S01.E10: Episode 10

[truthaboutluv]

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.

 

 

No, I didn't read the other thread, particularly because I imagined posters were openly discussing the ending and I didn't want to be spoiled. Yes most of that comparison discussion happened in the other thread when the moderators opened it but after the first few episodes there were still multiple comments about how Anna Gunn just didn't match the grittiness or ability of the actress who played the character in the original, how this character wasn't as interesting, how some didn't like that they kept this from the original, how the actress playing Beth wasn't as moving as the one in the original, etc. 

 

I'm just saying that at times it can become a bit much, especially for the people who didn't see the original, aren't interested and just want to enjoy the other version as its own thing. It also does feel like sometimes almost being predisposed to dislike the other version. Like I totally get the feeling of "I don't see the point of remaking this..." but then I personally just wouldn't watch especially if I feel like it's a shot for shot remake and I already know the outcome. 

[millennium]

So what were they implying with that ending? Why wouldn't Ellie answer the phone? And Carver looking worried.

 

That Ellie might be considering killing her children, and then killing herself.   That's my take anyway.   She lost nearly everything ... her marriage, her son's innocence, her home, her friends, her town, her job ...  She has to live tormented by the knowledge that a little boy was killed by the tag-team of her husband and son ... that an innocent man was driven to suicide by their actions ... that she utterly failed in her roles as detective and as a wife to figure out what was going on, that she got played by the two people closest to her ...  Ellie lost virtually everything that defined her.    What was she thinking as she stood there in the dark, ignoring the cell phone, watching the two children sleeping .... They were sleeping pretty soundly.   Maybe mommy fed them some of her super-powerful sleeping pills?  I think that's why Carver looked so worried.

[millennium]

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.

 

 

^ This.   Participation in this forum has been difficult for the reason stated above.   An atmosphere of pretentious condescension -- Broadchurch snobbery -- has permeated every episode thread, even after the moderators made a point of asking people to stop. 

 

And FWIW, I like Anna Gunn and I think she did a fine job with the script she was given. 

[saber5055]

 

So what were they implying with that ending? Why wouldn't Ellie answer the phone? And Carver looking worried.

My thinking was, that when Ellie saw Carver calling, she knew Carver knew, and Tom was busted. I'm not sure Carver looked worried, except that maybe he was, that Ellie would not know Tom's involvement. I never got the feeling Ellie would do anything rash, run, or even consider murder/suicide. The ending did leave a second season open, I also got that feeling.

 

I think Carver telling Ellie she was a good cop was him throwing her a bone, knowing that her life would never be the same again.

 

As for remakes, even American tv shows get remade for no reason. Hawaii Five Oh? And movies, they make exact remakes of movies all the time. It reminds me of parents who have small kids; they say the kids watch the same movie over and over because they find comfort in knowing what will happen. All I can think of is, studio execs find comfort in reproducing something that's already made money so as to make more money. Television is all about that anyway and not about us in the least.

 

I'm the "didn't know, didn't care" person. I did not read any of the Broadchurch threads here and still haven't, nor did I ever read the spoilers. It was that stupid Wiki page that ruined the ending for me.

 

In retrospect, I think all the actors did a fine job. How would any of us act IRL if we were in those situations? Except I would never snark at my boss, even if he had been hired for the position I thought I was getting. That's the fast lane to being fired.

Edited December 16, 2014 by saber5055

[Quality]

That Ellie might be considering killing her children, and then killing herself.   That's my take anyway.  

 

Ellie was thinking "Oh crap, Carver knows/suspects that Tom was involved. I have to protect what's left of my family."

