Print Page - Broadchurch: the American Remix Version

Just having seen season 1, episode 5, this is what I found interesting about the episode.

The Reconstruction
A good idea, but like alot of the show, overly dramatic, and I question how realistic the reconstruction was.

The male detective
"He [Tom] did right by Danny." There is an ironic statement if I ever heard one.

The dog lady
Not knowing who Tom is, when his face has most probably been splashed all over the news and the papers. But, we know her for a liar. And how do we know she is lieing? Her lips move.

Minorities
Neither here nor there, but there are apparently only two minorities in the whole town: the Soco guy and the dopey boyfriend. Thus, it'll be interesting to see how many minorities are shown in the American re-make.

Nudity
More male nudity than female nudity so far.

The police
When the lynch mob shows up at the suspect's door, where are the police? Of course, the town press has shown it's more competent then the police. Finding out things about the suspect's past, that the police apparently don't know.

Suspect
"Nothing would have been amiss." WTF! Where do they get these people. Here is man, a music teacher, who is having an affair with one of his female pupils, who is less than half his age. And I don't know about then, but now, even if the girl was 16, he would still be breaking the law, as a teacher cannot have an affiar with a pupil, till the pupil is 18.

The suspect is a pedophile. Just barely. A pedophile has a primary sexual interest in children who are 11 and under, while a hebephile has a primary sexual interest in children 11 to 14, and a ephebophile has a primary sexual interest in children 15 to 19.

Actually, the suspect is a bad candidate for the murder. His previous interest was in a girl, the murder victim was a boy. The girl was 15 almost 16. The murder victim was 11.

And the suspect is more athletic then he looks. As his clothes do not appear to be wet, it looks like he committed suicide by leaping off the cliff, and farther than someone would normally be able to leap.

Next time: Season 1, Episode 6

One of the most interesting character interactions has become that between the parents of the victim - the older sister of the victim -- sister's dopey boyfriend.

He has never been invited, so far, to any function at the family home, nor have they invited him to attend church with 'em.

Nor have they ever said "You're not to see him again!"

Good parenting? Not. Just incompetent parenting, but why am I surprised. So many of the characters in this series are inadvertently shown to be incompetent. The parents have, apparently, as there has been no mention of it, ever talked with their daughter about safe sex, even though they know she and her boyfriend are having sex. As I said, incompetent parenting.

Their incompetent parenting might be due to the fact that they had the girl so early, when both were still in their teens, or maybe it is because they remind the parents of themselves at that age.

One wonders if one cannot extrapolate the idea that the dead boy was the favorite, and this began before his murder, of the parents. Naybe because he was . . .

(a) the boy in the family
(b) the younger of the two children
(c) some other reason.

Which means the sister's reaction to her brother's murder, which is shown in the series, maybe the wrong reaction. More like "I'm glad he's gone!" And then, of course, the guilt reaction to her reaction sets in.

One wonders, while it has not been shown, whether there is a streak of racism running through one or both parents, as the boyfriend is black and the family is white.

Season 1, Episode 6

Finally, after 5 episodes of everyone doing something wrong, an episode where everyone appears to be doing something right.

Police
No sirens, but lights flashing, when pursuing suspect.
Solicitor present at questioning of suspect.
How long ago was the murder? But some police do say that if a murder is not caught after 3 days after the murder, the chance of catching the murderer declines each day thereafter. So the budget cuts make some sense.

Miscellaneous
Some people have criticized Tom's father for interrupting the male police detective, when he was talking to Tom, but the father was right, and the male police detective was wrong. The male police detective should not have been talking to Tom without another adult being present.

Dean finally shows up to offer comfort to girlfriend Chloe Miller.

The Miller family has a funday at the local arcade.

Still there are questions raised, which we'll get to next time.

Questions raised.

Does anybody know British police procedure? If a murder has occured, and the murderer still has not been caught over a month later, would the police still continue to hold the victim's body?

Where did they bury the suicide? It's not that long ago, less then 130 years, that they wouldn't bury a suicide in the churchyard, but outside the churchyard.

So those are the sea scouts. Why haven't they been questioned earlier about anyone getting "funny" with any of them? There's no word that the police have questioned any of them about this.

Where is the landlady's fear that she'll lose her license for being in possession of cocaine?
(a) The hearing hasn't been held yet. Though, it''s been over a month.
(b) The hearing has been held, but the authorities decided on some other penalty.
(c) The show's writers have forgotten about the whole thing.

Why was Mark able to get his job back as a plumber, after being away so long? Didn't he own his own company?

Now for the bizarre parts of the episode

Season 1, Episode 7

Not the worst episode so far, but not the best, as the characters do not come across as credible as the last episode.

Was the female police detective wearing protective booties when she entered the crime scene? She should have been wearing booties.

They had the male police detective interview the male suspect, and the female police dtective interview the female suspect, as before, but I wonder if it had not been better to throw a twist into the interviews and have the male police detective interview the female suspect, and the female police detective interview the male suspect.

The mother and son reunion. That was a nice twist in the story.

On the previous case, they still could have gone to trial even with only circumstantial evidence whatever that evidence was. That would not be the first nor likely the last trial to go to trial only on circumstantial evidence.

I would feel better about the series, if the police did not come across as being so incompetent. In books, in films, on TV shows, I have seen American, British, Canadian, Irish, Israeli, and Scandinavian police forces in action, but I have not come across one that comes across as so incompetent, since "Plan 9 from Outer Space," as this one.

To be continued . . .

Continuing . . .

Seemingly, only now, two months later, are they downloading information off of the victim's computer. Something they should have been doing, shortly after the murder occured.

The police might not like the press, but they should be smart enough to know that it is a bad idea to completely alienate the press. Which does not seem to have sunk in in this series.

