Jump to content

Type keyword(s) to search

S02.E03: Episode 3


Recommended Posts

Why was Lee out in a field (presumably someone else's field) pounding a giant stake into the ground?

Perhaps it's a metaphor to suggest that Lee wasn't alone with Claire that long.

Edited by Constantinople
  • Love 1
Link to comment

I was prepared to write a post about how Ellie was a better person than I am, helping Beth the way she did... but do I think I would help. I think most people would help, if that was their friend in labour. But really, I've about had enough of Beth's misplaced sanctimonious whining.

Edited by mledawn
  • Love 4
Link to comment

It did bug me that Beth said the baby was named Elizabeth "for Mum" when Beth's name is also, ostensibly, Elizabeth, so Beth should have said, "for me and Mum." Unless "Mum" was exclusively called LIzzie (I don't remember from the previous season), in which case it almost makes sense, but in either case, be more original and pick a new name. Although I was afraid for a moment that they'd call her Danielle.

Beth's mum went by Liz. A family may have 5 Elizabeths in it, and only one is selected as a new child's namesake. It's not unusual.

With regards to Ellie helping Beth. As a police officer, it's her duty to ensure someone who's in health distress gets to care safely. She also is hoping to reconcile with Beth at some point, so Ellie's going to do the right thing and stay with her till Beth has care.

Edited by staveDarsky
  • Love 2
Link to comment

I was prepared to write a post about how Ellie was a better person than I am, helping Beth the way she did... but do I think I would help. I think most people would help, if that was their friend in labour. But really, I've about had enough of Beth's misplaced sanctimonious whining.

I would have called 911...or 999, whatever it is in the UK...

Edited by Bebecat
Link to comment

I was hoping for episode 2 to be a single dip in quality, but this one was also uneven  - bah humbug! Ellie's one nighter was so heartbreaking, and felt so real, even Clare's glassy smile back at her was a punch in the gut.

 

But the procedural is really beginning to grate on me, I don't care enough about the two trial lawyers and the judge. I'm struggling to get interested in the Sandbrook story - Hardy running about like a maniac is not appealing, I hope I'm invested enough to continue but it's not looking good.

Link to comment

Did anyone else notice the cinematography being completely different this episode? The whole look of the show was different. Or was it the channel somehow broadcasting differently? It looked more soap opera.<br /><br />I missed the first two episodes so I was afraid all of the episodes this season had been this way. I'm glad to see it may be just a glitch with this episode. It is really horrible looking.

Link to comment

 

I don't know - this trial seems to be so incompetently run that it's ruining the show for me.

 

I rarely enjoy extended courtroom scenes on any show, and when they're infuriating and badly done it's a death knell for this viewer. At this point I'm only still watching for glimpses of Ellie and Hardy.

 

I know Beth had a water delivery, but why was her whole head soaking wet?

 

I can't decide if Claire is being revealed as very weird, or if it's the actress' portrayal.

 

I thought Lee was putting in fence posts way out in the middle of nowhere. Wasn't the shot of three women/girls watching him through a window a shot of the clients who hired him to do it? And he gave an email smirk to make us think he was thinking of murdering again? If the images of the women watching from the window were a flashback, it wasn't obvious to me.

  • Love 1
Link to comment

 

JOE, being under oath, would testify that fact.

 

 

Since Joe is trying wiggle out of a murder conviction for a crime he committed and confessed to, I doubt he will do anything, under oath or not, to dissuade the jury from any reasonable doubt his lawyer is causing, even if it means his wife's faithfulness is thrown under the bus.

 

As for the mention on page 1 about Paul possibly being Lizzie's father...I admit, for a moment, I had the same thought.

 

Also, while it was a bit insensitive of Mark to gush over Lizzie while Chloe was right there, I just chalk it up to Mark feeling guilty about Danny.  He was the one who hit Danny after all and that's what led his son to Joe.  Mark must be going over and over in his head about what he should have done differently as Danny's father that would have resulted in a different outcome.

 

 

 

Link to comment

Yes. The soap opera look was unique to episode 3. All the other episodes were fine. There had been a glitch when the episode was streamed live on ITV player in January. I would have thought it got resolved for BBC America's broadcast, but I guess not.

