Broadchurch - General Discussion

[Guest]

This topic replaces the old Broadchurch forum which has been vaulted at the location below:  http://forums.previously.tv/forum/186-broadchurch-v/

[Yeah No]

Was there no forum for season 1?  I just started watching this and only saw threads starting in season 2 in the vault.  I'm all confused since the reorg.  Also, I don't like the idea that things might be discussed in a catch all topic that are spoilers for someone just starting a series.  This is especially an issue in Netflix as people often catch on to series like this years after they were first aired.  It will make people like me avoid the thread so as not to trip over any spoilers.

[BookWoman56]

I'm rewatching the series now via Netflix and really enjoying it from the perspective of knowing what happens later in the series. A few times I have noticed a small action or what felt like throwaway dialogue at the time, that turned out to have more significance than initially guessed. I especially enjoy watching David Tennant and Olivia Colman interact with each other. It's done well enough that you can see why he is exasperated by her, and she by him, but that they keep trying to make the working relationship productive. The scene where she feels compelled to invite him to dinner with her family still makes me laugh aloud. 

However,  Mark Latimer just annoys me to no end, even more so than when I first watched the series. How self-absorbed do you have to be to not realize that when a murder investigation is going on to figure out who killed your son, that you need to tell the cops the truth about where you were at the time of the murder? (Not that Mark's brand of stupidity and self-centeredness is confined to Broadchurch; I've seen this in multiple procedurals.) If nothing else, lying to them will end up in them eventually discovering that your alibi is fake, and then they will waste time focusing on where you really were and why you lied about it, instead of making actual progress toward identifying the killer. 

[BookWoman56]

A couple of days ago I rewatched the first episode of Gracepoint (the US version of Broadchurch that also starred David Tennant but set in the US with primarily US actors), and doing so made me realize something about DS Miller's character. In Gracepoint, the same character is played by Anna Gunn, and for most of the episode, I felt something was off. That wasn't just for her character; although I normally like Michael Pena, he was completely unconvincing in this. But the major difference between Broadchurch DS Miller and Gracepoint DS Miller was a difference in personality and outlook. Specifically, Olivia Colman conveys that DS Miller, while serious about her job, has a normally cheerful outlook and is inclined to think the best of people until they prove her wrong. And a large part of what makes Broadchurch work for me is seeing the arc that her character goes through, from her unthinking assumption that nobody she knows could be a killer (or even do anything particularly wrong) to her realization that many of the people she thought she knew have some fairly serious secrets and that one of them is in fact a killer. In Gracepoint, though, at least in the first episode, Anna Gunn's version of DS Miller comes across as 100% serious all the time, and there just isn't that cheerful personality and naive acceptance of people at face value. I don't blame Anna Gunn; there were some subtle changes that made it so her personality, as well as that of others, was toned down. But overall, rewatching the US version has given me much more appreciation for the level of acting that was going on in Broadchurch. It's not showy acting, just quietly convincing. I'd be curious to know how much of the difference between the two shows came from the director's perspective and how much was purely a decision by the actor. For example, there is a scene in both where the the father (Mark) demands to go see the body. In Broadchurch, the tone makes it clear the father doesn't entirely believe it's his son who is dead, or at least he still has some hope it's not his son. In Gracepoint, the father sounds angry when he makes the demand, and there's no sense that he doesn't believe it, nor is there that line of dialogue when he sees Danny, that all the way over there he'd been convinced it was a mistaken identification. 

There is something I find puzzling in the first episode. After Chloe goes to the beach to put Danny's toy there, why is the family then so upset that the news is reported online? I understand the cops not wanting the information out there until next of kin have been notified, but that's already happened. Why should the entire Latimer family freak out because there is online news stating that Danny is dead? Why would it even matter to them? I've never been in that position and sincerely hope never to be, but after the cops have told you that your child is dead, what difference does it make if other people find out about it via news sites? Presumably by that point they would have called any other extended family members and close friends to let them know. Also, even though the young reporter shouldn't have tweeted it until he had confirmation of the identity, anyone else at the beach who saw Chloe put the toy there could have figured out that it was Danny. This is supposed to be a fairly small community, so most likely there would have been at least a few people at the beach who knew who she was. So while again, the reporter shouldn't have tweeted it without confirmation, it's Chloe's fault that the identity of the body was leaked to the media, not Miller's fault just because she answered her cell phone when her nephew called to try to get confirmation. What was she supposed to do, tell him his guess was wrong? She flatly told him not to publish it. 