It is not only what they do or do not do, it is also what they say.

"They [the suspect] will make more mistakes." As if this was the first mistake the murderer has made since the murder, when the whole cover-up of the murder was one mistake after another. Which mistakes we'll get to later.

They talk as if they have, after two months, not eliminated any of the suspects. Those suspects with no alibi or a shaky alibi the night of the murder.

From the psychic: "Someone near to him [the victim.] Close to home." Well, that was useful information for the police. I could have told them that, and I'm not psychic.

They do sometimes get things right. When they find that the male police detective has heart problems, which affect the case, his superior tells him that he has to see the police doctor, and if the doctor does not give him a clean bill of health, he is off the case.

And then they do get it wrong. His superior could have temporaritly suspended him, till he saw the doctor, which she fails to do.

And as an afterthought, I have also seen the French, Italian, and Russian police forces in action in novels, and they all come across as being more competent then the one in this series.

Next time: the 8th and final episode and more comments on the series.

Season 1, episode 8

Well, after 8 weeks, it's over.

It's interesting to me. That of the two boys, Tom had the messiest room and Danny had the neatest room. A personality trait that made one the victim and one not.

The victim's father talking about his dead son's room: "I don't want to clear the room." Ye-es. Finally, someone said something intelligent. As in real life, parents who have had a child disappear or be killed, often leave the child's room as it was, as it is their way of coping with the child's disappearance or death.

But, for every intelligent thing said, there are two stupid things said.

The female police detective: "I'm worry about another child being hurt." It's been two months, and only now you bring up the fact that you are worried that another child might be hurt. WTF!

The male police detective to a suspect he is questioning: "Did you kill Danny?" WTF! He's only known for two months that the person he is questioning could not be the killer, because the person he is questioning has hands to small to strangle the victim.

With a good writer, the reality trumps the drama, so the drama is changed to fit the reality. With a bad writer, the drama trumps the reality, so the reality is changed to fit the drama.

The male police detective walks into a situation, where he may have to arrest a suspect. A suspect that he knows has already killed once and may kill again. And he walks into the situation without back-up. Maybe dramatic . . . ? But realistic . . . ?

One guess as to the writer who wrote this is a good writer or a bad writer.

Well, that explains that.
Why the victim's hand was bleeding.
Who cleaned up the murder scene. It was not the cleaning lady, but the killer.

What the British call a rowboat is not what we Americans call a rowboat. I have been out in rowboats with my grandfather and my aunts' husbands, and those rowboats looks nothing like the boat in the TV series.

If there was ever a time that the saying "Trying to kill gnats with an elephant gun" is applicable. It's for this episode.

The writer's appeal to the emotional tragedy in this episode is so overplayed, that I can't take any of it seriously. In fact it is . . .
(a) a turnoff
(b) almost unwatchable
(c) unbelievable
(d) ridiculous
(e) all of the above

It would be a much better episode, if the appeals had been underplayed instead of being overplayed.

And even with all that, the writer had to throw in a scene that verges on the ridiculous, when the victim's father confronts the victim's killer, when the killer is finally confined into a jail cell. No competent police force would let a relative of the victim near the killer under the circumstances seen in the episode for the fear that the killer may come to some harm at the hands of the relative. But, this is not the first time that the police force represented comes across as something less than competent.

I think part of the problem with the episode and the whole series is that they try to make the pedophile killer sympathetic. Understandable as to the why. Yes! But sympathetic? It never works.

A good idea for a series that is badly executed.

And that is all for the specific comments for each episode, but the next time I come around, and each time after, I'll have some general comments on the series.

Till then . . . ?

A good opening in episode 1. Good, solid writing in episode 6. And a good, surprising twist in episode 7, does not make make up for the following written series of acts, which more accurately reflects the typical writing of the whole series.

(1) He remembers to cover his feet in plastic to avoid leaving a trace, but fails to wrap the victim's body nor the victim's skateboard, thus leaving traces of the victim and his skateboard in the truck and later in the boat.

(2) He just happens to have a handy boltcutter availabe, so the chain attaching the outboard motor to the boat, can be cut.

(3) Turns boat over singlehandly. Throws back out. I'm making this up, but in real life it'd be possible.

(4) Drags boat across beach to ocean. Again singlehandly. Gets hernia. Again, I'm making this us, but in real life, again it'd be possible.

Murderer now has a bad back and a hernia.

(5) Makes preparations not to be detected, such as cleaning murder scene, but then does things to make sure he is detected, such as leaving the victim's body out in plain sight. Not even trying to make it look like suicide.

(6) Instead of getting rid of dead victim quickly, proloning the time that dead victim is in his proximity. Thus, increasing the risk of discovery.

(7) Instead of returning boat, when done, to where it was taken from, takes boat into harbor, where it might be seen and recognized.

(8) Then removes boat from harbor and burns it. Bringing attention to boat.

And isn't it odd that they were able to find traces of the victim and the skateobard in the little area of the boat that was not burnt?

This has been called amateurish, but it does not even rise to that level, as this whole series of acts is illogical, unbelievable, and unrealistic. And thus uninvolving, but involving writing that is both shoddy and poor.

Next time: Something similiar, but with much better writing.

Why do we overrate something?

Blinders
Since some of us have a tendency to ignore anything that is bad in something we like. Of course, the opposite is true, if some of us dislike something, we ignore anything that is good.

Ignorance
We may think something, here "Broadchurch," is the best we have ever see, if we are ignorant of something out there, that is better. And a good example would be something I came across, when I was watching "Broadchurch," which had a surprising number of similiarities to "Broadchurch."

