S02.E08: Episode 8

[ElectricBoogaloo]

Decisions are made, truths are revealed, and lives in Broadchurch are changed forever.

 

Heh, could they make the episode description any more generic?

[staveDarsky]

Preview from Radio Times, which gives a little more detail.
 

And the cast list - so we can see who's in it.

Cast
Alec Hardy - David Tennant
Ellie Miller - Olivia Colman
Beth Latimer - Jodie Whittaker
Mark Latimer - Andrew Buchan
Jocelyn Knight - Charlotte Rampling
Sharon Bishop - Marianne Jean-Baptiste
Rev Paul Coates - Arthur Darvill
Claire Ripley - Eve Myles
Lee Ashworth - James D'Arcy
Judge Sonia Sharma - Meera Syal
Maggie Radcliffe - Carolyn Pickles
Olly Stevens - Jonathan Bailey
Lucy Stevens - Tanya Franks
Abby Thompson - Phoebe Waller-Bridge
Ben Haywood - William Andrews
Joe Miller - Matthew Gravelle
Ricky Gillespie - Shaun Dooley
Lisa Newbery - Eliza Bennett
Tess Henchard - Lucy Cohu
Becca Fisher - Simone McAullay
Nige Carter - Joe Sims
Chloe Latimer - Charlotte Beaumont
Tom Miller - Adam Wilson
Gary Thorp - Tom Rosenthal
Pippa Gillespie - Hollie Burgess
Clerk of the court - Lucas Hare

The episode is written by Chris Chibnall and directed by Mike Barker

Edited February 17, 2015 by staveDarsky

[ganesh]

I'm assuming this is the last one. Because even Mad Men is like, 'that's a vague description.'

[staveDarsky]

SPOILERS - Clip for episode 8 featuring Hardy, Tess and Claire.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecH6SdLNelE

[mledawn]

Good lord this whole show is mumbled. I can't understand

what Tess says before Hardy says "No, no - I need Miller"

[Raingirlkm]

That's funny, cause I've heard the complaints about DT but not had any problems understanding him (even with my American ears and watching on a tablet) but I often don't catch what Tess says.

[staveDarsky]

This is what someone on Tumblr thought was said....

Hardy: I arrested this woman at 2:32pm. She's aware she's under caution. I need you to take her to the nick and just sort out the interview.

Tess: Yeah, over in the Custody Suite at Broadchurch then we're bringing someone in and I'm sitting with you.

Hardy: No, no. I need Miller.

Tess: Yeah, course you do.

Hardy: Claire just handed me this pendant. You two should have plenty to talk about.

[mledawn]

Thanks, staveDarsky, it was

Broadchurch then we're bringing someone in and I'm sitting with you

that I couldn't manage.

[staveDarsky]

The one thing I didn't bet on was both cases wrapping up so quickly. Can Joe stay away forever? I doubt it.

 

ITV's already put out a press release confirming that Olivia Colman and David Tennant will be in series 3. Everything else remains to be announced.

Edited February 23, 2015 by staveDarsky

[rozen]

No way Joe is going to stay away from his kids for the rest of their lives. He doesn't loose parental rights just because he was on trial, yea? He can just divorce her and demand joint custody. Heck, he'll probably never find a good job again and she'd have to pay him child support, if it works in the UK like the US. 

 

I feel like macular degeneration is a pretty important thing to disclose when trying to get a job. Sharon doesn't have half a dozen minions for Jocelyn to keep up all hours of the night voice recording everything. Jocelyn's sanctimonious speech, if anything, puts Sharon in an excellent light. She provided a vigorous defense, which is what a fair justice system is built on. Nice consistency to see her assistant is still an ass, with her stupid fist pump at the verdict. Act like an adult, jeez. 

 

Claire is freaking terrifying. She can hardly have had a normal childhood with her ability to manipulate and lie by the seat of her pants like that. Like, what the heck? Who are these people? "Oh, goodnight sweetheart, loves and kisses. Oh, hey, we need to kill that one too" and Lee just gets up and does it? I guess what few brain cells he had were going in so many different directions he couldn't see a way out. Lee kind of got totally screwed, between Ricky and Claire. I'd almost wonder if they planned it together. Maybe it was Ricky's baby and she was coming back to say she was breaking up with him.

 

Tess is surprisingly tetchy for someone who dumped her husband and proceeded to ignore him for two years. Ellie looked so proud of herself when she got the other receipt, and Hardy praised her, like a golden retriever. Tess was like "hey, where's my doggy treat?"

