Season 2 of Broadchurch has started broadcasting in the US, on Wednesday evenings. The first two episodes have been shown, but I’ve only seen the first one so far.
Initial impressions:
-still very high quality acting, as expected, particularly from Olivia Coleman as Ellie
-I’m very glad that the storyline is continuing the case from last season, rather than there being yet another murder in the same small town, which would be quite a contrived coincidence
-The new lawyers seem like interesting characters
I just yesterday finished watching season 1. Then I read a spoiler about season 2 and was disappointed. While I logically agree with your position that a second murder in the same small town would be stretching credulity, emotionally I want to move on from the plot of season 1.
Too bad the show is named after the town. Otherwise, after the events of season 1 they could’ve had the main characters move to a new town together. New town. New murder. Oh well.
While I liked season 1, I’m still deciding whether or not to watch season 2.
The way it is presented and acted and cut is very compelling. They know how to keep you on the edge of your seat and how to make an episode end with a blow to the gut. I think the most important player in the show is the soundtrack!
There* is* a new murder mystery. During the trial, David Tennant is trying to solve the case that made him leave his hometown and end up in Broadchurch before Danny’s murder. It’s a good idea because it’s not a second murder in a small town but you still get to follow it (Olivia Coleman gets roped in).
Personally I did not like this second plot. Mainly because the characters were awful I think. I liked the trial a lot more.
But if someone is going to be bored with just a trial, know that there isn’t just a trial. I would recommend it to you!
Season 1 was a well-acted, well-written, conventional murder mystery. Season 2 is a steaming load of soapy melodrama. It’s been renewed for a new season, which will no doubt feature Miller and Hardy falling in love, buying a house, experiencing fertility problems and seeking the services of a surrogate mother.
My fervent hope is that Season 2 was some sort of necessary bridge between the two real seasons but it seems that Season 3 will be about the defense barrister’s son’s retrial with the two lawyers teaming up to get him off.
I didn’t care a whit about the missing girls case and so far I don’t care about him.
Currently being aired here in Australia. Some mixed commentary, mainly a few too many surprises in the first few episodes, but they seem to be necessary to set up the complex plot of Series 2 that does not rely on the established character relationships rolling over from Series 1.
Have to say I’m enjoying it immensely, and applaud it for daring to try something different.
As for an earlier comment ‘Too bad the show is named after the town. Otherwise, after the events of season 1 they could’ve had the main characters move to a new town together. New town. New murder.’
Perhaps by adapting Danny’s father’s van into a funky crime-solving mobile lab? And if only that dog could talk, then they’d find who’s really behind the hauntings at the abandoned fairground. Every single fucking week.
Haha. OK. That explanation’s good enough for me. While I see that many people are enjoying (or enjoyed) season 2, I think I have enough other things to watch anyway.
Quick question - in England, do victims (or victims’ families when the victim is dead) really get to pick their prosecutors? Is that common? Can they pick just anyone? Can someone really just come out of retirement and start prosecuting again? Who pays for it? Doesn’t the crown get to choose its (her?) own representation? What happens if the victim (or family) can’t pick someone? does the crime go unprosecuted?
I realize there are differences between British & American procedure and rules of evidence and other things, but the jury is in the room when they shouldn’t be, the defendant is missing from the room when he shouldn’t be, the order that witnesses are being called makes no earthly sense, witnesses are in the courtroom watching the trial before they testify (except some that are explicitly told that they shouldn’t be - but not all witnesses, just some of them), the prosecutor is being forced to call witnesses by the defense (again, huh?), the defense’s theories of the case aren’t being presented coherently, both barristers seem to be giving a lot of testimony rather than getting it from the witnesses, the witnesses seem to be allowed to give a lot of narration (except sometimes). It just feels really, really wrong.
I realize that they’re trying to have dramatic courtroom revelations, but they needed to structure the trial more realistically than they did. Especially when they have one person say over and over that they need to build a case “brick by brick” in a logical fashion. This is not a well built case. This is a case built by a madwoman.
Also, Beth is insane. I understand why she’d never want to speak to or see Ellie again. But to go over to Ellie’s house and yell at her and then get more angry because Ellie’s presence somewhere in the same town “made” her have to have the confrontation even though she was in labor is nuts. It makes here entirely non sympathetic.
I really enjoyed Season 1, even though I had some criticisms of the writing as to how the family coped. They didn’t seem sufficiently sad or angry or something. I think that the most compelling writing I’ve ever seen that depicted parents of a murdered child was in “The Killing.”
I was hoping that Season 2 would start out after Hardy opts to have a pacemaker inserted. I’m just not sure my nerves can take him collapsing every other minute.
I wonder how Hardy affords to put up Claire in that very large rented house.
Danny’s father hanging out and playing video games with Tom is as creepy as it gets.
My only complaint is how they make Claire’s husband look like such a lurking villain… not the least bit subtle.
I enjoyed Season 1 alot and am enjoying Season 2. I don’t mind them reopening the subject matter because I never got the feeling that the subject was closed in the first place.
I sure wish I could understand the dialog better though…combination of bad ears, bad sound and unfamiliar dialect (is that the proper term?). Can’t figure out how to get closed captions to work either.
It is rather clumsy. I’m watching in the USA and know nothing beyond the episodes already broadcast here, but I assume
that Claire is the actual killer of the little girl and the babysitter. (In this latest episode they’ve introduced another red herring in the form of the little girl’s father. But I feel pretty safe in assuming there is a Big Reveal coming, showing that the father and Claire’s husband are entirely innocent, victims of the Evil Jealous Claire.)
In the real world, the Crown Prosecution Service will assign a prosecutor to the case. The family/victim have no say in the matter.
Just one of a number of egregious procedural errors introduced into the plot in the interests of “dramatic tension”.
The worst of which involves D.I. Hardy ordering Nando’s from the server while seated at the table.
Nando’s is a fast food restaurant where the guests are seated at the table and then go to the counter to order
My favorite scene from season two took place when Miller was testifying and the defense attorney said (and I paraphrase):
"Isn’t it true you went to detective Hardy’s hotel room? At night? You were fucking him, weren’t you? Admit it, you could only have been there for one reason. YOU WERE FUCKING HIM, MILLER, WEREN’T YOU? This whole police investigation is tainted because MILLER WAS FUCKING HARDY.
Ugh, even worse was what they did with the Charlotte Rampling character.
So here we have a new character. Supposedly, she has had a brilliant career as a barrister. She’s going make sure the family gets justice. But wait, she’s also going blind! Holy shit, that’s not all! She’s also a lesbian who has been in love with the newspaper publisher all these years. Is the audience shocked? God they hope so. Does the audience give a flying fuck? Likely, no.
Yep. To me the errors suggested a hurried script and editing process - in that sense S2 of this reminded me of the disappointment of S2 of Downton. Both had well-scriped, complext and nuanced arcs first seasons but … well.
What both shows have in common is a financial imperative - get it out there while we’re still hot. They are not BBC shows, and the beeb can invest money, time and experienced people in a project to make sure it’s right.
I’m kind of guessing but I do think a commercial station is under a differnt kind of pressure.
Whatever it was, I bailed out of both two episodes into the second season - though obv. a lot of people stuck with one or the other.