 

I'm not too worried about Chloe at this point. She's old enough not to need that much reinforcement that she's loved. She's also had 7 or 8 months of being an only child again and overly protected/controlled at times. From the moment she overheard Beth was pregnant, Chloe wanted the new baby and a new shot at some happiness in the house.

 

As for the women watching Lee, that was a flashback to Sandbrook. They were Pippa, Lisa and Cate watching him in his back yard.

Link to comment

I thought S1 was great but, I'm having a hard time watching S2.  These last two episodes have been very annoying, the court room stuff seems wrong (although I'm not a lawyer).  It seems like mostly everything that's going on in court is for drama, not reality.  It's not so much that the Defense would bring this stuff up but that they're getting away with it (judge throwing out the confession, allowing those questions - relevance, etc).

 

i hope the writing quality changes but right now, I don't know if i can hang in there.

 

I also don't trust Claire, i think she's playing Elle and Hardy I think Claire and her husband killed the girls together.

 

  • Love 1
Link to comment

I am quite sure we are not being shown all the trial.  For example, there probably was an expert talking about retrieving information from the phones and computers, and where the phones were when calls were made.  (I'm pretty sure that calls were made and emails sent when Ellie was at work ... but, of course, she could have dropped by the house at any time to email Danny.)  We are seeing only the dramatic bits.  And you might have been watching Ellie at the end, but I was noting Hardy's stunned discomfort and anger.

  • Love 1
Link to comment

As I have read all the posts so far, I am surprised to find all so negative.  Regarding the court, we are seeing exactly what the two lawyers told us we would see.  Jocelyn said the case would be built brick by brick, fact by fact, and so she does not respond to every gust of wind.  The other attorney is full of emotion, just not about this case. She is hurt and angry that Jocelyn would NOT represent her son. Her need to win if more about beating Jocelyn than anything to do with Joe Miller.  That kind of passionate hatred can cause burn out or mistakes.  We shall see. 

 

I like Beth and I think her anger is appropriate and reasonable.  Every single day she must wonder how Ellie could not have known.  As Ellie herself said to Chloe, if she had known, she would have stopped it.  But she didn't know, and Beth cannot forgive her yet.  Mark, on the other hand, causes me to wonder if in fact Joe didn't do it, maybe Mark did!!!

 

What I wonder if how they will tie Sandbrook to the Broadchurch situation, or will they run the two murders simply parallel. Claire is guilty of something, I feel certain of it.  

 

Finally, I read a theory this morning on another discussion forum that said that everyone is Broadchurch is  teamed with someone who cannot give them what they need (Beth and Mark, Ellie and Joe, Ellie and Hardy, Hardy and anyone, and so on)... Interesting theory.  

  • Love 2
Link to comment

As I have read all the posts so far, I am surprised to find all so negative.  Regarding the court, we are seeing exactly what the two lawyers told us we would see.

That doesn't excuse the writer's decision to have the defense attorney ask questions that lack relevance, supporting evidence, or both; the prosecuting attorney's failure to object to them; and the judge and other magistrates making decisions on what might be true.

 

Jocelyn said the case would be built brick by brick, fact by fact, and so she does not respond to every gust of wind.

Then Jocelyn shouldn't have said, "We can't afford to lose this confession" in the previous episode (which, amusingly enough, was also in this episode's 'Previously on'). That kind of wild inconsistency in characterization in back-to-back episodes can often stick out, and usually not in a positive way.

 

The other attorney is full of emotion, just not about this case. She is hurt and angry that Jocelyn would NOT represent her son. Her need to win if more about beating Jocelyn than anything to do with Joe Miller.  That kind of passionate hatred can cause burn out or mistakes.  We shall see.

Sharon Bishop took the case before she knew Jocelyn Knight would prosecute. In fact, Sharon thought that Jocelyn might help her.

And I get it, the court room is a chessboard full of strategy, feints, moves and counter-moves, but naming the lawyers Bishop and Knight is a bit much.

  • Love 7
Link to comment
She is hurt and angry that Jocelyn would NOT represent her son.

 

Sorry, but has that been divulged in the first three eps? If I were a barrister, I'd object: Assuming facts not in evidence!

