WTF, Broadchurch?

[dbskyler]

Okay, just saw the finale for the second series, and that was a big pile of WTF. I'm not even sure I understand what happened, exactly. Ricky Gillespie killed his niece, and then asked for drugged whiskey to be given to his daughter? Why? How does that help him, exactly? I know he said that if Ashworth goes to the police, he'll pin the crime on him, but if Ashworth doesn't go to the police, who is he planning on pinning the crime on? Is he thinking that no one will notice that Lisa is missing? I just don't get how drugging his daughter makes any sense.

In the meantime, Ashworth kills Pippa because Claire tells him Pippa thinks he murdered Lisa? And then Claire lies about it to Ricky?

Oh, and how did Lisa's pendant get into Ashworth's car? It was supposed to be such a huge, important piece of evidence, and then it didn't really have anything to do with the case in the end?

Then in other news, Joe Miller was found not guilty, and the rest of the town kicks him out, and Ellie and the Latimers are besties again. That ending just felt very pasted-on, and shallow, and unrealistic, especially given what we'd seen in the last two series. Does no one in the whole town question that Joe is guilty? Just those 12 jurors, then? For a television show that is supposedly about consequences, everything got all neatly tied up there, didn't it? Oh, and speaking of neatly tied up, and pasted-on friendships, that whole scene between the attorneys, WTF? If what's-her-face wants to continue practicing law, why does she have to go to her old protege to do it? Why would she even want to? And then that convenient "there's grounds for appeal in your son's case" tidbit, that she'd been sitting on for years because she couldn't be bothered about it until now? So much for law being a noble calling, I guess.

At least I can honestly say that I'm not sorry the show is over. Always look on the bright side, or as the show put it, "where better to have a picnic than where your son's dead body was found!" Hooray?

Comments

[persiflage-1.livejournal.com]

Wasn't it glorious?

[\sarcasm]

And they're making a third series.

Gods alone know why. He should've stopped at one.

[dbskyler.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I read a review that said the first series was ruined by how bad the second one was, and I have to agree.

Ooh, maybe in the third series we'll get Lee and Claire's trial, while Hardy and Miller look for new evidence about the Latimer case! And it will turn out that it was actually Mark Latimer who was the killer all along!

[/sarcasm]

[At least, I really hope that will remain a completely ridiculous, sarcastic scenario . . .]

[persiflage-1.livejournal.com]

*snorts* I honestly don't know where he thinks he's going with this.

I confess, the *only* reason I kept watching S2 was for David And Olivia's fantastic chemistry together - I bloody love Miller & Hardy!

[arcanetrivia]

I confess, the *only* reason I kept watching S2 was for David And Olivia's fantastic chemistry together - I bloody love Miller & Hardy!

Trufax.

Although I have to admit I was pleased when, after the credits rolled, my husband said unprompted "David Tennant is awesome." Before even asking exactly what he meant I went all Monty Burns on him and was like, "E-e-e-excellent. Join us, join us..."

What he was referring to was the visible difference between pre- and post-pacemaker Hardy. Not overall body language and stuff, though that too, but specifically that there is something very different in and around the eyes. It's like he dropped several years of age. And some of that could possibly be makeup or something, but he (and I) feel certain the bulk of it is performance: DT is just that good, that he can do that kind of subtle thing that makes such a big difference.

</fangirling>

[persiflage-1.livejournal.com]

Oh yes, Tennant is THAT good!

[dbskyler.livejournal.com]

Yes, you're right, there is that big difference before-pacemaker and after-pacemaker.

Glad to hear that your husband is now a David Tennant fan! He really is an amazing actor. You know that moment in Human Nature / Family of Blood where he's once again the Doctor, and Joan Redfern says she can't look at him because he "looks the same"? I always think how untrue that is, because he really doesn't look the same at all! And I can't even put my finger on what it is that DT is doing differently as the Doctor as opposed to John Smith, except that he's so obviously a completely different person. I've also wondered about the need for two suit colors in Journey's End to differentiate between the two Doctors -- I think DT's acting was good enough to let us tell the difference all by itself.

For me, the acting was absolutely the highlight of Broadchurch; even when the script became ridiculous, the acting never faltered. David and Olivia especially were fantastic.

[arcanetrivia]

You know that moment in Human Nature / Family of Blood where he's once again the Doctor, and Joan Redfern says she can't look at him because he "looks the same"? I always think how untrue that is, because he really doesn't look the same at all!

Totally. Identical twins perhaps, but having dated one of a pair of twins, I can tell you that even twins look different in a hundred ways. People always used to tease me about did I mix them up, ha ha, and I was like, never, it's pretty impossible, they look so different and are just completely different people.

The two Doctors are even more obviously different than John and the Doctor are. The different suits might have been a visual variety choice as well as one intended to help the viewer?

