Ok-some of you didn't like this season, what was it? the court room scenes? the other murder mystery? the verdict? all of the above?
Personally I liked it. Not as good as S1, but that was a murder mystery that had a whole town as suspects.
What would you want to see in season 3 to make it great again?
I do have a feeling Joe will show up....dead. He didn't seem to happy to leave. And I think we know Hardy doesn't get in the cab.
For me it was the court room scenes, the lawyer and prosecutor's back stories for sure and the Sandbrook case that I didn't care for.
shareI hated this season. The boring continuation of Danny's murder and the Sandbrook case, which was full of pointless characters and OH YES, the pendant.
I hope Hardy and Ellie return in Season 3 with a brand NEW murder, no more rehashing old stuff.
No more court scenes. The lawyers were very good actors but it was all pointless.
And yes, Ellie and Hardy should start a little romance.
[deleted]
I disagree with you. I remember Joe's guilt being questionable at the end of season one. I firmly believed that Joe believed he was covering for Tom.
I still think it would be interesting to learn that Joe is innocent.
I think you should go back and watch the season 1 finale again, because it was in no way implied that Joe was covering for Tom or believed he was covering for Tom. In Gracepoint he covered for Tom, but definitely not in Broadchurch.
shareOh no!!!! Please don't say things like that without announcing a "spoiler". I know this is the comment section and not the review section where "spoilers" are more commonly announced, but I've only seen Broadchurch (seasons one and two), and was just about to start Gracepoint. I've been intentionally avoiding reading anything about Gracepoint, because I heard it has a different ending. I thought this thread would be safe from spoiling Gracepoint, since it's a Broadchurch board discussing season three predictions. I didn't have the slightest notion that I'd have Gracepoint spoiled (which, one could say is my own fault). I have to admit, my heart's a little broken now. I know Gracepoint is supposed to be very similar, but I was so excited to see the story told again with a different finale. :(
I know you didn't mean to intentionally break anyone's heart, but perhaps, if you can edit your post, you might go back in and put a "Gracepoint spoiler alert" at the beginning as a common courtesy to future readers, so that they can avoid having a similar heartbreak?
Thank you so much, so much. It is great chatting with another Broadchurch fan. I agree with your post completely. I think the ending of season one is very clear, no wiggle room on the culprit's guilt.
Thank you so much! Have a splendid day.
The general rule for forums is that after a series has been shown in the major markets around the world, which Gracepoint has, it's not necessary to use spoiler tags/codes.
Having said that, you'll still see plenty of differences in how the two shows were handled. A scene or two worked better in Gracepoint. It was also interesting to see the differences in scripting and editing for the two countries as well and the interpretations the two sets of actors gave. I found myself often watching the parallel scenes almost side-by-side as a great study in TV show production.
I'm sure you'll find stuff to enjoy.
The general rule for forums is that after a series has been shown in the major markets around the world, which Gracepoint has, it's not necessary to use spoiler tags/codes.
You really have to proceed with caution across all of IMDB because the forums are mostly unmoderated. Other discussion boards, like Reddit or PreviouslyOnTV, have strict rules about spoilers because they have moderators to police them. I'm afraid that here it's "Visitor beware".
shareOh, it's not just imdb. You can come across spoilers anywhere. My Game of Thrones problems weren't on imdb at all.
shareActually, even in movies that are 50 years old, it is common to use the spoiler tag to hide spoilers. It's sort of common courtesy.
shareWatching Broadchurch 1 (I have not seen Gracepoint, don't plan to) I thought all along Tom was the killer, and then he wasn't. Or was he? I still think its possible.
shareSame discussion after finale aired in Britain:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2249364/board/thread/240602738
This is my version of season three. Tom feels mounting guilt over his father covering for him. We discover that Joe is innocent. When Joe found Danny's phone he assumed that Tom killed Danny and he took the blame. That's why it was so important for Joe to convince Ellie that he never touched any of the boys. That's why he couldn't explain to Hardy why he had done it. He hadn't!