  • Love 4
Link to comment

 

I like Beth and I think her anger is appropriate and reasonable.  Every single day she must wonder how Ellie could not have known.  As Ellie herself said to Chloe, if she had known, she would have stopped it.  But she didn't know, and Beth cannot forgive her yet.  Mark, on the other hand, causes me to wonder if in fact Joe didn't do it, maybe Mark did!!!

 

 

Every single day Beth should be wondering how she didn't know that Danny felt so misunderstood and lonely that he had to start a relationship with another adult.  She should be wondering how she never picked up on any clues that her daughter had a boyfriend and was having sex and had drugs in her room.  She should wonder why she didn't know that Mark was having a fling with the local hotel owner.  

 

Oh, I know, because she's a self centered, blame everyone else, kind of person.  

 

Joe is guilty.  He just can't face the idea of prison (pedophiles don't do well in prison) and is hoping that by some miracle the defense attorney will poke enough holes in the evidence to get him off.  It doesn't mean he isn't guilty.

  • Love 5
Link to comment

Sorry, but has that been divulged in the first three eps? If I were a barrister, I'd object: Assuming facts not in evidence!

 

Not specifically, but implied.  In the first episode, Jocelyn agreed to prosecute and Sharon started to get upset because, "You are representing them, but you wouldn't..."  She trailed off.  There was clearly something there about Jocelyn's agreement to come out of retirement for the Latimers when she wouldn't for someone else.

 

This episode, we find out Sharon's son is in prison.  It would seem that Sharon would certainly be upset if Jocelyn wouldn't come out of retirement to represent her son.  If she'd come to accept that because Joceyn was adamant about being retired, then her deciding to represent the Latimers would have opened up that wound.

 

And SierraMist, you are absolutely right.  Joe has had six months to contemplate what being a child murderer in prison will be like for him, so he's going to do whatever he can to avoid it.  That means putting his friends through a grueling trial, throwing his wife under the bus and doing anything else he can get away with.

 

And his defense attorney, at least in the US, would be obligated to defend him to the best of her ability.  (In the US, anything less could result in him getting his conviction thrown out and given a new trial for lack of adequate representation).  This is why Sharon has to cast doubt on the character and testimony of everyone else.  She must convince the jury that Joe was not the only person who could have committed this crime and, if she can convince them of that, they may acquit him.

  • Love 2
Link to comment

This was perhaps the stupidest hour of television I've ever forced myself to sit through. In fact, watching it may have lowered my IQ. Everyone in Broadchurch, with the exceptions of Ellie and possibly Chloe, are frankly too stupid to live and I think it would be a boon to the human race if the whole town just collapsed into the sea.

 

I'm an American with no knowledge of the British legal system, but even so I feel confident in saying there so many things wrong with this trial that it's just laughable. I mean, Sharon is all but accusing Hardy and Ellie of crashing the Hindenburg and collapsing the world economy while Jocelyn just sits there, perhaps thinking what to have for lunch. Yeesh. At this point I'm only watching for DT and OC, but even they can only do so much with this writing.

 

Shallow note: Creepy Jarvis is super hot. Just sayin'.

Edited by Maelstrom
  • Love 6
Link to comment

Watched the third episode last night, and yes, I found the defense examination of Ellie ridiculous. The lack of objections, calls for relevance, and the seemingly cavalier responses from the judge just seem ludicrous.  Question - how did Tom suddenly age four years?  What's up with that?  Weren't he and Danny best friends and approximately the same age?   I think Joe did all the creepy stuff with Danny, but he believes Tom killed Danny.  So, he confessed to the truth about their relationship and then tossed in the murder.

 

Interesting about the older girl never being found.  And, yeah, Claire is in this up to her eyeballs.

Link to comment

Since Joe is trying wiggle out of a murder conviction for a crime he committed and confessed to, I doubt he will do anything, under oath or not, to dissuade the jury from any reasonable doubt his lawyer is causing, even if it means his wife's faithfulness is thrown under the bus.

  

I will be very disappointed if they do a retrofit to change the killer.

I couldn't agree more, Sierra Mist. We - or at least I - assumed the scene of Joe killing Danny was a flashback, but what if it was just a dramatization of his false confession? If the dénouement turns out to be the same as that in Gracepoint, I'm going to be furious.

I don't want plot spoilers, but can someone who's seen the whole series give me a quality spoiler? If this doesn't get better within the next episode or two, I may have to ditch it.

