MovieChat Forums > Broadchurch (2013) Discussion > Season 2 should have ended with..

Season 2 should have ended with..


All the (major) characters in the hut and they kill Joe.

I think it would have been an interesting ending to have the audience get satisfaction of 'justice' while also still have them need to reconcile that with that fact that the town had banded together to actually kill a man and make the whole thing go away.

Would have created an interesting internal conflict for us.

That being said, I'm not sure this ending would fly if there's a season 3 and Joe comes back into the picture somehow.

Made you look!

reply

I think that would have been a little melodramatic and hardly something the priest would go along with. It will be interesting to see if he does come back in Series 3 and Ellie kills him like she promised.

reply

Yeah perhaps Paul didn't have to be involved. I agree it would have been melodramatic but it also could have been interesting to create that internal turmoil.

Made you look!

reply

People get that sort of satisfaction most of the times. Let there be some reality. Real killers get away with murders sometimes. Although I'm this show they had all the evidence to convict the killer...they just had to make a second season and that was the only scenario they could come up with.

reply

How cruel. So you're all about "an eye for an eye" principle in life, eh. I will say that for a moment I thought that might actually happen. But then, wouldn't they be no different than Joe?

Killing the accused is not going to bring back the lost.

Justice didn't come to Broadchurch because of the follies and mistakes of its own people, people who were close to the victim. The investigation was riddled with errors and that's why they lost the case.

So in the end, what can you do but band together and learn from it. Sending Joe away was in their best interest and in his as well.

I don't see Joe coming back in Season 3 but I think he might commit suicide and that becomes something Ellie and her kids have to accept.

reply

The investigation was riddled with errors and that's why they lost the case.


Do you think the justice system is infallible? It's riddled with faults, and because of a few technicalities and a gullible jury a guilty man goes free.

I'm not saying it's right to kill him. It was wrong for him to go free, but killing him would have an interesting artistic direction.

Made you look!

reply

Do you think the justice system is infallible? It's riddled with faults, and because of a few technicalities and a gullible jury a guilty man goes free.
No. But the justice system strives to pass a fair judgement based on facts.

The facts in this case were controversial and that's why they lost.

A guilty man does go free from time to time but by the same token, an innocent man can be found guilty because of proven facts which cannot be refuted otherwise.

I don't think a show like Broadchurch would condone violence at this point and I'm glad it didn't even though there was suggestion and implication of it.

reply

Killing Joe would also serve to keep a huge black mark permanently on Alec Hardy's record as a detective. Yes, it looks like the Sandbrook fiasco will be reversed, but he's still the worst cop in Britain for mismanaging the Broadchurch case to the extent that Sharon Bishop could so easily pull it apart and negate evidence like the computer.

I still firmly believe that series 3 will involve some sort of rebound for him as a detective that has to come from getting Joe arrested with new evidence that won't fall apart in court. I don't care what happens to Joe after Hardy gets him legally, but it makes sense that Hardy's story curve should include his investigation record being redeemed.

reply

Does England not have double jeopardy? In the US if the find you innocent they can not try you again for the same offense. They said something to Beth about only being able to try Joe again if hard evidence is found.

reply