 

I'm confused why Ellie got to help interrogate suspects. Didn't she get demoted to road duty, or something? She was suddenly back in her suits, running things like she'd never left. 

 

Becca is remaining firmly in the No Drama lane. Poor priest all alone with a recently released murderer, and all she's got to say is, "why did you have me come here?"

[Eri]

Yay for a 3rd series!!

[mledawn]

I'm not sure how I feel about the episode - particularly knowing there will be a 3rd series.

 

Mostly I'm annoyed at the Broadchurch verdict, but I'm glad Sandbrook is sorted as those people were VILE.

[Automne]

 

No way Joe is going to stay away from his kids for the rest of their lives. He doesn't loose parental rights just because he was on trial, yea? He can just divorce her and demand joint custody. Heck, he'll probably never find a good job again and she'd have to pay him child support, if it works in the UK like the US.

 

While I think Joe must've sustained a head injury at some point to think he could just slip right back into his old life like he didn't groom his friends' son for molestation and then kill the kid, he can't possibly be stupid enough to attempt to fight in divorce court. His confession could be brought up again and NOT be thrown out. There's also the fact that Ellie would have an entire town willing to go to bat for her. Plus, a family court judge is not going to be willing to put his/her career on the line to allow a potential child molester unfettered access to his underage sons. The best Joe could get would be highly supervised visits with Fred. Tom might be able to reject any visitations, given that Danny was his mate (even if they had a falling out prior to his death).

[secnarf]

I actually laughed out loud at the drum roll prior to the verdict. A *literal* drum roll.
I'm disappointed but not surprised that Joe was found not guilty. I wonder what the storyline will be in the third series? They could do the Sandbrook trials but I don't think that would go over well. Although, those three are so creepy (especially Claire) that I'm not even convinced they were telling the truth (again, especially Claire). She's lied so much and is so manipulative that I really couldn't believe that she was really telling the truth. For example, I'm not convinced it was Lee and not Claire who killed Pippa - I believe that part of the story was told from Claire's point of view.

I still don't like either of the barristers and I really hope they don't show up in the future.

 

[kieyra]

I've been pretty meh on this season, particularly with Claire and whatshisface, but I was surprisingly okay with the finale. At first I thought they were going to go the way of The Escape Artist with the ending, and then when I saw the 'we will band together as a community and reject you' thing coming, I thought it was a little cheesy, but in the end I was really all right with it. I think the point was supposed to be clear: they are taking the high road, unless he comes back, at which time they will just kill him.

 

I mean, he never should have been acquitted, and yet it's all too easy to see it happening that way in real life. 

 

And then considering I'd been ignoring or unable to understand the B plot with Claire, they managed to make it all compelling in the wrap-up. I'm not just sure there was eight episodes' worth of story there, considering so much of it was just Danger!Sex and whatever. 

 

I loved that they didn't give in to fan service at the end, and Miller was like "Eh, I'm not hugging you." Actually their whole final scene together was fabulous. It was sort of the reverse of the finale of The Killing (US), although I don't hold that ending against that particular show--the weight of the leads' chemistry was pretty insane.

 

The only arc I didn't buy was the prosecuting attorney's.

[staveDarsky]

I'm confused why Ellie got to help interrogate suspects. Didn't she get demoted to road duty, or something? She was suddenly back in her suits, running things like she'd never left.

 

Ellie wasn't demoted. In the e-book that followed episode 1, when she first went to the Devon force, she remained a sergeant and her first case there was a domestic violence one that upset her a lot. She realized she wasn't emotionally in the place to handle such cases and asked to be put on road duty, which the force did.

I'm sure Chris Chibnall was stretching believability allowing her to reassume her qualifications to interrogate in the same way that Alec probably needed to clear some medical tests before he could just walk back into HQ as an active DI. But I'm sure we're to take it that both would be reinstated to their former levels and come back to Broadchurch if they chose.

Overall, I liked the last episode and I'm sure as I get a few days away from it, I'll like it more and more. The choices were smart and there's still a few cracks in the over all story of Broadchurch that could open up for the third series. I think right now I'm going through a combination of sadness that there won't be a new episode for at least a year or two and also that I would have written slightly different endings to a couple of the threads if I was the writer. No matter how well a story is put together, it never satisfies everyone's hopes for it.