Possible scenario is that either Tom or Danny realized he was developing sexual feelings for the other. Tom gets upset, either because Danny doesn't return his feelings or because Danny has feelings for him that he doesn't like. In any case Tom can't handle it and accidentally kills Danny. Joe has been innocent all along. That's the story that I like for season three.
Plus, that opens up all kinds of possibilities for moral lessons. All of those people who judged Joe,especially the Vicar.
I think it would be very interesting if it turns out that Joe sacrificed himself for his son and really is the hero.
I'm sure those who saw BC 1 will correct me but I think I read someone say that they showed Joe murdering Danny.
shareYou may have read that but we never saw Joe hurt Danny.
shareYes, it did show Joe kill Danny, he strangled him.
shareYou may have read that but we never saw Joe hurt Danny.
[deleted]
But, when I saw it the first time I (and many other viewers) thought we were watching Joe's confession being told visually, as opposed to what really happened.
I've made that point elsewhere. Realized I was accidentally ambiguous here.
Joe clearly strangles Danny as Danny is trying to leave the trailer. Vivid scenes of the strangulation, cutaways, close-ups. Danny goes limp in Joe's hands and is certainly dead. (As JCleese would say, "D-E-A-D!!!") Cutaway to Joe looking horrified at what he knows he just did to Danny. Joe was Guilty.
shareWhen watching that first season many people, myself included, believed they were depicting what Joe was confessing not what he actually did. I've watched it more than once and opened my mind to see how others saw something different than what I did. I happen to like that my mind interpreted it the way I did. Plenty of other people saw it the same way I did. It's not something that's up for debate. We're talking about fiction here. Anything is possible. I accept that the majority of folks believe they were showing you what happened to Danny. The first time I saw the episode there was no question in my mind that they were showing us what Joe was confessing to and I saw him as a hero for protecting his son by taking the blame.
I like my version better and lost interest in the show once every forced your version.
This is a messed up world and we need more heroes, people who sacrifice for their loved ones. I thought it was a good ending when I saw Joe sacrifice himself.
Having Joe kill Danny is pedantic, average, blah, and leaves us with no hero in the story. No reason to keep watching the show.
You may find this interesting:
ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY: Was it always your plan for Joe Miller to be found not guilty?
CHRIS CHIBNALL: I absolutely worked through both possibilities. As we were storylining, I kept thinking, “If I’m a juror, how am I feeling at this point? What are the really powerful arguments?” It wasn’t an absolute slam dunk that he would always be found not guilty—but I suspected it. Because when you stand back and look at what happens in season 1, there’s a lot of human foibles and human failings that contribute to making a conviction very difficult.
EW: Well, I won’t spoil anything, but it does demonstrate that it’s hard to predict what is going to happen once a jury gets involved.
CC: We spent a lot of time talking to lawyers before we even started storylining. I went to a prosecution lawyer and a defense lawyer and said, “How would you prosecute this case? And how would you defend it?” And I asked them both for opinions on both. So they analyzed the case as it stood at the end of season 1, and actually that was a contributing factor to Joe being found not guilty because they were both of the opinion that they could get him off.
The things that you think could never happen in court—once you start discussing with lawyers, it’s extraordinary what can be ruled out, what can be ruled in, how you sway a jury by just suggestion. The whole season has been about, “You might know the truth but can you get justice?” And truth and justice are very very different things. That’s been really the central theme of both stories across the season.
EW: I’ve got twenty pounds sterling which says we haven’t seen the last of Joe Miller.
CC: Oh, have you? Well, I’ll take that off you right away.
EW: Would you care to elaborate?
CC: I think that’s the end of his story. I wouldn’t expect to see him in a third season. I can’t be any more concrete than that, can I, Clark?
"I can't be any more concrete than that..."
Is that a possible hint/joke?