My current theory regarding the Sandbrook case is that the older cousin, whose body hasn't been found, is alive and in hiding and was either involved with Claire in the murder or knows that Claire did it. I could be wrong, but I think it was established that it was unlikely that Lee sent the bluebell to Claire because he was in France, where bluebells don't grow (?), but the cousin would have known where the incident took place. Of course, a lot of other people would have, as well, based on evidence from the investigation.

  • Love 1
Link to comment

I'm in total agreement that the trial scenes are ridiculous, but one thing that also bothers me is that the defense attorney AND the prosecuting attorney AND the trial judge are all women. It's not impossible, I suppose, but really, how likely is that?

Link to comment

I am fine with how the second season is moving along, maybe it was the mind-numbing nightmare that was Graepoint, but I think this is actually worth watching. My fear is that the show is clearly leaning towards some connection between the Sandbrook and Broadchurch killings, so I worry how Hardy, as the one person involved with both crimes s going to fare in this.

I too think that the older cousin from Sandbrook is alive and well. Claire is clearly hiding something, but that husband of hers is so creepy, his not being a part of the murder would make him even more off-putting.

Link to comment

As I have read all the posts so far, I am surprised to find all so negative.  Regarding the court, we are seeing exactly what the two lawyers told us we would see.  

That's part of the problem for me. They told us what we would see and we then watch it. We don't need both.

Link to comment

Happy, how is the show clearly leaning towards there being a connection between the Sandbrook and Broadchurch murders? I'm not disagreeing with this, I'm just wondering what you're basing your opinion. What have we seen that illustrates this?

Edited by kat165
Link to comment

Lord knows I would move Heaven and Earth for a shot at a roll in the hay with David Tennant, but not at the expense of 1) a dead child 2) my own children 3) my spouse 4) the real murderer going free.

 

Is "speculation" not a thing in the British court system? If that's their best, it's pretty shoddy.  

 

I want to get hammered.

  • Love 2
Link to comment

 

I want to get hammered.

But as we have learned from this show, you end up with someone who is not David Tennant, and who is no fun at all.

 

Please use tools responsibly.

Edited by DeeJayKay
  • Love 7
Link to comment

Blech, this was unwatchable. The courtroom scenes are LOL ridiculous. No objections? Aside from "Relevance" how about "Non-responsive"! And what happened to pre-trial discovery? I feel like I've been thrown back to Perry Mason days with one aha moment after another. So absurd.

 

Without spoilers, if someone who has watched the whole season can just say whether it's worth sticking it out that would be great. Otherwise I think I'm out. Really a shame, because as others have said...S1 was excellent.

  • Love 1
Link to comment

Since Chibnall wrote a whole bunch of L&O:UK eps, you would think he'd be better on the ball re: the courtroom stuff. (Heaven knows my JD from Jack McCoy University never leads me astray!)

 

It's just baffling.

  • Love 3
Link to comment

I love Ellie so much. She's just so human and decent and trying her best. Yeah, she doesn't always seem like the best mom (but actually, given her husband was the day to day caregiver, maybe she has a learning curve there), but the show doesn't give her much family time.

She's the one I worry the most about. I enjoy Hardy because I like the actor, but this show is all about Ellie for me. It's horrible watching a basically good person get put through the wringer for no other reason than she trusted people. Olivia Coleman is a treasure. And she's willing to look less than fantastic which I adore.

  • Love 5
Link to comment

I'm a bit surprised too at all the negative reviews. I liked the first season, but didn't adore it. I thought it was a bit slow and I didn't like Beth all that much despite her being the grieving mother. But I stayed on for Ellie and Hardy and they're frankly gold together. He doesn't have that chemistry on Gracepoint (I really hope they don't do a second season).

I'm not spoiled so my bet is that Joe is guilty still, but that other dude Hardy has been chasing for so long is NOT guilty.

The court scenes don't especially bother me. Are television trials ever authentic and NOT overly dramatic? Real court trials are deadly dull. Even the famous OJ Simpson trial was tedious but I think the novelty of seeing such a big case aired fully on television interested people.