[Marianne]

That Ellie might be considering killing her children, and then killing herself.   That's my take anyway.   She lost nearly everything ... her marriage, her son's innocence, her home, her friends, her town, her job ...  She has to live tormented by the knowledge that a little boy was killed by the tag-team of her husband and son ... that an innocent man was driven to suicide by their actions ... that she utterly failed in her roles as detective and as a wife to figure out what was going on, that she got played by the two people closest to her ...  Ellie lost virtually everything that defined her.    What was she thinking as she stood there in the dark, ignoring the cell phone, watching the two children sleeping .... They were sleeping pretty soundly.   Maybe mommy fed them some of her super-powerful sleeping pills?  I think that's why Carver looked so worried.

Oh my, why so complicated?  All we saw was Carver coming to the realization and then Ellie and her phone ringing a couple of times and also coming to a realization that Carver knew.  It's most logical to assume that Carver shows up at the motel and the jig is up for Tom and Ellie's and Joe's attempted cover-up.  To imagine that she kills herself and her children or (as someone else suggested) took the kids and went "on  the lam" (even though she would have no resources and two young kids and would probably get about 10 miles before she was tracked down) seems absurd.

 

Just to add my voice to the chorus:  Broadchurch was superior, but had some similar plot and writing problems.  For instance, the police did not immediately check the Jack character's criminal record and find out that that his offense involved a barely underage girl whom he then married.  Tennant was o.k. in both, IMO, but a little better in Broadchurch.  The other and supporting actors were uniformly better in BC.  Most important, Olivia Colman, as someone above said, was awesome, and Anna Gunn was poor.  I have never seen her before, not having watched Breaking Bad, but at the outset I read all the laudatory comments about her in these forums.  I couldn't see it in this performance.  She lacked the "grittiness and ability" of Olivia Colman as someone said above.  The one word I applied to her was "bloodless."

Her face seemed frozen into an expression of distraction.  The script made Ellie a horrible, irresponsible and unethical police officer; Gunn's  acting showed none of the intensity or savvy that I would have expected from a woman  who overcomes serious obstacles to become a detective while maintaining a marriage and raising a family.

[truthaboutluv]

I didn't think Carver looked worried at the end but more determined. Like he clearly had figured out Tom was the real killer and was going to find them and get the truth out of him and/or Ellie. And Ellie's reaction was pretty much her realizing that Carver had figured out the truth. As others noted, it was clearly set up in the event of a Season 2 and if they were going to get that (which I don't see happening), my guess is it would start with Carver and company finding the hotel room empty and Ellie taking off with the kids.

 

After all, she'd already told Carver she wasn't going to stay in the town and even if  Tom hadn't been the one who really killed Danny, I can definitely see where she was coming from on that. Like there was just no way Ellie or these kids would be able to have any semblance of a normal life in that town with everyone knowing her husband not just murdered Danny but was likely a pedophile and all the while, she, a cop, had no clue. 

[saber5055]

My favorite part about the ending was it left what happens next to our imaginations, as proven here. There's something to be said for imagining. One cannot complain about the writing and acting if it's happening in our own heads! Everything is perfect inside there! (Well, supposedly.)

[ZoloftBlob]

I didn't think Carver looked worried at the end but more determined. Like he clearly had figured out Tom was the real killer and was going to find them and get the truth out of him and/or Ellie.

 

To be up front, I just don't know what this would accomplish for Carver. Yay, the ten year old is the murderer, only now it's an accident, and while Joe will go to jail for potential molestation, thats not going to please the Solano family - there's no way Tom goes anywhere other than MAYBE a treatment center for a little while and Joe isn't going away for murder, he's maybe going away for attempted molestation... a couple years maybe.

[Guest]

I feel like Carver probably wanted what I wanted-- for Joe not to serve a murder term for being a perv and for disappointing Ellie, and for everyone to know the truth-- that it was an accident and Joe was falling on his sword for his kid, just like Carver did.  

[millennium]

Oh my, why so complicated?  All we saw was Carver coming to the realization and then Ellie and her phone ringing a couple of times and also coming to a realization that Carver knew.  It's most logical to assume that Carver shows up at the motel and the jig is up for Tom and Ellie's and Joe's attempted cover-up.  To imagine that she kills herself and her children or (as someone else suggested) took the kids and went "on  the lam" (even though she would have no resources and two young kids and would probably get about 10 miles before she was tracked down) seems absurd.