A dead child
Town terrorized and traumatized
Strangulation murder
Accidental death
Sexual motive for murder
Murderer's panic
Attempted cover-up
A child as suspect
Younger brother of suspect
Parent(s) of suspect also suspected
Abuse within family of suspect or victim
Victim's cellphone as solution to murder
Murderer's confession
Funeral for victim (And there may be reasons to wait to the end of the TV series to show funeral, but the scene actually works better as drama in the middle of story, as in "Bitter River," than at the end as in "Broadchurch.")

Julia Keller's
Bitter River
the 2nd in a book series about a crusading female D.A. in the hills of West Virginia

Next time: the one major difference between the book and the TV series. The book is far better written.

As I said previously, there's not one aspect of "Bitter River" that's not better written than "Broadchurch." Of course, some of those aspects are my personal preference, and your preferences may differ, but . . .

bc = Broadchurch
br = Bitter River

Villain
br: understandable realism
bc: unrealistic sympathy
"Broadchurch" makes the same mistake that "Happiness" made. One cannot make that type of villain sympathetic without twisting the truth so far out of shape that it's unrecognizable as the truth. (And we'll talk about him next time.)

Victim
bc: blank slate
br: blanks filled in somewhat
The victim is such a blank slate that one has less empathy for him than one should. (And we'll talk about him later.)

Town
bc: 15,000. Too large for the story that it wants to tell.
br: unknown, but less than 15,000 and the right size to tell the story.

Storylines
br: 4 or 5.
bc: 7 or 8 or too many to tell a good story.

Story telling
br: direct
bc: wandering

Story
bc: too busy for its own good
br: simpler and better

Police
br: competent
bc: incompetent
And it is not as if they are written as being incompetent, but as competent, but they come across as being incompetent, which is the first time I have seen that. And I seldom have seen a more incompetent group of police, and I have seen law enforcers in ancient Greece, China, Egypt, Japan, Rome, South Africa, etc. etc. (And we'll talk more about 'em later.)

Murder scene
bc: poorly staged
br: unknown

Motivations
bc: weak for the most part
br: stronger

Grief (Group)
br: personal
bc: impersonal

Grief (Individual)
br: quieter. right time.
bc: too loud. too late.
I am not talking about the mother's grief at the death of her son in the first episode. That is one of the few times I've seen grief done right. I am talking about the father's grief, which comes in the last episode, where it is less believable, and comes not when he first hears about the death of his son, like the mother, but after he confronts the murderer, which is itself unbelievable.

Explanations
bc: less
br: more
Which gives more motivation to the characters and less plotholes in the story.

Emotional resonance
bc: less
br: more
Especially when the heroine's older sister, who she has not seen in years, shows up unexpectedly at her door at the end of the book.

Clues
bc: poorly placed
br: better placed

Characters
bc: little or no understanding of characters. (And we'll talk about 'em more later.)
br: understands all characters.
Which includes . . .
young-old
straight-other
religious-irreligious
physically challenged-other
mentally challenged-other
men-women

Believability
br: believable story
bc: unbelievable story to some extent

Behavior change
br: 3 or 4
bc: 1 or 2, if that many.
They come. They go. They live. They die. But their behavior never changes during the entire series. They are the same at the end as they are at the beginning.

And finally characters again
br: interesting.
bc: uninteresting
They could have been, they should have been, they would have been interesting, if they were not so poorly written.

Next time: the villain

Whle there is some confusion, due to poor writing, as to whether the villain is a pedophile or not. If he is suppose to be a pedophile, then what we have is an ubelievable and unrealistic portrait of a pedophile, as he does everything that a pedophile would not do, and nothing that a pedophile would do.

bc: Broadchurch
rp: real pedophile

1. bc: does not show any indication by word or deed that he has an interest in pre-teen boys, except for one supposed instance at the skatepark.
rp: shows by word and/or deed that he has an interest in pre-teen boys.

2. bc: chooses victim from 2-parent household.
rp: would most likely chose victim from 1-parent household.

3. bc: picks wrong victim.
rp: picks right victim.
Out of a school class of 30, they say that within 5 minutes, they can pick out the most vulnerable victim.

4. bc: panics and kills victim, but see #3, #5, and #14.
rp: panics and kills victim.
The one thing, besides the victim's age of 11, that the series got right, when it comes to pedophiles.

5. bc: uses violence.
rp: because rapists use violence, and pedophiles think they are superior to rapists, they seldom use violence.

6. bc: does not use his son, victim's best friend, as effectively as he might.
rp: "Hi! My son Tom and I are are going camping this weekend. Would his best friend Danny like to come along?"

7. bc: does not use drugs, liqour, porn, etc. to subvert victim.
rp: would use drugs, liqour, porn, etc. to subvert victim.

8. bc: not seen showering or bathing with victim.
rp: seen showering or bathing with victim.

9. bc: uses money.
rp: uses out of town sporting events. ("Hi! Tom and I are going to Cardiff to watch the Wales National Rugby Union or the Wales National Football Team. Would Danny like to come?")

10. bc: uses too much money. Over $800.00 in American.
rp: would peel off $10.00 or $20.00 or its equivalent in British pound sterling off of a roll of money.

11. bc: does not use the right expensive gift.
rp: would use the right expensive gift. ("Hi! I bought this skateboard for my son Tom, but his grandmother/aunt/cousin already bought him the same one. Would Danny like it?")

12. bc: but he does use the wrong expensive gift. ("Who bought you that expensive smartphone?"-- "Tom's father.")
Which should have brought suspicion down on Tom's father, when the victim was found dead.

13. bc: all seems to have happened almost overnight.
rp: would work weeks even months to subvert victim.

14. bc: after killing victim, does not strip victim of clothes and shoes.
rp: strips victim of clothes and shoes then wraps nude victim in plastic and buries body in the sand, or just drops naked victim on the beach somewhere.

15. bc: does not move on to next victim.
rp: would move on to the next victim.

