOME viewers who are determined to nitpick and point out all the ways the original was just so superior to the remake and the remake is so awful. That gets incredibly annoying and tedious to me.

 

Like take Shameless on Showtime for crying out loud. The show is about to debut its fifth season this January and from all I've heard, it long veered away from the British counterpoint (I think only the first season stayed fairly faithful and even then there were things altered from how how the original was) and yet there are still comments thrown in about how it just doesn't match up to the British version and is such a disappointment.

I'm curious... If you didn't watch the original ("didn't know, didn't care"), did you read the Broadchurch vs. Gracepoint thread?  Or do you mean there's too much in this thread of that?   I thought most of it was in the other thread.  

 

I can tell you I for one didn't set out to dislike this one.  I defended Gunn's performance the first few weeks.  I prefer American accents just so I can hear the dialog better.  But I didn't think the changes worked.  I'm sorry if I said it too many times in the wrong thread, though.