  • Love 1
Link to comment

What set series 1 apart from other whodunnits was we saw the effects the murder and investigation had on Danny's family, their friends and community. In this series, it's not another murder, but the court case that's affecting them. On shows like Law & Order, we don't see the impact the court case has on the victim's family, the witnesses or the family of the accused. Here we get to see that. And like someone said, a real court case is quite boring. So there's some creative license to make it more dramatic than it would really be because it makes the fall out on everyone more interesting.

 

I've seen all of series 2. Avoiding spoilers, here's what I can say. A "possibly spoily" opinion -->

If your criteria for enjoying the series rests completely on guessing the outcome of either or both cases correctly, then you won't enjoy it. It's not the destination but the path there that's interesting.

 

Another reason to stay with it.

You already know Olivia Colman is worth the price of admission. Stay for her.

Edited by staveDarsky
  • Love 1
Link to comment

Thanks, staveDarsky.  I am staying for Olivia Coleman (and Tennant, of course).  It won't stop me ranting, though, when I think some of the plot is poorly written.

  • Love 1
Link to comment

One more thing I love too is that Joe isn't really the focus of the show.  I thought maybe the killer would get more play this season but really he's just been a side character.  I like that a lot.  The American version of this show hired a pretty well known actor to play the murderer (and maybe this guy is well known too in England) so it might have been tempting to give him more scenes.  Glad the UK show has resisted thus far.

  • Love 1
Link to comment
How stupid is Mark to be meeting secretly with Joe MIller's son  Tom after the Lattimer's  son Danny  was apparently murdered by a guy who met secretly with him?  It is beyond belief that Mark would do this and not think it was a rotten idea.

 

It makes absolutely no sense to me that Mark would be secretly hanging around with Tom like that.  Is he trying to place himself in Joe's shoes?  Is Tom going to be the next victim?  Where are you going with this, Mark?

  • Love 1
Link to comment

True!  And what about preparing your witnesses by sitting down with them and going over what they may be asked? 

Apparently, this is not allowed in the British court system. In the US, lawyers on both sides routinely prepare witnesses, but that just isn't the case in the UK. Jocelyn can talk to Alec and Ellie, because they were the detectives involved in the case, but she can't talk to anyone else. The defense can talk to their client, of course, about how his testimony might go, but I'm not sure they can preview other witnesses either. The result seems to be a fair amount latitude on "fishing expeditions" and surprise revelations.

  • Love 1
Link to comment

Being the closed off jerk that he is, I think Mark spending time with Tom was his way of coping with the grief of having failed Danny.  He knows that he wasn't the best father to him (especially after hitting him) and probably blames himself for not knowing what was going on. The knowledge Danny had about his illicit affair and knowing that he was only a few hundred feet away that night from the cottage and could have possibly stopped it has eaten away at him would be my guess. I kept thinking of the Season 1 episode where they were reading Danny's last FB messages about how "he was the son that Mark used to play with." Tom, who is similar in age to Danny, provided an outlet for him to assuage his guilt by spending time/playing with him since he seems so obsessed with "getting it right this time."

  • Love 1
Link to comment

I got a psychotherapist session vibe when Mark was confiding his feelings about Danny's murder to Tom in episode 2. It was a little inappropriate to put Tom in that position, but Tom seemed to be a catalyst for Mark expressing his sense of guilt over everything in a way that talking to another adult wouldn't do.

And for Tom, he's lost his best friend and his dad. He's got an empty space to fill and Mark fits that for him.

Link to comment

I get the Mark and Tom thing. Its messed up as hell, but I get it. Maybe its kind of a surrogate father/son thing for both of them. They have both lost a lot, and I could see how they could see this as being a coping tool. Its probably not a good one, but still. 

 

I know this season got kind of poor reviews, but as long as it has Hardy and Ellie doing their thing, I`m all in. 

 

We know Joe did it. He totally did it. I cannot imagine them changing that now. He`s just a little worm. 

  • Love 2
Link to comment

David Tennant just needs to growl a few times per episodes and I'm all in.  Ownage.  Especially with his real accent.  I think that's why Gracepoint disturbed me so much.  David without some sort of accent is unappealing to me.  Plus he seemed very bored.  I get he did it for the money and fine, he has a mortgage, but he really had no energy in the American version at all.  Such an odd thing to see.  Have other shows ever done that before?  Transplanted the lead actor of a show and replicated it exactly?  I find it baffling they thought it was a good idea.