 

 

A lot of the senseless tragedies we hear about seem absurd on the face of things.   Ellie suffered all those losses in one stroke and is condemned to a life of knowing that the man she shared a bed with, the father of her children, is a child molester whose perverse appetites set a young boy's death in motion.   She's carrying all this weight apparently without the benefit of any kind of crisis counseling for herself or her family.   Ostracized, alone, facing an uncertain and probably unpleasant future ... who knows what a person would do.   It might all seem insurmountable.

 

Maybe Carver will get there in time to save them.   Maybe not.  

[photo fox]

To be clear, because I've gotten some PMs asking, any and all comparisons with Broadchurch need to go in the comparison topic, not the episode topics. Three reasons for that: 1) It's off-topic. 2) There may be people reading this who still want to watch Broadchurch and don't want to be spoiled. 3) For people who haven't watched both and just want to talk about Gracepoint, reading through a bunch of posts about a show they've never seen is not terribly exciting.

If you'd like to discuss American remakes in general, there's a topic for that: http://forums.previously.tv/topic/14920-adapation-decay-american-versions-of-foreign-shows/#entry389126

PM me with any questions. Cheers!

[izabella]

The one word I applied to her was "bloodless."  [Anna Gunn's] face seemed frozen into an expression of distraction.

 

Anna's facial expressions seemed highly limited.  I'm always amazed when I come here and read about people perceiving something in her expressions, because, to me, her face expressed very little.  It barely moved.  I hated her in this role.  I've never seen her in anything else, so I'm inclined to pass.

 

I thought Pena was terrible as Mark, too.  He's another one whose face barely showed any expressions.

[sarahlee]

I haven't seen Broadchurch so I am basing what I am about to say strictly on Gracepoint.

 

 

Me too

 

They copped out. Danny and Joe had to have had a lengthy enough relationship that meeting in an abandoned cabin in the middle of the night wasn't actually *odd* for them. And thats where it falls apart. If Joe was grooming Danny to be his lover to the point that Danny had a cell phone from him and money and was comfortable meeting Joe by sneaking out of the house, Joe was already well down the road of "exhibiting odd behavior". The "how could you not know?" line applies to far too many people in this farce... not just Ellie although she is a big offender. There's no way this was the first time Joe had private time with Danny. If *Tom* was aware of it enough to be jealous and to *sneak out of the house after Joe* then Joe wasn't covering his tracks.

 

I think this was set up clearly - and when I first suspected Joe - when Ellie asked him "What do you do all day?" Clearly this was a woman who didn't really know what was going on in her own household. She completely misread her son on many occasions. I think that question came on the heels of Joe's odd reaction to Carver talking to Tom after the funeral and I was convinced it was Joe. 

 

How could the Salanos not know? I mean, we're talking about their 12 year old son seeing an adult male. No one in the Salano household struck me as mentally incapable but really, *nothing* seemed off and no one questioned ANYTHING.

 

 

 

Again - remember the Joe was home during the day. The other adults you mention were not. When Danny quit the soccer team, one would expect that Tom was at soccer practice. It seemed like Danny and Joe hung out together at the house while Tom and Ellie were gone. Then, Joe started to excalate it with the meeting at the cabin.

 

 

[Bebecat]

The thing is, Joe is responsible for Danny being dead, even if Tommy pushed/hit him. If Joe was not lusting after Danny in some twisted way, none of it would have ever happened. So I don't feel so bad about Joe taking the rap. It will be worse for Tommy, knowing why his dad is in prison, also knowing his dad had a thing for his friend. He will suffer, jail or not.

[Guest]

By the same logic, you could also kind of blame Danny for going out there, or Beth and Mark for not supervising their kid better.  I think by point of law, the only actual crime was at most involuntary manslaughter by Tom, and I don't think any prosecutor would go there.  