Edited February 1, 2019 by BookWoman56

[ElectricBoogaloo]

On 12/31/2018 at 7:23 PM, Yeah No said:

Was there no forum for season 1?

No, there weren't separate episode threads or discussion for S1 because S1 aired in March 2013 and the PTV forums weren't created until the end of 2013 (and most people joined the PTV forums in the mass migration after TWoP closed in March 2014).

On 12/31/2018 at 7:23 PM, Yeah No said:

I don't like the idea that things might be discussed in a catch all topic that are spoilers for someone just starting a series.  This is especially an issue in Netflix as people often catch on to series like this years after they were first aired.  It will make people like me avoid the thread so as not to trip over any spoilers.

I'm the same way. I either avoid the thread altogether until I'm completely caught up or I click on the thread title, hold my hand over the screen to avoid accidentally reading anything, scroll down the bottom, and post  about the episode(s) without reading any of the previous posts. I always feel guilty about doing that because I learned old school forum rules back in ye olden days and one of those rules was that it was rude to just post without reading what other people had already posted. Once I'm all caught up, I go back and read the old posts because I feel guilty.

[Yeah No]

On 2/2/2019 at 5:04 AM, ElectricBoogaloo said:

No, there weren't separate episode threads or discussion for S1 because S1 aired in March 2013 and the PTV forums weren't created until the end of 2013 (and most people joined the PTV forums in the mass migration after TWoP closed in March 2014).

I'm the same way. I either avoid the thread altogether until I'm completely caught up or I click on the thread title, hold my hand over the screen to avoid accidentally reading anything, scroll down the bottom, and post  about the episode(s) without reading any of the previous posts. I always feel guilty about doing that because I learned old school forum rules back in ye olden days and one of those rules was that it was rude to just post without reading what other people had already posted. Once I'm all caught up, I go back and read the old posts because I feel guilty.

Thanks for the explanation, I remember TWoP but didn't make the connection about this show's first season predating the migration to this site.  It's weird how they came out with a new season every 2 years instead of one, but I guess that's because the cast was probably so busy with other stuff.  I learned old school forum rules too so I feel the same way about not reading the posts, except that I'm not that good at shielding myself from seeing spoilery stuff especially on this new big screen I have!  Maybe I'll try it on my laptop.

Edited February 3, 2019 by Yeah No

[BookWoman56]

Although I've watched all three seasons, I'm deliberately making an effort not to reference anything specific to any episodes after the first episode, or the subsequent seasons. It's a little difficult to avoid making general observations, when there's the perspective of having seen the entire series. But I don't think it's a spoiler to comment that the killer turns out to be someone that Miller knows or that she discovers that various people connected to the case have secrets. That's fairly standard in this type of show; when I watched the first episode the first time around, I knew by the end of the first episode that this wasn't going to be a Criminal Minds type of show, where the focus is on finding a perpetrator that is more or less unknown to local law enforcement. For the series to make narrative sense, there has to be an arc for Miller that shakes up her assumptions about life in her small town and the people she knows.

It reminds me a bit of murder mysteries in which you have not only the damage done by the death of the victim, but also the collateral damage done by having suspicion focus on various people who end up not being the killer. That is, in the death of a child, it's normal for one parent to wonder, at least to himself/herself, if the other parent is guilty. It's normal to wonder if a family friend or member of the extended family is the killer, even while thinking that it must have been a stranger. But the fact of having that suspicion almost always means that you can't regard the people you've suspected quite the same way ever again. Because if you can envision a scenario in which this person you know would kill someone and then cover it up, you're admitting to yourself (at least on a subconscious level), that you don't know this person as well as you thought you did, or that you sense there is a potential for violence there that you would have previously not acknowledged. And if various procedurals have taught me anything, it's that during the course of a murder investigation, people's secrets that are more or less unrelated to the murder will be uncovered, and that far too many people are stupid enough to think that they can just lie to the police about where they were, what they were doing, etc., and the police will just accept their word for it rather than checking alibis, and those same people will then be shocked when the police decide that if suspect A was lying about where he/she was, then suspect A could well be lying about other things as well, up to and including the murder itself.  I would give bonus points to any suspect who immediately said, "Okay, I was actually shacking up with my best friend's spouse" or "Yeah, I was actually playing hooky from work/school so I could go do something fun" instead of insisting on some fake alibi that will fall apart the second anyone starts seriously poking into it.