16. bc: turns himself into the police.
rp: turned in by one of his victims or caught with something like kiddie porn.

17. bc: denies that he is a pedophile and that he hurt victim.
rp: would admit to being a pedophile, but would deny that he hurt victim or did anything wrong with victim.

And an 18th reason.

bc: Victim was not taken by surprise nor had his head smashed into the wall or floor, thus would have instinctively fought back, clawing at the murderer's hands around the throat, but, afterwards, there are no claw marks on the murderer's hands or arms.

And thus, after all is said and done, everything listed under rp or real pedophile is something at least one real convicted pedophile has said and/or done.

Next time: I was going to go with the young victim, but I shall put that off to later, as next time I want to talk about a novelization of the teleplay that is soon to be published.

"Broadchurch"
The novelization of the teleplay by Chris Chibnall.
Novelization by Chris Chibnall and Erin Kelly.

I know nothing about Ms. Kelly, but we will see if Mr. Chibnall is a better novelist or screenwriter, because in this case, as a screenwriter, frankly, he sucks.

We are promised we shall see . . .
01. More background on the characters.
02. More material not in the TV series.

What I'd like to see, and I'm unlikely to get everything I want, as it would be basically a total rewrite of the TV series, but maybe I can get some of what I want, which is . . .

Characters
03. A rewrite of the villain, so he is less confusing. Was he or was he not a pedophile? He cannot, as in the TV series, be both at the same time.
04. Also rewrite the villain to make him less sympathetic, which does not work, but more understandable, which does work.
05. His victim less of a blank slate. And a more empathic characters.
06. The police less incompetent. More competent.
07. The townspeople less stupid. More realistic and believable.

The Murder
08. One of the first things you see. Not one of the last.
09. Something anyone could have done. Not a strangulation.
10. A better motivation for the murder.
11. A more realistic and logical disposal of the body.
12. A less anti-climatic revealing of the murderer.
13. More and better clues as to who is the murderer.
14. A simpler murder. One that is not so "busy." (i.e. too much happening as in the series.)
15. A list of the suspects at the beginning of the investigation, then eliminate 'em one by one. Not keep adding to the list as the story continues.

Story
16. Time it occurs shorter. From 2 months to 2 weeks. That should be enough time.
17. Town where it occurs smaller. 15,000 is too large for this story to work right. And here I may be wrong, as in the Temperance Brennan series by Kathy Reichs, who I trust to know what she is saying, our heroine is in Yellowknife, Canada, which has a population of 20,000, and the authoress says that everyone in town know each other. So 15,000 may not be too large for everyone to know each other, but I'd still like to see a smaller town in which the story occurs.
18. Fewer storylines (such as the drug one) or some explanation as to why this storyline or others affect the story, and resolve it by the end. Do not leave this plothole and other plotholes open.

Next time: we'll talk about the young murder victim.

Was the young victim gay?

I think he was gay, though we do not see any clues that he is gay, unless neatness is a strictly gay trait, but we do not see any clues that his murderer is a pedophile, but he is seemingly meant to be a pedophile.

What I have seen in children's deaths . . . I have seen 'em jump (suicide), die of a broken neck, heart failure, and premature aging, I have seen 'em die in an accident, and seen 'em burned in a fire, decapitated, drowned, hanged (again suicide), impaled, shot, stabbed, and strangled, as here, but I have seldom seen a death as mishandled and mismanaged as the one here. Thus, from the deaths with meaning in "The Adventures of Huck Finn," to "Doctor Zhivago," to "Intolerance," to "Lair of the White Worm," to "Zulu Dawn," to "2020 Texas Gladiators" and a score or more more to the meaningless one here . . . ? But, what does one expect from the writer, and what can one say?

That maybe the American remake will finally do it right and give the young victim a more meaningful death is more realistic, more logical, more involving, and more believable.

Or, more like the boy scout victim in "Lair of the White Worm." No one wants to be the victim in this one, except--perhaps--me, and that is because of the empathy I feel for this victim and this type of victim, but there are men who would want to be the young victim in "Lair of the White Worm," again including myself, as sex will ne'er get any better than that, ere we die.

The young victim in this deserves better.

Next time: Why the portrayal of the victim is so unrealistic and illogical to be unbelievable?

We know what causes a victim to become a victim. We know about victimization, but . . . ?

av=an actual victim

BV=victim in "Broadchurch"

av=beaten brutally and frequently.
BV=smacked around once or twice by his father.

av=most likely comes from an one parent household.
BV=comes from a two parent household. Grandmother and older sister also involved in household.

av=if coming from a two parent household, household is unstable with parents often fighting and/or drunk.
BV=coming from a stable household, except for father's extramartial affair, which no one knows about.

av=panics not knowing what he entered into.
BV=panics knowing what he entered into.

av=would enter hut 2nd time at murderer's invitation.
BV=enters hut 2nd time at murderer's invitation. One of the few things the screenwriter gets right.

av=would be taken by surprise by murderer.
BV=not taken by surprise by murderer.

av=head smashed repeatedly and/or violently into wall and/or floor.
BV=head not smashed repeatedly and/or violently into wall and/or floor.

av=would not have fought back because of being taken by surprise and/or because head smashed.
BV=would have fought back because he was not taken by surprise nor was his head smashed. Therefore, there should have been biting, kicking, scratching, and/or screaming, which we do not see.

Other . . .
BV=all the money given to the victim by his murderer earlier was apparently still there, when the victim would have, should have peeled some of it off the wad for a computer game, an ice cream, a model, a soda, or a toy. Something. Anything.