[ganesh]

I like how Joe was like, "I was found innocent!" Uh, not exactly. 

 

I thought the not guilty verdict was weak, but in hindsight, I think it makes sense. The prosecutor didn't really fuck up, but how many times was she like, "Why didn't you tell me that?" So really taking the show as a whole, the not guilty verdict was really on the town. 

 

Which leads me to the end. They all thought they were *so* high and mighty by banishing Joe. Like it's been said, it's not like it has any legal weight to it. You should have just admitted guilt. Well, he's legally entitled to a defense. They all should have laid it all on the line so the jury would convict him. I mean, the defense was ludicrous and it worked. That's on you all.

 

I find that the line "we can't appeal unless there's new evidence" to be telling. There was no mention of the laptop at *all* during the trial, no? 

[Llywela]

I find that the line "we can't appeal unless there's new evidence" to be telling. There was no mention of the laptop at *all* during the trial, no? 

I think they did mention the laptop - there was that whole thing about the emails and how it was the family computer so no way of proving that it was Joe who sent them. But there was no mention of Tom smashing the laptop or any of that - but then again, what would that prove?

[staveDarsky]

And there's a discrepancy, because in series 1 the smashed laptop was referred to as Tom's. Where in series 2, Hardy was questioned about the family computer. So it's not clear that they were talking about 1 or two computers.

 

I think the banishment was effective -- at least temporarily. What they illustrated through it was that no matter his hopes, he'd never be accepted in Broadchurch again or get to reunite with his family. Interesting contrast with Alec Hardy. Both outsiders from other places, over the course of the two seasons, Joe ended up banished, while Hardy, despite trying to remain remote, ended up being infiltrated (both his home and his heart) by Broadchurch people and its fun fair! Despite the Latimer case failing due in part to screw ups in the investigation he oversaw, I think Broadchurch is somewhat forgiving of Hardy and he could stay put vs Sandbrook which wasn't forgiving in the aftermath of that failed case.

 

Now,  there's also hope for Hardy to get a little closer to home by moving nearer to his daughter and returning to being part of her daily life. He won't be shunned in Sandbrook now.

 

I really liked his final hesitation about getting in the taxi. I was sort of hoping he'd decide to stay.

[ElectricBoogaloo]

I'm normally not a fan of vigilante justice but I was willing to make a fictional exception for this character. When Mark and Nigel showed up at the church to drag him off, I would have been fine with them killing him and dumping his body somewhere. Joe was such a piece of shit for pleading not guilty and putting Beth, Mark, their daugher (whose name I've forgotten because she was barely seen this season unless she was holding the new baby in the background), Ellie, and the entire town through this trial. And I say that as someone who dislikes both Mark and Beth.

 

What I really hated about Sharon's obnoxious assistant is that she said earlier in the season that Joe was guilty yet she had the audacity to fist pump at knowing that she got a murderer acquitted of murdering a child who didn't want to be molested. What the hell, woman? I know, I know, it's her job blah blah blah. That doesn't mean she has to be so fucking gleeful at knowing that a murderer with two young children is now walking the streets a free man.

 

Loved that Ellie refused to hug Hardy at the end. I am glad that he finally has this monkey off his back and feels free from the burden of Sandbrook so that he can go spend more time with his daughter.

 

To be honest, I don't believe a word that Claire, Lee, or Ricky have said this entire time so the latest story about who murdered which girl is plausible but just as likely another version of the truth as manipulated by these three psychos. All three of them are crazy selfish liars so I wouldn't be surprised if the story changes next season. Ricky is a pervert for watching Lee have sex with his niece for 15 minutes before deciding to come in and break it up. Broadchurch is now up to two crazed spontaneous murders that were a result of a moment of rage and one premeditated murder. All three of the victims were children (I know Lisa was 18 but she was still a teenager) who got in the way of what an adult wanted. Danny didn't want to have sex with Joe. Lisa didn't want to have sex with her uncle. Pippa made the mistake of admitting the truth to Claire who didn't want her or Lee to get in trouble. I guess the main theme is that these adults are the worst.

 

Hilariously, I thought the younger girl's name was Pepper all season and I was just hearing it pronounced with a British accent. It wasn't until I checked on IMDB tonight (now that the season is over) and saw that her name was actually Pippa.