[Yeah No]

I am confused about whether it's OK for me to reference episode details in this thread.  The series is over so why not?

[ElectricBoogaloo]

6 hours ago, Yeah No said:

I am confused about whether it's OK for me to reference episode details in this thread.  The series is over so why not?

Yes, once an episode has aired, there is no need to spoiler tag anything.

[Yeah No]

Thank you!  I just finished this series and felt it was wrapped up rather abruptly to the point of being unsatisfying, despite the neat tying up of loose ends.  I don't understand how Mark could just drive off somewhere when he owns a local business.  That's not how it works.  It was confusing with them all asleep on the couch in one scene, then he's taking off in the next. 

I actually liked the first two seasons better.  I liked the courtroom scenes although I'm still wondering how realistic any of them were.  It was interesting to see how different British law is from American.  Although the acting was superb, I found the plot with Trish a little bit unbelievable from the standpoint of casting.  I get it that the actress is excellent and well known but I guess I'm shallow in thinking she should have been more attractive to be irresistible enough for two men including her ex husband to stalk her.  I don't think her personality was magnetic enough to explain it either.  Perhaps this is my American perspective here?  When I talked this over with two friends who had also watched the series they both told me they felt the same way!  I could hardly believe the actress was born in 1970.  I'm 60 and I look younger.  My husband and I thought she was around my age at least if not more.  That said, it's too bad they ended the show so soon, I would have liked it to continue.  I agree that Miller and Hardy's chemistry was off the charts and will miss them together.

[ElectricBoogaloo]

Olivia Colman won the best actress Oscar for her role as Queen Anne in The Favourite!

[langford peel]

How amazing is it that an Oscar winner starred in this show. What a great achievement!

[BookWoman56]

I disliked Beth more in the second season than in the third season, when she was being bitchy to Ellie, which while understandable, seemed a little much at times. Regarding the marriage, there were several factors there. From what I've read, many marriages don't survive the death of a child, maybe in part because each spouse blames the other. But in Mark's case, he had cheated on Beth and while I personally find having sex outside the marriage to be fine, by the terms of their marriage he had violated her trust. Mark testified in court that he planned to tell Beth that the marriage was over. Also, given that Beth was 15 or so when she married Mark, and presumably because she was pregnant, it makes sense that she would opt to get out of the marriage because she's no longer the same person she was when they got married. From her perspective, Mark is more or less wallowing in his grief rather than at least trying to move on from a huge loss. So I completely understand why she's willing to end the marriage, even though Mark hasn't healed from Danny's murder, and I can't really blame her. Part of my dislike of Mark is that at no point did he seem to own up to his culpability in the whole situation. Had he not hit Danny, had he not repeatedly abandoned doing things with Danny because of his other interests, then maybe Danny wouldn't have been quite as susceptible to overtures from someone who turned out to be a pedophile and murderer. In many ways, it was Mark's actions that set the whole chain of events in motion. So while I of course sympathize with him because the murder of your child is a staggering loss, I can't see him as a victim in the end of his marriage to Beth. 

[NJRadioGuy]

Just finished the third series tonight, and I have to say this was one of the most depressing things I've ever watched. Especially how S3 ended. Season 1 was one of the best I've ever seen. S2 wasn't nearly as good, but damnit, S3 just made me feel like I was getting curb-stomped over and over. And in the end, every bit of the fabric of the town was torn apart; the vicar resigns, the honest newspaper closes, to be replaced by a vlog and a shitty tabloid, and the Lattimers marriage is shattered, with Mark basically a zombie moving away. 

Sure, I get that this might really happen, but do we, the audience, want that much depression as entertainment? And a murder mystery where a child killer gets off scot-free and never faces any kind of justice, except for feeling bad about starting over again. Boo effin' hoo for him. 

And the rape story in S3 was just agonizing to watch from beginning to end.