BV=the money was taped to the underside of the victim's bed, when instead . . .
if the victim had been smart, he'd have kept it in his "treasure chest," where a boy that age keeps his "treasures."
if the victim had been smarter, he'd have kept it within the pages of a book in his room.
if the victim had been smartest, he'd have kept it within a hollowed out book, which he hollowed out for that reason, and which I have seen.

rv=a slate with something wirtten on it.
BV=a blank slate with little or nothing written on it.

rv=thus we feel empathy for the victim.
BV=we feel less empathy for the victim than we should.

And if the screenwriter wanted to reduce the guilt of the murderer, which he apparently tried to do, and ineffectively (IMHO) he should have had the victim bolt and fallen off the cliff in the area of the hut, when asked by the murderer to return to the hut. Reduced guilt, as it was an accident, and less ineptness in what follows in the coverup of the murder.

When I said: "We know. . ." that includes nearly everyone but the screenwriter, for as i said earlier, if we have an unrealistic portrayal of a villain, which is unbelievablely and uncreditablely written by the screenwriter, here we have an equally unrealistic portrayal of a victim, that is equally unbelievabley and uncreditablely written by the screenwriter.

A series of implausible events and actions, which--hopefully--should be corrected in the American remake.

Next time: I was going to do "the most incompetent competent police force in any type of writing," but instead, I'm going to wait on that and next time do "being dispassionately passionate."

"Sheriff, I called you out here, because I wanted to show you something. This was my daughter's room. These were her wishes. Her hopes. Her dreams. But none of her wishes, her hopes, nor her dreams will come true, because she is dead. So, I want you to go out there and find that s.o.b. who killed my little girl."--"Yes, ma'am."

Julia Elkins' "Bitter River"

"I'm going to find that s.o.b. who killed that girl. It doesn't matter that she was an illegal immigrant. it doesn't matter that she was on the game. It might matter that she was a Latina, but, it certainly matters that she was only 15, when somebody deliberately ran her over with a car and left her to die by the side of the road. So, I'm going to--personally-- find that s.o.b. who killed her."

Kathy Reichs' "Bones of the Lost"

Of course, these are only paraphrases of what was written, but they show what two good writers should do. They create characters who are passionate about finding justice for the victim.

As for the screenwriter of "Broadchurch" and the characters created by the writer . . .

"Snore!" "Lassiz faire!" It's like after the 1st episode, the characters don't have the passion for justice that they should have. And when the character(s) in the last episode does/do show any passion, it is too little and too late. Plus the/their passion is not credible and thus unbelievable and unrealistic.

The question is not only why that we have two well written stories with passionate characters for justice, and one story, poorly written--relatively speaking--with characters that lack that need passion. The question is why the why.

Is it because . . .

We have 2 American writers and 1 British writer.
We have 2 female writers and 1 male writer.
We have 2 female characters and 1 male character.
Certainly, it is not because of their ages. Where 16 and 15 are that far different from 11.

And it is not only American authoresses that can create passionate characters. So can American authors. For example, Tim O'Mara's "Crooked Numbers," where after one of his former students is killed, a teacher, a female reporter, a male police detective, the boy's family: his mother, his uncle, and even the father of the boy's murderer show more passionate in seeing justice done or not done than any of the characters in "Broadchurch."

Next time: We will take up the least competent competent police I have ever seen.

Is there a more incompetent police force then that found in "Broadchurch?" Maybe? Which we'll get to later, but how incompetent are they? Here are some examples, and those are only the ones that I saw, and in reverse order from the 8th and last episode to the 1st and beginning episode. And there may be others that I did not catch.

he/his/him=lead male detective
she/hers/her=lead female detective

1. Why was the victim's father allowed to confront his son's killer? Certainly, the Jack Ruby-Lee Harvey Oswald incident should have taught someone something. And to compound the confrontation, there are no police in the immediate area of the confrontation.

2. Why does he confront the murder suspect without backup? The suspect thought to have killed and may kill again. Even if the suspect only tries to escape, we know he cannot pursue the escaping suspect, because the last time he pursued a suspect, he had a heart attack,

3, Why was he not immediately suspended from the investigation, especially since we know his heart problems are jeopardizing the investigation?

4. You do not turn your back on the boss and walk away, when the boss has not finished speaking. It is just not done. And to compound this, he suffers no repercussions for his behavior.

5. Why is he wasting time pursuing a suspect, that he knows, and we have known for the past 2 months, since the 1st episode, cannot be guilty of the murder, because the suspect's hands are too small to have strangled the victim.

6. Where were the "rats" (i.e. the British equivalent of Internal Affairs?) Why did they not sniff out the truth, the last time he lied about a case in his previous job in another town? Oh, that's right! They were probably incompetent like most of the other police in this British TV series.

7. They lost track of a suspect they were tailing, because they did not have enough men tailing the suspect.

8. He certainly had no problem arresting the victim's father for lieing during the investigation, so why wasn't the cleaning lady arrested as well. He knowing that she had lied as well during the investigation. That is it. There is seldom any repercussions, when someone misbehaves in this series.

9. Why were they not sent to disperse a lynch mob, when the mob showed up at the door of one of the suspects?

10. Allowing the weather to contaminate a possible murder scene, when the boat should have been immediately pulled out of the water and placed in lock storage, so not only the weather, but no one else, but the police, could have access to it.

11. Why is there never a follow-up to a previous drug case that came to light during the murder investigation? It is like the police completely forgot about the drug case, even though some serious s@@@ went down during it.

12. When a conflict of testimony arises between what a witness saw, and what a suspect said happened, not taking the suspect immediately down to the police station, till the conflict in testimony was resolved. Instead, allowing the suspect to go free, and what is more, allowing him to set up an alibi, which may or may not be true, for the night of the murder.

13. "We need not investigate him [talking about the victim's father], since I know he is not guilty." She said. I wanted to put my head thru the screen on which I was watching the series, when I heard that. I may not know much about proper police investigations, but I do know that when there is a death in the family, the family members are always investigated, because they are most likely the murderers.