Edited February 24, 2015 by ElectricBoogaloo

[dbrits]

I'm surprisingly pleased by the finale. Before watching I learned about series three and wondered how they'd manage to squeeze an additional eight episodes out of this story arc unless Joe was found not guilty. For that reason, I expected Joe's acquittal. What I didn't expect was for Joe to make it to the end of the episode alive (and I would have been okay with that). When Mark and Vince dragged Joe out of the church I assumed series three would revolve around Joe's suspicious death, but the group banishment actually worked. And even though I detested Mark and Beth over the course of the series, I couldn't help but root for the survival of their marriage and family at the end of the episode. Kudos, Broadchurch, for finding the small part of my heart that hasn't turned to stone.

Speaking of hearts, I'm glad Hardy got that pacemaker. An invigorated Hardy is fun to watch but it was even more satisfying to see him close Sandbrook. Sandbrook seriously screwed up that man's life (as did his wife) and I would have been irritated had the writers not given him any closure. I never realized that the picture he kept in his wallet was of Pippa; I always assumed it was a picture of his daughter when she was younger. His interrogation room breakdown was well overdue. Hardy and Miller are more alike than they think except Hardy doesn't wear his emotions on his sleeve. He only turns into an emotional pile of goo when no one else is around.

Claire, Lee, and Ricky are the worst people ever. Seriously. I'd like to toss them all into the incinerator with Claire leading the way...

Although series two wasn't perfect, it was still enjoyable. I looked forward to series three but my goodness, these long waits between series suck.

[joelene]

So, why did Claire get Hardy to hide her away in that country cottage again? She wasn't really scared of Ash, was she?

I didn't much care about anything in the end. I expected a not guilty verdict since a series three had been announced, so I wasn't exactly on pins and needles.

[staveDarsky]

So, why did Claire get Hardy to hide her away in that country cottage again? She wasn't really scared of Ash, was she?

 

It was probably two-fold. One, she couldn't stay in Sandbrook with people whispering suspicions about her husband. Her hairdressing business couldn't have survived the fall-out either. So when Hardy offered a free place to stay, she jumped at the chance to  take the cottage.

 

And two, it was a way to keep an eye on Hardy, should he start pursuing the Sandbrook case again, which he did.

 

She wasn't afraid of Lee. In fact, she seemed to be the dominant in that relationship.

Edited February 24, 2015 by staveDarsky

[ganesh]

I don't remember, which is why I asked, but the laptop was featured pretty prominently in S1, so to only warrant a line or two now seems odd to me. 

 

Honestly, all these people at Broadchurch are assholes for the most part. They were ready to practically lynch Ellie at the start of this season ffs. The not guilty verdict is on them, as far as I'm concerned, and I would think it's going to bite them in the ass next season.

[Crim]

When Mark and Vince dragged Joe out of the church I assumed series three would revolve around Joe's suspicious death, but the group banishment actually worked.

I thought the same thing, and I'm glad the show didn't go there because I don't want all 3 seasons to be connected to this degree. Also, I hope the Sandbrook storyline is finished. While I think it's possible that the 3 lied again, their stories stand, and are supported by evidence. I don't want to see a rehash of the "trial goes wrong when lies are revealed" plot.

 

What I liked about the banishment was that they first proved how helpless he was, which made the threats credible. Joe's "You think you can banish me?" was as deluded as his first thought that he could somehow integrate back, because what chance did he have to make a living there? He had been a stay-at-home dad, so there would be no old job to fight for, and no one would hire him. Realistically, that would be enough to drive him out at some point. It was in-character to not have him think of this though.

[Ravenya003]

I get the feeling that if I re-watched this episode it would all fall apart. 

 

I'll confess I'm a little disappointed at the Sandbrook case: I definitely had Ricky pegged as the killer (and seriously, he had some nerve to tell Hardy's daughter that it was her father's fault the killer got away) and Claire as the manipulative pull-stringer of the Lee/Claire relationship, but I'd honestly thought that Lee would end up an ironically innocent patsy (ironic because he acted like such an asshole). 

 

Looking back, it also doesn't make sense that Lee would be pressuring Hardy to reopen the case. Seriously, why do that? He DID kill Pippa, and the fact he got off due to the pendant being stolen was the only thing that got him off. So why's he trying to peg it on someone else? He was apparently living it up in France, so why come back and start stirring up trouble when a full investigation is going to lead straight back to him? What exactly did he want to happen?

 

And did Claire steal the pendant to protect Lee or to exert more control over him? Because if she wanted to be free of him, why not just let him go down for the murder that he DID in fact, commit? Or perhaps she wanted to blackmail him into staying with her (of the "you owe me a favour" variety) but then why go to Hardy for protection? Or maybe she just wanted that power over him in revenge for him having screwed the niece?