Now for a show that wants to accurately portray the aftermath of tragedy (and I guess they did succeed at that), they lost any sense of realism in the law, and in investigations. What Joe did, as horrible as it was, was not premeditated in the slightest, the relationship wasn't sexual and it basically just happened in a horrible moment. There's no conceivable way that would not be charged or brought to trial as manslaughter. Any solicitor or barrister worth more than £1.99 would have gotten him a reduced charge. Facing murder, yeah, of course he'd plead not guilty, so why the crown wouldn't offer 10 years for a lesser charge (with half sentence in custody, typically) is ludicrous.

Likewise the investigational procedures were the usual bit of television detective horseshit. Of course every suspect speaks to investigators, every time, and the lawyers (i.e. extras) they have with them in the interrogation room never ever say a single word as they admit X and Y and Z. Riiiiiiight. "On advice of council I respectfully refuse to answer any questions at this time." Live it, love it, and learn it.

Once they had a narrow set of suspects, at least in the US (not sure about BritLaw here), they'd have had probable cause to pull phone records, and check GPS coordinates. For that matter, just pull the tower data down for a list of which subscribers pinged off it during the estimated time of the attack, then narrow the subscriber data with GPS data (realizing that in real life, GPS data is accurate to within about a metre). Many a criminal is serving a life sentence thanks to that, thankfully.

[Roseanna]

On 2/2/2019 at 1:08 AM, BookWoman56 said:

There is something I find puzzling in the first episode. After Chloe goes to the beach to put Danny's toy there, why is the family then so upset that the news is reported online? I understand the cops not wanting the information out there until next of kin have been notified, but that's already happened. Why should the entire Latimer family freak out because there is online news stating that Danny is dead? Why would it even matter to them? I've never been in that position and sincerely hope never to be, but after the cops have told you that your child is dead, what difference does it make if other people find out about it via news sites? Presumably by that point they would have called any other extended family members and close friends to let them know. Also, even though the young reporter shouldn't have tweeted it until he had confirmation of the identity, anyone else at the beach who saw Chloe put the toy there could have figured out that it was Danny. This is supposed to be a fairly small community, so most likely there would have been at least a few people at the beach who knew who she was. So while again, the reporter shouldn't have tweeted it without confirmation, it's Chloe's fault that the identity of the body was leaked to the media, not Miller's fault just because she answered her cell phone when her nephew called to try to get confirmation. What was she supposed to do, tell him his guess was wrong? She flatly told him not to publish it. 

I don't think it's strange at all. It's altogether different if you tell yourself your relatives and friends and if the media tells it and you will be harassed by it like it happened to Latimer family. 

I find that the police did right to speak of the victim only as "a local boy" and the press should have protected the pricacy of the victim and his family, 

[Roseanna]

On 3/14/2019 at 3:09 AM, BookWoman56 said:

Part of my dislike of Mark is that at no point did he seem to own up to his culpability in the whole situation. Had he not hit Danny, had he not repeatedly abandoned doing things with Danny because of his other interests, then maybe Danny wouldn't have been quite as susceptible to overtures from someone who turned out to be a pedophile and murderer. In many ways, it was Mark's actions that set the whole chain of events in motion. 

I agree that Mark is selfish and immature and a cheater and wallows in his sorrow, but I disagree that "he set the whole chain of events in motion".

That's just the way that people are use to think when something horrible happens. F.ex. if a parent hadn't quarrelled with a teenage daughter, she wouldn't have run away from home in the middle of night and woudn't have been raped. The parent did the same as countless parents do and if he/she had known what would happen, he/she wouldn't have done it.

It was Joe and Joe alone who started the chain of events. He, an adult man and a father, deliberately stole his own son's friend, met Danny in secret and bribed him with money and a cellphone. He knew that people would regard his actions wrong (as he should have himself) and he did them still. 

Joe says to the priest in S2 ep 1 after pleading "not guilty" that nobody is innocent, but the priest quite rightly answers that he alone is responsible for Danny's murder.

[Roseanna]

On 3/14/2019 at 3:09 AM, BookWoman56 said:

Part of my dislike of Mark is that at no point did he seem to own up to his culpability in the whole situation. 

Actually he did in the beginning of S2. He said to Tom that he did feel guilty. 

Perhaps it's just his guilt that make him harder to - well, not give up grief, bacause Beth said in S3 that she has to fight against it every day.

Mark published a book about his son, Beth started to help other victims.