14. Even when they do something right, they do something wrong. To jog memories, they recreate the victim's last known movements, but then they ruin the recreation by seemingly letting the entrie town participate in the recreation as well. Though, the victim was apparently alone, before he disappeared.

Has there been any police force as incompetent as this one? I thought about this one, and the only one I could come up with was those in 1959's "Plan 9 from Outer Space," but, at least, that one had the advantage of being inadvertently humorous. There was nothing humorous about the incompetent police work in this series. It was just painful enough I wanted to hurt myself.

Next time: Chibnall vs, LaPlante in 12 rounds of rock 'em sock 'em action.

While Lynda La Plante has a new mystery series out, the Anna Travis series, which we'll get to in a moment, the authoress is best known for her "Prime Suspect" series, as she was both the TV screenwriter and novelsit for the series, one of the best police procedure series in British literature. Thus, how is she with her newest novel in her newest series "Backlash," and how does it compare with the TV series "Broadhchurch" by Chibnall, which it has certain similiarities.

Round 1: the child murder
Chibnall: less realistic and less believable.
La Plante: more realistic and more believable.
Round 1: La Plante

Round 2: disposal of victim's body
Chibnall: even less realistic and less believable.
La Plante: even more realistic and more believable.
Round 2: La Plante

Round 3: murder gutwrenching?
Chibnall: No, Not particularly.
La Plante: Yes.

Even though Chibnall's is shown visually, while La Plante's is shown verbally, and thus should be the less gutwrenching.

Round 3: La Plante

Round 4: murderer
Chibnall: not credible nor believable, because murderer is suppose to be likable (?) which twists the facts out of whack.
La Plante: murderer is not likable, but his motivation is shown as understandable.
Round 4: La Plante

Round 5: victim molested
Chibnall: No
La Plante: No(?)

Chibnall: the murderer says no and the forensic evidence backs him up, but we know enough about this type of murderer to know he should have at least stripped victrm of all of victim's clothes, but victim is found fully dressed. (See Round 4)

La Plante: the murderer says no, but the body is so badly decomposed, that the forensic evidence is iffy, but the murderer id more believable, because we know he likes to molest his older female victims.

Round 5: La Plante

Round 6: victim known to audience.
Chibnall: No. Not particularly
La Plante: Yes or at least more so.

Chibnall's victim is a cipher, so the audience does not feel the empathy it should for victim. La Plante's victim is less of a cipher, so the audience feels more empathy for this victim than the other victim.

Round 6: La Plante

Round 7: victims' siblings
Chibnall: victim has an older sister who we do meet.
La Plante: victim has two older brothers who we do not meet.
Round 7: Chibnall

Round 8: murderers' arrest
Chibnall: 2 months of poor police work wasted as murderer turns himself in, in a scene that is not believable.
La Plante: good police work convicts murderer of this murder and other murders.
Round 8: La Plante

Round 9: grief shown
Chibnall: after mother expresses her grief in 1st episode, grief seems lacking somehow, till father expresses his grief in 8th and final scene, in a scene that is over the top and unbelievable.
La Plante: after 5 years the family is still grieving their loss, and so are the police who grieve that they could not give the family closure in the initial investigation.
Round 9: La Plante

Round 10: suspect or body
Chibnall: there is a body, but no murderer yet.
La Plante: there is a possible murderer, but not body yet.

La Plante's scenario works better, because it is the more dramatic of the two scenarios.

Round 10: La Plante.

Round 11: plotting
Chibnall: plot is unfocused and all over the place.
La Plante: plot is more focused on convicting murderer and finding the bodies of his victims.
Round 11: La Plante

Round 12: twist in plot
Chibnall: more obvious twist and a less twisted twist.
La Plante: less obvious twist and more twisted twist.
Round 12: Chibnall.

Round 13: format
Chibnall: TV screenplay which will become a novel later this year.
La Plante: book which may become a TV screenplay later.
Round 13: tie

Round 14: editing
Chibnall: scene explaining confrontation between victim and postman edited out for time restraint, leaving a plothole.
La Plante: all scenes edited to explain story and/or move story forward.
Round 14: La Plante

Thus, 11 rounds to La Plante, 2 rounds to Chibnall, and 1 tie.
La Plante wins.

Next time: 12 similarities.

Where BK = Hart's "Taken by the Wind"
and TV = Chibnall's "Broadchurch"

A continuation of last post with a more detailed comparison of the dozen similiarities between the two.

1. Focus
a. Everything is a story should be focused on moving the story forward. Of course, that is never going to happen.
b. TV: unfocused storylines that add nothing to the main storyline.
c. BK: Unfocused, but more focused than TV.
d. BK: Also has the excuse of being unfocused, if it sets up scene in the next book in the series. TV: does not have this excuse.

2. Scenario (3)
a. BK: both murderer and bodies sought. Hard.
b. Murderer found. Bodies sought. Harder.
c. TV: body found. Murderer sought. Hardest to do well.
d. Even though A is the easy of the three, it is still more gripping than C, as the theories flow thick and fast.
e. Theories
The boys are dead.
The boys are alive.
The boys are runaways.
The boys are being held for ransom.
The boys have fallen prey to a pedophile.

3. Confrontation
Between the villain and the hero.
a. TV: visual and face-to-face, but less gripping than B, maybe because the confrontation is so unrealistic and unbelievable.
b. BK: verbal and not even face-to-face, as cellphones are used, but still more gripping than A, maybe because it is more realistic and believable.

4. Bedroom scene
Of course, different scenarios, as TV has a body, but no murderer, while BK has neither bodies nor murderer, but . . .
a. TV: forensics checks out boy's bedroom, but, the police--apparently--do not. (See #6)
b. BK: the heroine checks out both boys' bedrooms.
what is on the shelves.
the posters on the walls.
what is in the drawers.
the books the boys read.
what is on their computers.
c. Everything and anything that might provide a clue to the boys' fates.