 

Ack, I just have no idea what any of these people's motivations were.

Edited February 25, 2015 by Ravenya003

[staveDarsky]

Lee was just that stupid. He thought by putting together his own case files he could thrown suspicion on Ricky or on Gary Thorp, Lisa's stalker.

 

As for Claire, I'm sure she sized up Hardy as a noble protector. So she played the frightened wife angle and got to live in a lovely cottage on Hardy's penny for most of a year. What could be better? I'm sure she was also at the heart of most of the rumours about affairs among the two couples and she made Lee believe she'd also had sex with Hardy as part of the game to confuse the investigation and to keep Lee from finding out about the abortion.

 

The pendant was a gift from her grandmother so it had sentimental value. Though it's strange she kept the evidence bag it was in when she stole it!

 

It's just a shame Hardy was so noble as to not set the record straight with Ellie about Claire's abortion earlier. But Claire showed her true colours as she made one last pathetic attempt to accuse Hardy of abusing her and forcing her to have sex.

Edited February 25, 2015 by staveDarsky

[staveDarsky]

FYI. Chris Chibnall released this tweet yesterday confirming Joe killed Danny. Spoilers if you're still watching season 2.

[Llywela]

FYI. Chris Chibnall released this tweet yesterday confirming Joe killed Danny. Spoilers if you're still watching season 2.

He's had to say that because so many viewers took to twitter after the episode, all confused because they were assuming a not guilty verdict meant he must be innocent after all, apparently not quite comprehending that just because someone is guilty doesn't necessarily mean they will be convicted, because things aren't always that straightforward. That's what this show has been about from the start, after all, showing the messy, human side first of the investigation and then of the trial. Joe was guilty, but convicting him relied on fallible humans, who messed it up.

[Catt]

Gotta say felt really let down by this season. It had plenty of potential, but the execution was way off. IMHO this is what they needed to do for Broadchurch season 2 to have worked properly. Take it or leave it.

 

Remove all the scenes pertaining to the Sandbrook case and thus remove Claire, Lee and Ricky and Tess as characters.

 

Keep the focus on the Latimers, but remove a lot of the non-essential personal storylines for Jocelyn, Sharon and Abby (the barristers).

Also, Jocelyn KNIGHT and Sharon BISHOP? Really? Did we really need the blunt ‘chess’ terminology?

 

Trim the fat and then compound all the rest (the trial scenes and other things happening in Broadchurch) into the first four episodes.

 

At the end of episode 4, Joe is found not guilty. He exits the courthouse a free man and is confronted by a major character who is angry at his release, let’s just say Paul for instance (the vicar), but it could be anyone (maybe Jocelyn even). Suddenly a gunshot rings out from an unknown location and Paul is hit and killed. Then another shot and Joe goes down too. It is assumed that Joe was the target and Paul just got in the way of the shot.

 

The second half of the season is Hardy and Miller unofficially investigating who the shooter was, for Paul’s sake, alongside the official police investigation. Given the animosity towards Joe, heightened by him being released, the majority of the town are all suspects. Cue the actually murder mystery elements that the show was built on and vastly lacked in season 2.

 

Make actual proper use of the secondary characters that were back from season 1. (Olly, Lucy, Maggie, Nige, Becca, Chloe etc.)

 

In the final episode it is revealed that Paul, or whoever, was the intended target and shooting Joe as well was just a diversion to obscure the motive (obviously seeds for this would need to be planted early in the season). Joe survives and is only released from hospital at the end of the season, where he is then kidnapped and ‘banished’ from Broadchurch in the same manner that we saw.

 

Season 3 - The Sandbrook case (an extended, and therefore, worthwhile version with more than 4 and a half suspects, 3 of whom were actually involved)

Edited February 25, 2015 by Catt

[ganesh]

He's had to say that because so many viewers took to twitter after the episode, all confused because they were assuming a not guilty verdict meant he must be innocent after all, apparently not quite comprehending that just because someone is guilty doesn't necessarily mean they will be convicted, because things aren't always that straightforward.

 

 

 

Actually, no, he didn't. I agree with your explanation. I am disagreeing with a showrunner taking to social media to explain their show, just on principle. This was a well written show. If one paid attention to the show, there shouldn't be any doubt of this. I would have said, 'hey, you guys, just watch the show.' This is just really something I can't stand. Don't let the viewers off the hook. Watch the show. It's clear. 