[Roseanna]

On 6/20/2019 at 8:10 AM, NJRadioGuy said:

What Joe did, as horrible as it was, was not premeditated in the slightest, the relationship wasn't sexual and it basically just happened in a horrible moment. There's no conceivable way that would not be charged or brought to trial as manslaughter. Any solicitor or barrister worth more than £1.99 would have gotten him a reduced charge. Facing murder, yeah, of course he'd plead not guilty, so why the crown wouldn't offer 10 years for a lesser charge (with half sentence in custody, typically) is ludicrous.

We don't actually know if the the relationship was sexual of not. Joe denied it wasn't (what we saw was what he told to Hardy) and there was no physical evidence of penetration. Yet, there could have been other sexual acts which would have been harmful to a boy's secual development but of course that is a moot point because they can't be proven.

It's true that Joe had no plan to murder Dan when they met in the cottage. Yet, it didn't exactly happen in a moment, either. When Dan fled, Joe brought him back and locked the door. And finally, strangling doesn't last just "a moment" like shooting. He had time undo what he was doing but didn't although he claimed to love Dan.

But I agree that the charge should  have been manslaugher. However, 10 years' sentence seems too little when the offer could't defend himself.

[Roseanna]

When he is confronted by Mark in S3, Joe still says that "is was an accident". But it's impossible to strangle somebody accidentally. Everybody knows that having no oxygen can lead to death and Joe was a paramedic, so he knew it even better than ordinary people.

[nlkm9]

can anyone direct me to the season 1 recaps and discussion??? thank you:)

[nlkm9]

2 minutes ago, nlkm9 said:

can anyone direct me to the season 1 recaps and discussion??? thank you:)

ok so there isnt one lol. I am normally a spoiler reader but for this show I wanted to be unspoiled. so there was not a forum on TWOP? Im confused lol still--there are 2 versions of the show? I just finished season 1 and wow, it got a little ennoyingly twisty (Im still scared of Nigel) heartbroken for Jack, wondering what is going on with the cocaine, and guess im hooked now. the 2 leads, "miller" and "alec" were amazing.

[GHScorpiosRule]

On 2/2/2020 at 7:38 AM, nlkm9 said:

can anyone direct me to the season 1 recaps and discussion??? thank you:)

You can find all the archived forums for TWoP, and specifically, the first season for this show, HERE.

[Mindthinkr]

I just finished the series tonight. One thing that I missed after Season 1 was the psychic man. I think everyone has voiced many of my thoughts on the show. 
I quite liked the series and my eyes leaked a few times. I really wish they had continued the series, but am happy for Oliva Colman that she went on to win an Oscar. 

[dubbel zout]

I binged all three seasons recently for the first time (yes, I'm late to the party), and LOVED them all. 

Olivia Colman was just FANTASTIC. I can't say enough good things about her portrayal of Miller. Her facial expressions of outrage and disgust were genius. The warmth she poured into Miller was amazing, and I like that she gave Hardy as good as he gave. I think that's what made them such good partners. 

David Tennant had the showier role, in a way, and I'm glad he didn't ham it up. I did find Hardy's heart problems in season 1 to be boring and too clichéd, but at least his brush with death didn't turn him into a schmoopy mess. He stayed prickly and somewhat unlikeable.

There were quite a few characters in the first season, especially, who didn't tell the whole truth to the detectives during the investigation. The cops are going to find that stuff out eventually. They always do. So get it all out at once and save yourself multiple interviews. 

One of my favorite supporting characters was the newspaper editor, and she was hilarious in season 3 with her much younger boss.

I thought the vicar was kind of a sore loser to leave Broadchurch. I get his frustration with the selective/lack of religious participation, but it certainly wasn't exclusive to him. It was even about him personally. The scene at the end where he gave his last sermon proved that the town genuinely liked and respected him. Though the earlier scene where Mark Latimer is banging on about how all the counseling he got (from the vicar and others) did nothing for him was wince-inducing. Oof. Mark said outright it was all a waste of time.

As for Mark, LOL at him driving to Liverpool (or wherever Joe was supposed to be living) in his company van. Way to be inconspicuous. The fact he couldn't put his grief more in the background of his life was so sad. And how creepy was it that he glommed onto Joe's son after his son's death?