 

Back to Mark and Tom.  I find Tom a rather creepy young man which makes me sad too because I want Miller's son to be cool.   I think it's strange he doesn't want to live with her either.  Poor Miller's life is all out of whack.  I really need Ellie to get to a happy place by the end of this season.  Olivia Coleman is just so appealing.  Which is good because I don't care for Beth at all.

  • Love 2
Link to comment

The American version of this show hired a pretty well known actor to play the murderer (and maybe this guy is well known too in England)

Nah, Matthew Gravelle is not well known in the UK at all. I already knew him before Broadchurch and liked him a lot from his role in Baker Boys (which was brilliant and really deserved to be seen beyond the border, but wasn't), but he's worked mostly in local Welsh television so isn't well known in the wider UK.

Link to comment

 

Transplanted the lead actor of a show and replicated it exactly?  I find it baffling they thought it was a good idea.

This was either the first time that the lead actor came with the series or one of the few times it's ever happened.  I believe David Tennant said it was part of the appeal -- Like getting to play Hamlet in two different stage productions.

 

Plus Gracepoint was put together pretty quickly after Broadchurch had aired and with Broadchurch 2 in the works. So the fact he had to go back to the original character immediately following the wrap on Gracepoint was unique.

Link to comment
I know Beth had a water delivery, but why was her whole head soaking wet?

 

 

I figure she did the Ice Bucket Challenge in addition to giving birth. You know Beth, always thinking of others.

  • Love 5
Link to comment

 

I know Beth had a water delivery, but why was her whole head soaking wet?

Presumably she was sweaty and put her head back to relax and cool off between contractions. Or whoever was with her poured water on her gently to cool her off. It seems pretty natural to me. She might also have stepped out to sit on a chair in the shower for a while, also not an unusual thing to do in a home birth situation. It's only in a hospital that women are tied to a bed with monitors during labor and can't move around that much. How long labor takes is quite varied, of course, and in the show, Beth's labor is shown to be going on through the night, when her water broke in the late afternoon/early evening.

Edited by Kathira
  • Love 3
Link to comment

Presumably she was sweaty and put her head back to relax and cool off between contractions. Or whoever was with her poured water on her gently to cool her off. It seems pretty natural to me. She might also have stepped out to sit on a chair in the shower for a while, also not an unusual thing to do in a home birth situation. It's only in a hospital that women are tied to a bed with monitors during labor and can't move around that much. How long labor takes is quite varied, of course, and in the show, Beth's labor is shown to be going on through the night, when her water broke in the late afternoon/early evening.

Also in the US they'd never let her sit in a tub after her water had broken (in a hospital, I mean). Of everything I am hating about this show right now, I did love the birthing part because that used to be my sideline job. (helping other women give birth...I'm not a Duggar or anything)

  • Love 2
Link to comment
I love Ellie so much. She's just so human and decent and trying her best.

 

 

I do too. I'm amazed that outside of Hardy - and okay, Claire - there's so little compassion for her. Everyone is aghast that she attacked her husband in a moment of anger...but really, what's the "correct" response to learning that your spouse, the father of your children, whom you share a bed with, killed a child? Expecting her to just coolly appraise him and follow procedure is completely unrealistic. No, Hardy should have not let her go in there alone but for Pete's sake, they're man and wife and if it were my husband, I would want to confront him myself. And wouldn't let anyone stop me.

 

But instead of trying to at least sympathize with Ellie's situation and see why she acted as she did, people are assuming that she deliberately scuttled the investigation by attacking her husband. Give me a break!

 

I'm American and have never seen Olivia Coleman before, but she's wonderful and I'd like to see more of her.

  • Love 4
Link to comment

It's Ellie position as a police detective that is causing those accusations.  She was about to become a DI, so it wasn't like she was a traffic cop during her time in Broadchurch.  She should have removed herself from any contact with the suspect that might have compromised the investigation.  She chose to confront him, perfectly understandable under the circumstances, and also to attack him.

 

Hardy told her not to touch Joe.  We are seeing the reason why now.

 

We know she was a distraught and angry wife, but a defense attorney must defend her client and the avenue of police brutality is not a forbidden line of questioning.

 

 

  • Love 1
Link to comment
×
×
  • Create New...