See I'm massively on the fence. I enjoyed the first episode, but what hooked me (and I'm sure half the public) was the whodunnit aspect.

 

I've no idea where this series is going. Surely it's going a bit far-fetched is they have a whole trial for the case, of which I'm sure he will inevitably walk free, and then be bumped off by someone.. It's kept my interest, but I am missing the whole mystery element of the first series.

I liked the first episode but I felt there were perhaps a few too many new characters introduced at one time. I'm not against the idea of new characters but I would have liked them to have been spread out throughout the series (I counted five, I think, plus the mother and daughters from the Sandbrook case). EDIT: Six! Three of which have appeared in Doctor Who!

 

It was a horrible ending though (and surely would not be allowed without prior consent from the victim's family?!) but I am excited to see the rest of the series, it it another 8-episode series?

Edited January 6, 201510 yr by THEO.

Great first episode and it seems like it'll follow the trial and also the other case of the dead and other missing girl. Could the suspect there be innocent? Could it be the woman, the one he's hiding and not her husband? Just my thoughts. Maybe the older girl's still alive and she killed her by accident?

 

Theo, don't think they need family's consent to exhume a body, just a court order which they get if either defence or prosecution want another Post Mortem. They usually inform the family that it's about to happen though!

Yes, they would have informed the family about the exhumation as a matter of courtesy. They also tend not to exhume bodies in broad daylight. The other major flaw was that prosecution Counsel represents the Crown, not the victim or their family. The family would not be able to select Counsel. I don't mind some deviation from reality for the sake of the plot but they were blatant.

 

Still, apart from that, it was a good opener so I will keep watching. There's obviously still a lot to find out about the prosecution Counsel and why she retired. I wonder how many other Dr Who / Torchwood cast members will turn up.

Yes, they would have informed the family about the exhumation as a matter of courtesy. They also tend not to exhume bodies in broad daylight. The other major flaw was that prosecution Counsel represents the Crown, not the victim or their family. The family would not be able to select Counsel. I don't mind some deviation from reality for the sake of the plot but they were blatant.

 

 

No they tend to do exhumations at dusk or night-time to afford a bit more privacy. Yes I thought that about the prosecutor too, as did many posters on the Broadchurch DS thread!

Edited January 6, 201510 yr by Common Sense

Great first episode and it seems like it'll follow the trial and also the other case of the dead and other missing girl. Could the suspect there be innocent? Could it be the woman, the one he's hiding and not her husband? Just my thoughts. Maybe the older girl's still alive and she killed her by accident?

 

Theo, don't think they need family's consent to exhume a body, just a court order which they get if either defence or prosecution want another Post Mortem. They usually inform the family that it's about to happen though!

 

Well from the first episode already things to deduce:

 

-The bluebell

-Ellie's sister being very odd

-Mark's secret relationship with Ellie's son

-The Vicar visiting Joe

 

Imo there is probably some link between the Danny Latimer case and Sandbrook. What that is I've no idea.

Bit of background. Broadchurch was actually intended to be 3 series by writer Chris Chibnall but the first one was written such that it could stand alone if ratings weren't good and ITV hadn't wanted to commission a second series. He only wrote the scripts for the latter episodes and decided finally on who the killer was once shooting had started on the first episodes. He wanted to see how the actors portrayed the characters.

 

What's the betting he's found not guilty and we get series 3 next Winter?

Edited January 6, 201510 yr by Common Sense

Bit of background. Broadchurch was actually intended to be 3 series by writer Chris Chibnall but the first one was written such that it could stand alone if ratings weren't good and ITV hadn't wanted to commission a second series. He only wrote the scripts for the latter episodes and decided finally on who the killer was once shooting had started on the first episodes. He wanted to see how the actors portrayed the characters.

 

What's the betting he's found not guilty and we get series 3 next Winter?

 

Thought this all along since yesterday - think Joe will get off not guilty and then be murdered even in the finale, or in the in the 3rd series. Makes sense and would add another whodunnit aspect as the whole town would probably be a suspect.

Really excited to have Broadchurch back and it didn't disappoint!

 

There was a lot going on which I liked and I'm just intrigued to see how the series progresses but I have high hopes!

The writer says in an article today in the Daily Mail/Mail online that there's a cliffhanger coming up in series 2 that will shock the viewers more than anything so far. :o Doesn't say if it's at the end of the series or end of an earlier episode though. Definitely the best thing on tv at present and ITV have a huge hit on their hands, averaging well over 7 million on Monday, which is very good these days and it easily won it's 9pm slot.

Really excited to have Broadchurch back and it didn't disappoint!

 

There was a lot going on which I liked and I'm just intrigued to see how the series progresses but I have high hopes!

 

From what the writer's been saying, we won't be disappointed. Regarding a 3rd series he says " I've no idea yet as I don't know who will still be standing after this series!" :o

Edited January 8, 201510 yr by Common Sense

Damn that was good.

Gripping stuff indeed!

Wow, I'm so glad this is still essential viewing! I was gripped during the final part and the trial scenes were excellent as well. I think it's found a nice balance between the Sandbrooke and trial storylines but they'll most likely connect later on in the series, probably if Joe is found not guilty which will then lead into the third series.

I'm really loving the series, very gripping drama right down to the end, and Eve Myles casting is brilliant. I think the Sandbrooke case is connected in some way.

No comments on this for two weeks now - has everyone given up (judging by the ratings, 5.17m, yes)?! Absolutely no idea why Pauline Quirke has come back, I'd completely forgotten her storyline (nor do I really care as the character is a miserable thundercunt). I really hope the pace starts to pick up soon though as it's starting to feel more of a chore than entertainment to watch although my flatmates think that

Claire/Eve Myles

killed the girls from Sandbrook, which would be interesting!

Edited January 27, 201510 yr by THEO.

I'm still watching and still enjoying it although the court scenes continue to be the weakest area.

Like Suedehead, I'm still watching and enjoying it. I was about to comment on last week's episode but I don't think anything too significant happened for me to add anything. Although, Claire's character is becoming more and more interesting, especially after last night's episode.

 

Again, I agree with Suedehead again over the courtroom scenes. They didn't seem to be progressing anywhere until the cliffhanger last night as I was unsure what the purpose was. Were we being shown them because Joe gets let off or were we being shown them because someone else was also involved. The Sandbrooke storyline is a lot more exciting because that's where they mystery lies.

 

I'm still waiting to see what the Vicar's involvement in the whole thing is.

Hmm I'm waiting for that BIG moment.

 

Episode 3 was quite weak, but I thought episode 4 was quite strong. I think a real part of the problem is the show relies you to remember a lot about the first series. It's an intelligent series, but it was 18 months ago since the show aired and I doubt many people have watched it multiple times. I'm just really interested as to where they're going to make the link. I still think Joe Miller will get off.

 

As for the Sandbrook case - details are a bit sketchy, but my understanding was that Claire was having an affair with the Dad whose daughter died? I think she's some sort of nympho, definitely inferred it in the latest episode. Think the Sandbrook mystery will become a lot clearer when they find the other girl whose probably not dead.

I don't mind them covering the court case. In fact, I rather liked the idea at the beginning. It made a change from getting as far as someone being charged and then leaving it as if that was the end of the matter. However, a lot of the scenes are just too implausible. Last week, the prosecution were able to accuse Miller and Hardy of having an affair without a shred of evidence to back it up. Yet, the judge just let the carry on. This week, there were too many convenient witnesses just happening to crop up at short notice. Both sides just seemed to be making it up as they went along rather than having most of their case prepared ahead of the trial.