I don't think Beth was wrong to want to divorce him. I do believe she deeply loved him, but as she said to him, you can't help people who don't want to be helped. I think a certain part of Mark hung on to his grief so strongly because it gave him something to fight against. He said he found his life to be unsatisfying, knowing he was probably doing as well as he ever would. I do wish Beth had kept telling him that he still has two daughters who love and need him.

[Fool to cry]

I finally caught season 1. I wish I hadn't seen the inferior American remake whose name I can't remember years ago. I only saw the first and final episodes so I got spoiled on who the killer was. Still the reveal in this one was hard to watch. Needless to say David Tennant was much better here with his real accent and not that fake American one. Olivia Colman was amazing. Jodie Whittaker was great as was the actor playing her husband and victim's father. Liked Rory Pond as the vicar. I was looking forward to watching the rest of the series but accidentally got spoiled on season 2's ending and my reaction was "Are you effing kidding me?!" I liked seeing Tennant and Colman together but no thanks. I'm fine with ending with the vigil.

Edited January 20, 2022 by Fool to cry

[auntiemel]

On 1/19/2022 at 2:04 PM, Fool to cry said:

I finally caught season 1. I wish I hadn't seen the inferior American remake whose name I can't remember years ago. I only saw the first and final episodes so I got spoiled on who the killer was. Still the reveal in this one was hard to watch. Needless to say David Tennant was much better here with his real accent and not that fake American one. Olivia Colman was amazing. Jodie Whittaker was great as was the actor playing her husband and victim's father. Liked Rory Pond as the vicar. I was looking forward to watching the rest of the series but accidentally got spoiled on season 2's ending and my reaction was "Are you effing kidding me?!" I liked seeing Tennant and Colman together but no thanks. I'm fine with ending with the vigil.

Season 3 is pretty great, though. Different. But powerful.

Also, I think the American version was called Gracepoint.

[seacliffsal]

Have just finished watching series 1 and 2 and will be starting 3 this week.  The acting is stellar.  The only miscasting (IMO) is the daughter (Danny's sister) as she looks so much older than being in her teens.  I feel like she looks like she is the same age as her parents.  I really appreciate that Hardy and Miller seem so human with their good qualities along with their flaws.

Really did not care for the murder story of season 2 with the dodgy witness/murdered who Hardy was "protecting."  The trial was tense enough that the murder plot just took time and emphasis away from it.  

[Fellaway]

17 hours ago, seacliffsal said:

I really appreciate that Hardy and Miller seem so human with their good qualities along with their flaws.

So agree. These two - both the characters and the actors - worked so well together. I'm not sure these two, Hardy and Miller, even liked each other, but they respected each other, earned respect, and never fell into the trap :shudder the thought: of, well, it's a man and woman so they must sleep together, like they do on so many other shows. Other shows take note: A man and a woman can work together without being friends or being romantically or sexually involved and be all the more interesting for it.

17 hours ago, seacliffsal said:

The trial was tense enough that the murder plot just took time and emphasis away from it.  

That's the way I felt about the two lawyers. I mean we have the conflict between the two of them, the one's reluctant retirement, the other's son, macular degeneration, car accidents, financial problems, family death, burgeoning relationship... and probably something else I missed. That's a lot for two side characters, and none of it added to the two major plot lines.

All in all, I loved Season 2 as much as the first season, especially for the profoundly affecting scene of Hardy being able to close the file on the Sandbrook case. Season 3 is the one with diminishing returns for me.  The case and its characters weren't that interesting to me, and Hardy and Miller didn't have the story or the effect they did in the first two seasons. I liked the way they ended the Latimer story in Season 2 and felt they really had to struggle to fit them in in this season. I'd have preferred they let that family rest, but, Season 3 is still better than a lot of other TV.

Edited October 10, 2022 by Fellaway
Spelling counts.

[Llywela]

17 hours ago, seacliffsal said:

The only miscasting (IMO) is the daughter (Danny's sister) as she looks so much older than being in her teens.  I feel like she looks like she is the same age as her parents.

The actress is only 13/14 years younger than her on-screen parents, but it is actually a plot point that they were teenagers when she was born - 15 and 17. So while she is still a couple of years older than the character, the casting really isn't far out, and she was very much still in her teens when the show was filmed. Mark and Beth are meant to be very young parents who were tied together by a teen pregnancy and managed to make it work until tragedy drove them apart, so not looking to be that much older than their daughter is a feature, not a bug.

Edited October 10, 2022 by Llywela