 

Also, Jocelyn KNIGHT and Sharon BISHOP? Really? Did we really need the blunt ‘chess’ terminology?

 

Oooh, I just got that.

 

I think someone else killing Miller would actually be a little too clean for the show, and kind of cheesy. Miller got off essentially because the Latimers were terrible people and withheld a shit ton of information from the prosecutor. Banishing him really only made them feel better for fucking up. I mean, obviously, Miller wouldn't be able to go back to normal with everyone, but really I don't think the townspeople are that much better than he is. 

 

I think that was the point because the defense team wasn't really under any delusions that he was falsely accused. 

 

I also think it's a bit of a cheat that throwing out the confession wasn't challenged better. Disproving Hardy beat up Miller seemed pretty easily disproven. 

[mledawn]

It's not clear that Joe was indeed the killer. The audience was required to assume that Joe was a reliable narrator, yet we were given nothing else of his character to indicate we could rely on him to tell the truth. The fact he pled not guilty casts doubt on his character.

From episode 1 of series 2, Paul speaks with Joe after Joe enters his plea. The conversation is:

 

Paul: You confessed. The evidence against you is clear.
Joe: Not just me. Everyone.
Paul: Joe, you are the only one on trial here. You killed a child. Just you. No-one else.
Joe: Nobody's innocent, Paul. Everyone's hiding things.

 

That's ambiguous - what was the point of that conversation, then?

 

*Script excerpt taken from Springfield! Springfield!

[ganesh]

No, he's the killer. The show was clear on that. I've only watched the episodes once and it's never occurred to me that he didn't do it. Whether Miller is perhaps deluded is plausible. I wouldn't deny that Miller had some kind of psychotic break. He also told Paul he was "found innocent" which in fact he was not. No court ever finds one "innocent". Maybe that's coming up in S3.  It's also true that everyone was hiding things. And sure enough, when each of the townspeople went on the stand, that came out. 

 

I don't know if it's because a lot of tv is based on cheap fake outs. It makes people in general see things that aren't there. But sometimes a murder is an actual murder. The point of the show was how the people are all affected and involved in this, and the murder is the framing device. The opening scene of the series laid out this pov. 

[solotrek]

That's ambiguous - what was the point of that conversation, then?

 

I always thought it was silly to give us some of the things they did with the lawyers when there were already compelling characters in the town. Jocelyn had macular degeneration and the storyline of her mom. Get rid of one of those, get rid of some of the stuff with Sharon and her son, and focus on the Paul and Becca thing. There were a few cut scenes about them and honestly, I felt there could have been more. Heck, even the Nigel storyline with his real mom would have been interesting to explore. She did accuse him of murder twice, wonder around the crime scene,  and then was invited to their circle of trust to remove Joe from town. I feel like we're missing something there.

[mledawn]

 

No, he's the killer. The show was clear on that. I've only watched the episodes once and it's never occurred to me that he didn't do it

 

I don't think the show was clear on that. The writers introduced enough ambiguity into the show as a whole that I don't have a problem at all with people who felt they required validation that Joe did kill Danny. Personally, I had doubts enough to feel gratitude that Chibnall made that statement.

 

I was interested in the scripts though, and went back to look at the conversation Joe and Paul had after Mark's testimony

Joe: What do you reckon? Do you think they'll dismiss it? Do you think Do you think I'm winning?

Paul:You're guilty, Joe.

Joe: I thought you were on my side.

Paul: And I thought I could help you come to terms with what you've done. But I don't see you taking responsibility for your actions. How do you think God would view that?

Joe: When I was a paramedic I saved a lot of lives. God sees that. He knows the good I've done.

Paul: It doesn't work like that. You watched your son lie for you on oath, and still you're trying to wriggle free. I'm done with these visits. Goodbye, Joe.

[ganesh]

So Miller is saying the lives he saves outweighs the mistake he made by killing a kid. I'm not saying it was premeditated, but to say Miller didn't do it, completely invalidates anything about Hardy and Miller. 

 

Taking in the show as a whole from S1, it never crossed my mind. I don't recall any discussions otherwise either. I'm not saying it was obvious, but I don't think it was intended that we're supposed to take away that we didn't really know who did it.  

 

This is largely semantics. He did confess. Then one can question his state of mind at the time, etc. What about the laptop? And so on. 