Here are a few things we were left with at the end of Season 2:
-Two rival lawyers who are considering working together
-Ellie telling Joe (in front of plenty of witnesses) that she'll kill him if he returns
-A town full of torn, angry, secretive people
-Jocelyn explaining to the family that the only way to get Joe back in court is the discovery of new evidence
-Hardy pausing before he gets in his car (though I still think he's leaving for now)
So what if:
Joe turns up dead (drowned with a "concrete" block attached to him perhaps?)
Ellie is accused, but claims she didn't do it
The two lawyers make up Ellie's defense team
Hardy investigates to find the real killer
Not sure exactly how Jocelyn's little informative tidbit would fit in, but it definitely seemed like foreshadowing to me.
And yes, I totally agree with the others who say Joe was indeed the killer. Besides the fact that he was shown doing it, are people forgetting the whole conversation between Joe and Danny immediately prior to the murder? That wasn't imagined.
I absolutely loved Season 1. It took me a little time to really enjoy Season 2, but I ended up loving that one, too. I kind of agree that a whole new storyline would be refreshing, but it just seems like there are too many instances of foreshadowing.
Both Charlotte Rampling (Jocelyn) and Marianne Jean-Baptiste (Sharon) have announced they're not in series 3. So no lawyers.
Mind you, it was back in the autumn they said this.
[deleted]
I would say your theory is good except that the flashback showing the murder started at the beginning of a scene and included the text 59 days earlier across the bottom of the screen. This says to me that this recounting of the events was the show itself telling us what happened and was not Joe's confession.
shareThe writer, Chris Chibnall, gave an interview to Entertainment Weekly "'Broadchurch' creator talks finale and future: 'I wouldn’t expect to see Joe Miller in season 3'"
http://www.ew.com/article/2015/04/21/broadchurch-season-2-finale-interview
Chibnall's said we're done with Danny's murder.
I'm glad but it would be interesting but might be too much for Ellie.
Maybe a cold case?
I also read that he tweeted that Joe definitely was the killer.
shareYes, Ive heard that. I was simply answering the question, "what would make a great season 3?"
Does anyone know if season 3 will be the final season?
shareYes. I heard that Chris Chibnall told the French press series 3 would be the last.
sharejalola: Thank you for replying, I will miss this show when it's over.
shareMusic under. Open with full screen shot of Broadchurch sky, gulls & the gold cliffs. Pan down cliffs. Shot of waves slowly lapping the shore. It is a gorgeous day. Cut to long shot of woman and tall child walking on the beach and talking, heading toward camera. It is Ellie and her son, Tom. They are now close enough for us to identify. They approach and suddenly stop. Close up of Ellie looking shocked and awed. Ellie exclaims, "What the *beep* Camera to her rear picks up a lanky Scot, catching rays. Hands behind head, sunglasses, swim suit. A man at peace? Shot from Ellie's rear shows us Hardy, removing sunglasses, half a smile on his face, "Miller," he half smiles. Miller asks, "Alec, what in the Hell brings you here?" Hardy stands up and we see the PaceMaker scar.
"Invite me to dinna. Lets yew 'n I talk" says a calm Hardy.
Hardy has returned to BC to go over the whole mess of Joe Miller's trial. What did he - Hardy - do wrong? Where did Ellie slip up? Did Coates have anything to do with Danny's death? What about Nige? Dog Lady? Yes, AHardy is satisfied with the resolution of the case against Lee and the others involved in the murder of the two girls, but how the Hell did that Broadchurch jury vote Joe Miller "Not Guilty?"
The game is afoot!
[deleted]
I was happy with Season 2 though mad that Joe got off though I kind of saw that coming an episode or two off. I think Season 3 has to prove that Joe killed Danny for the peace of the community but I also think that Joe is going to be killed and they're going to have to prove who killed him off.
Freedom of religion means ALL religions not just your own.
I'd love to see Joe kidnap his kids and go crazy.. Remember he said "You think you can banish me?", He is coming back for psycho revenge!
share