[ZoloftBlob]

No, I suspect that inviting a minor out to a creepy shack to invite into a relationship is illegal, even if Danny had run away without being touched.

 

Endangering the welfare of a child at the very least - Joe isn't his dad and didn't have permission from his parents to take Danny out in the middle of the night. Possibly attempted molestation, although I think it would be hard to make stick... but there was nothing perfectly legal about an adult man encouraging a 12 year old to sneak out of the house and meet him in the middle of the night.

[saber5055]

 

By the same logic, you could also kind of blame Danny for going out there, or Beth and Mark for not supervising their kid better.  I think by point of law, the only actual crime was at most involuntary manslaughter by Tom, and I don't think any prosecutor would go there.

True, this. Kids sneak out of the house at night all the time. There is no law on any book that would cause Joe to be arrested for putting his hand on Danny and INSINUATING he wanted a relationship. Besides, Danny is dead. As far as I remember, Tom did not see that part. So, no witnesses. Plus, Tom was all for protecting his dad. Tom would get no jail time for the involuntary manslaughter, if it could even be called that, it was an accident, and Joe would go free since he had no play in Danny's death at all.

 

Danny went to meet Joe voluntarily. Joe did not drag him out of the house in the middle of the night. And Solanos are no more guilty than anyone else. They're suppose to lock the kids in their rooms at night? That IS grounds for a visit from child welfare.

 

There comes a time when you have to trust your kids, husband, friends. This show (and real life) is proof than one cannot always do that. People lie. All the time.

[alias1]

Well, Joe is guilty of obstruction of justice (at the least), since he covered up a potential crime and wasted the community's resources to find a killer when it was really an accidental death.  I don't know if he'd get jail time but he is guilty of something.

[ZoloftBlob]

Danny went to meet Joe voluntarily but Danny is also a 12 year old boy, not an adult decision maker. He is well below any age of consent in the states and while the Solanos could be blamed for not keeping their son under their control, Danny is still not able to legally consent to agreeing to spend time with Joe, an adult male, in some creepy shack late at night. Joe knows, or knew, that he isn't allowed to take someone else's child anywhere without permission

[saber5055]

 

Well, Joe is guilty of obstruction of justice (at the least), since he covered up a potential crime

No, he did not cover up a potential crime. He covered up an accidental death. That no jury would find anyone guilty of if they were shown a film of how Danny died, like we were.

 

Danny went to meet Joe voluntarily but Danny is also a 12 year old boy, not an adult decision maker. He is well below any age of consent in the states and while the Solanos could be blamed for not keeping their son under their control, Danny is still not able to legally consent to agreeing to spend time with Joe, an adult male, in some creepy shack late at night. Joe knows, or knew, that he isn't allowed to take someone else's child anywhere without permission

Kids sneak out at night all the time to drink, smoke cigs and/or weed, meet friends they are not allowed by parents to be with, have sex, do all sorts of things of which their parents would not approve or have forbidden them do. Which is why they sneak out at night. Which is why Danny snuck out at night. If Danny were 21, still lived at home, and snuck out at night and all the same things happened, Danny would still be as dead. And it would still be an accident.

 

How does anyone know Joe did not have permission to be around Danny? Wasn't Danny spending his (lied about fake) team practice time with Joe before the shack encounter?

 

Danny's partially responsible for his own death. He could have just grabbed his skateboard and run home after Joe made the pass. Instead, he got all melodramatic and threatened to kill himself by jumping off the cliff. The heck?

 

Joe is no more guilty of a crime by THINKING he wanted to have a relationship with Danny than I am by THINKING I really would love to steal all the money from that armored car. Thinking and wanting things, regardless of what they are, is not a crime in the United States.

Edited December 20, 2014 by saber5055

[Bebecat]

Maybe corrupting a minor, or something like that? A 12-year old is not of an age to make decisions, much like a minor cannot agree to have sex with a person of legal age? And possibly tampering/obstruction as Joe must have lied to police at some point, since he never admitted to having any sort of "relationship" with Danny, or to knowing anything about what happened to him.