 

TV is rife with worrying more about manufacturing twists than telling a straightforward story. This show was meant to be straightforward about the murder but everything surrounding it was a mess. It was about Latimer being a terrible husband and father and how that contributed to letting a confessed killer go free than it was about whether Miller was the killer. 

 

It's like True Detective in a way. Everyone was complaining about the finale, but it was always intended to be the two guys catching the killer. What happens to the two of them is the story. Whether the guy did it or not, or why, what it means, wasn't really the point. 

Edited February 25, 2015 by ganesh

[staveDarsky]

I'm glad Sandbrook and Hardy's arrhythmia got addressed in the second series. That story line was really about Hardy and Miller solidifying as a team and getting stronger as individuals -- Hardy with his health and Ellie with her confidence and self-reliance.

 

Had the trial been compacted to four episodes and then Joe killed and the subsequent resolution on that killing been series 2 with Sandbrook waiting till series 3, there would have been little reason for Ellie to be involved with Sandbrook because her own life would have circled around to resolution by the end of series 2.

 

Given that the Sandbrook crime had happened in the past, the principle investigation and Pippa's autopsy were in the past, I don't think the  audience was meant to get to know the Sandbrook citizens, the victims' friends and extended family as well as we knew Danny's family and friends, and the townsfolk in series 1.

[orangepeel]

Good lord this whole show is mumbled. I can't understand

what Tess says before Hardy says "No, no - I need Miller"

 

I use a subtitle app. Usually subtitles are available about a day after. I have no problem finding subtitles for Broadchurch and they're usually pretty accurate. Subscene.org has subtitles.

[briochetwist]

Are people actually not clear on the fact that Joe killed Danny?  Seriously?  He confessed, and pledged to do the right thing and plead guilty.  Only when he'd had a taste of what life in prison would be like, did he change his mind.  Lucky for him, the confession was thrown out and that made him appear less guilty to the jury.  I think he was delusional enough to think that once he was found not guilty that the community would accept him back.   I'm with the poster above who said they could have killed him and I would have been fine with it.

 

I had no idea Claire was so incredibly evil, the way she turned on Hardy was frightening.  As if anyone would believe that the guy who has major heart problems would be carrying on a sexual relationship with her, or harming her physically.  He can barely walk....

[Pippin]

I must confess, the "not guilty" verdict shocked me -- I said "Holy F@ck" out loud.  Although from a writer's POV, I shouldn't have been surprised; it's the logical progression of the storyline.

 

I never doubted Joe was guilty; the story isn't about twists and turns and last-minute revelations that reveal another murderer.  It's about human frailty and how that frailty extends to the systems humans have, including the press, law enforcement and the justice system. 

Viewed in that light, the "not guilty" verdict is totally believable.  One only need look at some of the stupid verdicts rendered by juries who have been distracted or dazzled by clever defense attorneys in RL to see that justice is not always served.  (OT:  Like believing that Kaylee Anthony's grandfather, who by all accounts loved the child with all his heart, would dispose of her body in a garbage bag in a swamp.  Hell, I wouldn't do that to one of my cats.  Would you throw a beloved child's body away like that?  Stupid jury.  But I digress.)  Sometimes I agree with Archie Bunker:  maybe we should have professional juries.  Again with the digression.

 

I agree with the poster who said that Joe must have hit his head or is still in the midst of a psychotic break; to think he could blithely  re-enter his life and continue on with no consequences is either idealistic beyond belief or stupid to the point of idiocy.  Or both.

 

I thought that the two barristers coming together was optimistic; perhaps unrealistic, but the idea that not everyone is unredeemable is a nice one.  Perhaps the defence lawyer will come to lose her cynicism.  Her assistant, though, is still a bitca. 

 

I liked the fade to black on the taxi driver's question, "Where to?"  Where to indeed, Detective Hardy?

 

I welcome the thought of a third season, because you can never have enough quality television, as far as I'm concerned.  How to continue the Broadchurch story is something I can't think of right now; I would hate to see the show become something like "Murder She Wrote" (I mean, everywhere Angela Lansbury went, someone got knocked off.  Would you invite that woman to your house?) in that suddenly this little town becomes the murder capital of the UK.  

 

Unless (off the top of my head) Ellie moves out of Broadchurch to evade Joe and she and Hardy get partnered up in a larger city somewhere, and are nicknamed the "Broadchurch Beat" or some such.  (Which is a lousy nickname, I know but this is on the spur of the moment!)