5. Ending (Happy?)
a. TV: more or less, as everyone has come to terms with the boy's death, and a wake is held for the boy.
b. BK: happier. for the boys are returned physically sound, if mentally traumatized.

6. Police (Incompetent)
a. TV: while the police are not written as being incompetent, I have seldom seen a more incompetent police farce. Almost 20 times or more, they show their incompetence, and that is just the times I recognized their incompetence.
b. Including, not possiblely searching the boy's bedroom for clues to his murder.
c. And allowing a material witness to flee the area. One who saw the murderer with the victim's body, and then, apparently, making little effort to find the witness.
d. BK: The fact that the police did not search the boys' bedrooms for clues is what leads to charges of police incompetence.
e. But to his credit, of all the theories out there, as to what happened to the boys, his is the one that is correct.
f. And when there is trouble, he is normally the first one on the scene.
g. TV: Unlike these police, for when there is trouble, sometimes they don't even show up.

To be continued . . .

Continueing where we left off.

BK: Hart's "Taken by the Wind"
TV: Chibnall's "Broadchurch"

07. Character (Suspicious)
a. Both come uder suspicion by finding the same object and turning it in, but . . .
b. While BK remains under suspicion to the end.
c. TV is almost immediately cleared of suspicion by his past.

08. Character (Unlikable)
a. With a twist. In both, the most unlikable character comes with a twist in their character, but TV does BK one better, as the twist is more obvious and less twisted out of character.

09. Minister (Conflicted)
a. Whereas, TV is only conflicted by some of the tenets of his faith . . .
b. BK is conflicted by her entire faith, and thus makes for the better drama.
c. Whereas, TV seems to be the only minister in the church and seems to have no other to help him. This in a possible congregation of 15,000 local citizens.
d. BK is not the only minister in the church, and there seems to be others that can be called in as needed, and in an unknown size, but smaller congregation. Thus, the more credible situation.

10. Man Driven by Desire
a. BK: Clear motivation. Believable actions and realistic reactions. Credible conclusion.
b. TV: Murky motivation, if not non-existant motivation. Unbelievable actions and unrealistic reactions. Non-credible conclusion.
c. BK: While crime is greater in the beginning, in the end, he comes across as the better man.
d. BK: Before harming victim, he has victim flees, who flees, and thus risks discovery.
e. TV: Kills victim to prevent discovery.
f. BK: In his own way takes responsibility for his actions.
g. TV: Denies responsibility for actions by making excuses for himself.
h. BK: Any type of affair between an adult and a child is wrong. No excuses. No p***yfooting around the issue.
i. TV: Never says any type of affair between an adult and a child is wrong. Makes excuses for adult. p***yfoots around the issue.

11. Couple (Broken)
a. TV: Typical couple, if well played.
b. BK: Atypical couple. A gay couple.
c. BK: They argue. Fight. Move out. Almost split up. Come to an agreement. Like TV couple.
d. BK: Thus, the bolder choice is b.
e. BK: Also puts a more human face on gay couples.
f. TV: Reason give for broken relationship.
g. BK: Reason not given for broken relationship, but reason, for once, is not needed.

12. Boys (2)
a. TV: Murky or non-existant motivation. Unbelievable actions and unrealistic reactions. Non-credible conclusions.
b. BK: Clear motivation. Believable actions and realistic reactions. Credible conclusions.
c. TV: No reason or murky reason given for why once best friends became bitter enemies.
d. BK: Remain fast friends thru all, despite all. Reason given.
e. TV: Boys come off as unreasonablely stupid.
f. BK: Boys come off as reasonablely stupid.
g. TV: Wirter is less bold, and thus writing comes across as being poorer.
h. BK: Authoress is more bold, and thus writing comes across as being better.
i. TV: Is one boy hetero? Gay? Bi? Experimenting? Who knows, as writer fails to use sex or uses it unclearly, as one boy's motivation for his actions.
j. BK: Is one boy hetero? Gay? Bi? Experimenting? Who knows, but authoress uses boy's sexual angst as a possible motivation for his actions.
k. Thus, who would have thought that a female lesbian (BK) has a better understaning of the mindset of two pre-teen boys, and how they would act and react under these circumstances, then a heterosexual male (TV) who seemingly has no concept of how two pre-teen boys would act and react under such circumsntances.

Thus, while both BK and TV tell similiar stories, except for 4 and 8, BK tells the story better than TV.

Next time: where every attraction is a story, and every story is an attraction.

Rule #1 from previous post.
"Experience your creation," or as I'd like to say: "Believable characters with dialogue and actions that ring true." And so far we'd have had . . .

For pedophiles = No
And the villain is a pedophile. Just hugs or not.

A writer need not write about such things, but if he or she does, then face the sexual implications of the scenes between the victim and the villain. There is little I hate more in writing than instead of facing it, just sweeping it aside or dancing around it.

For pedophiles victims = No

For police = No

But, here are 8 more people types with the letter P from "Broadchurch." Where . . .

N=No
Y=Yes
?=Questionable

Paparazzi = N
I wish some had been hired to stage the scenes featuring them. Otherwise, it looked so fake looking. Of course, that may have been more the fault of the director than the writer, which raises questions about the direction.

Parents = ?
I actually had a N, but I changed it to ?, as while there are some real clunky scenes, that does not negate all the scenes featuring the parents.

Plumbers = Y
The next time maybe the writer should do a series about plumbers. It is the one thing he gets consistently right.

Preachers = ?
I actually had a Y, but I again changed it to a ?, because unlike Ellen Hart's "Taken by the Wind," which we have already discussed has a certain similar story to this, the preacher here is seemingly the only preacher in a church with a potential congregation of 15,000, and seemingly has no one which he can call for help. Which is just not a credible situation.