[alias1]

Well, Joe is guilty of obstruction of justice (at the least), since he covered up a potential crime

 

No, he did not cover up a potential crime. He covered up an accidental death. That no jury would find anyone guilty of if they were shown a film of how Danny died, like we were.

 

-----------------------------------------

Joe covered up an accidental death and made it look like a crime (that's why I called it a potential crime because everyone thought it was a wrongful death). I believe a jury would (or could) convict Joe of something.   I'm not a Lawyer so I don't know what he could legally be charged with, but if he could be charged, I believe a jury would convict him.

[saber5055]

 

I believe a jury would convict him.

O.J. Simpson.

[ZoloftBlob]

I'm sorry, I don't agree that if a twelve year old sneaks out of the house to meet with an adult in the middle of the night because the adult invited him.... Without parental permission....And then ends up dead... I can't believe that isn't endangering the welfare of a child. As for the accidental death aspect, Tom accidentally killed Danny while trying to protect Danny from being touched by his father. There's accidents and then there's "I accidentally hit Danny while trying to stop my dad from molesting Danny"

[Automne]

Catching up on the thread, I just want to briefly address a few previous points:

 

1.) Re: David Tennant's acting ability: He's good on Doctor Who, but to really gauge his ability, I suggest seeking out his stage work with the Royal Shakespeare Company, which can be found online. His Hamlet is probably the best interpretation I've ever seen (on PBS: http://video.pbs.org/video/1473795626/). And he and Catherine Tate together in Much Ado About Nothing was nothing short of awesome and hilarious (can't link because I watched through less than legal means). I really want to see his Richard II.

 

2.) Re: Jack not being on a sex offender list and other U.S. laws that were ignored: Keep in mind that Chris Chibnall is a Brit who was translating his Broadchurch script for U.S. television and did about as much research into another country's laws as your average fanfiction writer. He knew enough that California's age of consent is 18 instead of 16, so Chloe and Dean's relationship is no big deal (15 & 17), but Jack and his student's relationship had to be tweaked because 40 & 16 would still be very much illegal. However, he clearly did not research when CA developed the sex offender list and that it certainly existed in 1984. Megan's Law wouldn't have come into effect for Jack if he had moved to Gracepoint prior to 1994 (when Megan Kanka was murdered and the bills that eventually led to the eponymous law were proposed). Nor the fact that the whole, "We can't release Danny's body until the killer is found" thing rings incredibly ridiculous in the USA (we have too many police procedurals plus an entire channel devoted to true crime/murder that makes it clear that is not the case).

 

3.) You all bring up a good point that Joe Miller would not spend a very long time in prison. In order to avoid Tom having to testify (which he most likely would have to by the prosecution) and either having to admit his role in Danny's death or commit perjury, Joe would plead guilty and avoid a trial. He'd probably get dinged for involuntary manslaughter, child grooming (maybe), and probably something for moving the body and attempting to cover up the death. He would get something like 20 years, be separated from gen pop because it would be considered cruel and unusual punishment otherwise, and likely serve half the time or less due to "good behavior." If he doesn't get convicted of child grooming, he wouldn't even have to register on the sex offender list since he's legally not a sex offender.

[saber5055]

Good post, Automne.

 

We have to remember that we viewers saw what happened to Danny. However, none of us are allowed to testify or talk to Gracepoint investigators. Joe and Tom know what happened, but neither have to tell the truth. Both can lie like a rug about what happened to Danny and why all three were at that cabin. People lie about lesser things all the time. And worser things, too.

 

I see Joe pleading guilty, doing some time, then getting out after a reduced sentence. Nothing more. Maybe he'd even get no jail time at all. Remember, we viewers can't tell what we know, and Tom/Joe can make up any story they like.

Edited December 22, 2014 by saber5055