[staveDarsky]

I recently rewatched Joe's confession from series 1, episode 8. After Danny announces he wants to end things, the way Joe responds led me to think he's got a personality disorder where he sees himself as a hero. Certainly being a paramedic fed into that. I know I've seen/read stories where a fireman with the same disorder goes so far as to cause fires so he can rescue people.

 

Joe thinking he could just go home after the acquittal fits with that. Also I noticed he seemed more focused on and affected by Tom on the stand than he was with Ellie on the stand.

 

I've put my guesses for series 3 in the series 3 thread. I can see it being quite interesting.

[happyhumanist]

I have to confess my dirty little secret. I am in the US, but watched Season 2 in real time. Now I have to pretend that I didn't see it for the sake of my friends with whom I'm watching it "for the first time" <ahem> when it starts here tomorrow (Wednesday, March 4).

 

I fear I'm doomed to failure.

 

Don't hate me!!

[staveDarsky]

I did too. I couldn't face going through just 6 days till it showed here in Canada! Plus I wanted to be part of the online reaction and conversation. The time lag between some English speaking countries is nuts. I was shocked the USA's wait was 2 months.

 

The frustrating thing was, several of my friends then PVR'd it to watch in a binge. I"m still waiting to talk to them!

 

Good luck with your ruse with your friends.

[happyhumanist]

Thanks, staveDarsky! We'll see how long I last.

 

I did enjoy the second season for the most part. I do love David Tennant and that lovely Scottish accent. And there is no one better than Olivia Cole.

[flutist4fun]

I thought the season wind-up was good, loved the reconciliation scene between the Millers (minis Joe) and the Latimers, and I’ll definitely be back for an S3 with DT and OC. (I won’t miss Claire and Lee next time, though.) But I have to call foul on one thing, and it’s the reason I’ve always thought there might be a late reveal that Joe was not the murderer but covering for someone. I rewatched the first season (and that first episode is still really wrenching; a great opener) and in the opening scenes when Mark is walking through the main street, meeting all the townspeople, he passes Joe and Ellie and Tom. Joe looks completely relaxed, is smiling, arm around Tom, says something to Mark like “We’ll get the boys together.” Now, Joe is not Tony Soprano. There is no way a guy that just committed his first murder 12 hours ago is that casual. The murder of a boy he knew. Any first-time killer would be a total wreck: freaked-out, worried about being caught, avoiding contact. I think that was a huge misstep in the acting and directing; it misled the audience unfairly, I think. Red herrings are one thing, but that to me felt like it crossed the line into a lie.

[staveDarsky]

Keep in mind that Matthew Gravelle didn't find out his character was the killer until the script for episode 8 was delivered. Had he been told to play Joe as stressed in that opening scene, he'd have known Joe was going to be revealed as the killer.

The only actor who knew at that point was Olivia Colman and she wasn't letting anyone in on the secret, even David Tennant.

[flutist4fun]

I didn't know that. So that lets the actor off the hook. But not the director. I think you shouldn't place actual lies in the behaviour (or words, etc.) of the characters. I don't watch many mysteries, so maybe this kind of fake-out happens all the time?

But even if it's common I don't think it's fair play.

Edited March 6, 2015 by flutist4fun

[ganesh]

I think it's fine. An actor can't help but tip his hand if he knows he's the killer. If in fact Miller had a psychotic break, then he would be playing it like that at that point. You have to tell OC because she's got a huge breakdown scene and I would think she needs to prepare for that. 

 

I have to confess my dirty little secret. I am in the US, but watched Season 2 in real time. Now I have to pretend that I didn't see it for the sake of my friends with whom I'm watching it "for the first time" <ahem> when it starts here tomorrow (Wednesday, March 4).

 

I'd be betting them on what's going to happen next. 

Edited March 6, 2015 by ganesh

[staveDarsky]

You have to tell OC because she's got a huge breakdown scene and I would think she needs to prepare for that.

Olivia was the one Chris Chibnall wanted most but didn't think they'd actually get her. So apparently she was told during her first meeting with Chibnall. But then she was called an hour later and told they were going in a different direction and not to tell anyone else. And she didn't. David Tennant found out she knew half way through the filming and confronted her, but it sounds like she didn't tell him.

 

The one thing she asked at an early meeting was if her character could "kick the killer in the balls" when he was revealed.

[ganesh]

I want to hang out with OC.