[persiflage-1.livejournal.com]

Saw these articles this afternoon, and thought I'd pass them on:

http://collider.com/broadchurch-season-2-finale-postmortem/
This reviewer pretty much agrees with you.

http://www.ew.com/article/2015/04/21/broadchurch-season-2-finale-interview
Chris Chibnall interview.

[arcanetrivia]

"Is Alec Hardy going to find his razor" lol.

I find it interesting Chibnall had a third season already planned when they started doing 2?

[persiflage-1.livejournal.com]

Yeah, although he still had to wait for ITV to actually commission a 3rd series. I kinda wish they hadn't, much as I love Miller & Hardy.

[dbskyler.livejournal.com]

Hmm, interesting! I hope that series three does go in a completely new direction -- that may actually manage to be good again. I would not at all mind a straight-up detective story with lots of scenes of Hardy and Miller bickering at each other.

[persiflage-1.livejournal.com]

*snickers* Those two bickering is very watchable! I loved it when he offered her a hug and she was all GTFO! Too funny!

[dbskyler.livejournal.com]

LOL, yes, I loved that!

[arcanetrivia]

Ricky Gillespie killed his niece, and then asked for drugged whiskey to be given to his daughter? Why? How does that help him, exactly?

So that she'd pass out and not hear anything further? We had to watch some of all this with the flashbacks twice, because it was very confusing, but I think while Pippa knew her dad was there, she thought that it was Lee who had hurt (killed) Lisa, although she does not say this explicitly to Claire (just "I heard the fight"), so Claire is actually at least sort of lying to Lee when she tells Lee "Pippa thinks you did it". (She may, but I don't think it's made 100% clear.)

I know he said that if Ashworth goes to the police, he'll pin the crime on him, but if Ashworth doesn't go to the police, who is he planning on pinning the crime on? Is he thinking that no one will notice that Lisa is missing?

I think, not to pin it on anyone, and of course people would notice - but to give out exactly that, that she went missing, after hiding the body and the evidence. He was effectually blackmailing Lee: "Do this, or instead of helping you hide all this by my silence, I'll pin it on you".

Oh, and how did Lisa's pendant get into Ashworth's car?

Pippa's pendant, isn't it? I was a little confused that it apparently just fell off, but I suppose it's possible that awkward handling of a dead body could do that. (I've broken a bunch of small silver chains, so it's possible.)

Does no one in the whole town question that Joe is guilty? Just those 12 jurors, then?

Do you mean, does no one else wonder whether Joe was innocent, besides the majority of the jury? (I wonder who were the ones who found him guilty.) Although as I kept saying to my husband, while the phrasing is "not guilty" I think it ought to be read as "we didn't feel 100% certain that he was, so we had to vote otherwise" - not as "he's obviously innocent of this crime."

I do think the ending was kind of pastede on yey and I'm nervous about what they are thinking of for a third series. One of the things about British TV that I perceive as different from American is that they are often content with self-contained, short series, and don't always insist that something go on and on and on (although there are shows like that too). I feel its popularity is going to turn Broadchurch into something it had not originally set out to be.

"where better to have a picnic than where your son's dead body was found!"

Yeah, when Mark said to baby Lizzie something like "haven't showed you this spot yet, have we?" I was like wow, morbid much? (don't get me wrong, I'm pretty much a lapsed goth, but geez.)

[dbskyler.livejournal.com]

We had to watch some of all this with the flashbacks twice, because it was very confusing

I only watched it once, and I confess that I was very confused. After reading Chibnall's interview, I now wonder if they originally had a much more clear explanation of the sequence of events, but had to cut it for time. Given how important the resolution of the Sandbrook case is to the story (two whole series' worth), I think they should have spent the episode time needed to get it portrayed. Instead of dramatic impact, for me the resolution of the case was "wait, what? I don't get it." Not exactly a worthwhile payoff.

Pippa's pendant, isn't it?

Was it Pippa's pendant? Somewhere along the line I formed the impression that it was Lisa's. Sadly, I don't think it even matters, as the pendant turned out to be not important after all. I mean, both the girls were in Lee's actual house, and it seemed to be not an unusual circumstance, so how is the pendant being found in his car of any significance whatsoever? Couldn't she have lost it in his car while she was alive?

One of the things about British TV that I perceive as different from American is that they are often content with self-contained, short series, and don't always insist that something go on and on and on

Yes, and it's one of the things that I think British TV often does much better than American TV. They set out to tell a story, and when the story is over, they stop. I really think Broadchurch should have stopped with series one, as series two didn't add anything to the original story, and indeed managed to undermine it in my opinion. Now if they have a good story for series three that happens to use some of the same characters, I'll watch it, but if they keep trying to spin out a story that is over just for the sake of spinning things out into more episodes, then I won't be watching.