Press = ?

Pre-teen boys = N
There again read Ellen Hart's "Taken by the Wind" for a description that is far truer to real life than the one here.

Psychics = ?

Public (Everyone else) = ?

Next time: Rule 3. Resist the temptation to overlood with too much information and too many stories.

Marty's "Rule #3"
"Resist the temptation to overload with too much information and too many stories."

And what do we get from Chibnall in "Broadchurch?"

1. A murder story.

2. Police reaction story to murder.
a. specifically female police detective reaction.
b. male police detective backstory.
c. male police detective's health story.

3. Press reaction story to murder.
a. local press
b. national press
c. conflict story between local and national press.

4. Public reaction story to murder.

5. Parent's reaction story to son's murder.
a. husband's affair story.
b. wife's inability to deal with son's murder.

6. Older sister's reaction story to brother's murder.
a. her inability to deal with her brother's murder.
b. her affair with coloured boyfriend.

7. Suspects' reaction story to murder.
a. suspect A has major story
b. suspect B has major story
c. suspect C has major story.
d. suspects D, E, and F have minor stories.

8. Even victim G has minor backstory.

9. Psychic's story

10. Police liaison officer's story

11. And drug story.

Thus, depending upon how one counts all the stories, we have somewhere between 11 and 22 different stories.

And whereas story 1 is necessary.

And whereas stories 2, 2a, 2b, 3, 3a, 3b, 4, 5, 5a, 5b, 6, 6a, 6b, 7, 7a, 7b, 7c, and 7d can be seen as reaction to murder stories.

And whereas stories 7, 7a, 7b, 7c, and 7d can also be seen as "red herrings."

Stories 2c, 3c, 9, 10, and 11 are not truly necessary to story 1.

And story 11 is even soon dropped without explanation and seemingly forgotten.

The reverse is also true. Whereas suspect F and victim G get their own minor stories, they actually need their own major stories to provide motivation for their actions and reactions, which are either murky or non-existant otherwise.

Next time: when Paul Mayer speaks. People listen.

Paul Mayer is the cinematographer for British director Nic Roeg, and here he is speaking about his boss.

"The central difference between English films and American films. American films have a point; they know where they're going. It's not necessarily predictable, but it's an arc you can follow. Whereas, English films, it's about getting to the end, not necessarily even knowing where that will be."

I have not seen all of the films directed by Roeg, but I have seen a few, and somehow what is said does not--to me--seem to apply to Roeg. But, it does apply to someone. Yes, that's right. Marc Chiball and "Broadchurch." And what is said also raises the question that only regarding what is said, that American films may actually be better than British films. Thus, the American remake, which is being shot even now, may actually come out better than the British original.

Next time: Why the writing for "Broadchurch" is crap, and it is crap in so many ways, that it'll take next time and two more times after that to point out all the ways it is crap.

Why the writing for the series is crap.

The classic case of stupidity in a film is the boy scout in "Lair of the White Worm," but the film explains why the boy does something so stupid. That is not true for "Broadchurch," where the people act in a manner that is stupid without any explanation for their stupidity. We have already had some examples. Here are some more.

a. Why did one suspect smash his computer to destroy the e-mails sent and received from the victim in a place that he might be seen smashing his computer. At first, I thought it might be the suspect's way of crying for help, but that would be too clever for the show.

b. And why after doing well in a class in computer science did the same suspect not know that smashing the computer would not destroy the -e-mails, as the I.P. would have a cache of the e-mails sent to and received from the victim?

c. Why risk alienating a reporter for a large national paper by telling the reporter no, when the reporter asks for the use of an empty desk at the small local paper?

2. The police come across as being incompetent without any explanation for their incompetency.

a. Why did they not cotton on to the idea, that there may have been someone on the cliffs above the beach, at the same time the villain and the victim were on the beach? Even if no dog droppings were found up there, because the person was courteous enough to pick them up, if the police had asked around and asked the right questions, they might have discovered there had been someone up there.

b. Why did forensics immediately cotton on to the idea that the hair found in the burnt out boat belonged to the victim? And it was not "We found human hair in the boat," it was "We found hair from the victim in the boat." Without some sort of comparision being done, the hair could have belonged to anybody.

c. When the police were looking for e-mails between one suspect and the victim, why did it take the police to the last episode or some 2 months later to contact the I.P. who had a cache of e-mails sent and received between the suspect and the victim.

d. Why were the police so slow in setting up screens to hide the victim's body from the gawkers on the beach?

e. And this comes from another British mystery. A better written one. Why were the victim's hands not bagged to prevent contamination of any evidence from the victim's killer that might be under the victim's fingernails?

3. There is seldom if any repercussions for any misbehavior.

a. Caught trying to sell drugs. No repercussions.

b. Lie to the police. No repercussions.

c. Caught holding a large amount of drugs. No repercussions.

d. p**s someone off. No repercussions.

e. And an important material witness to the murder, before the trial, can leave town and try to disappear without repercussions.

4. Too many big, noisy events which are often overblown and/or overheated and too few small quiet moments. For example one of the few small quiet moments, and the best moment in the series.

a. When the victim's mother goes grocery shopping for the first time after her son's death, she finds herself in the cereal aisle of the local supermarket, and she sees and pulls off the shelf a box of cereal, because it was his favorite, and it reminds her of her dead son.

b. Another small quiet moment from a similiar and better story. Julia Keller's "Bitter River."
Family leaving funeral for victim after paying respect to dead girl and girl's mother. Father in front. Mother in the rear. Children in the middle. Children being moved on by their mother brushing her hand against the back of their necks. Truer than any moment from the overblown funeral in the TV series.

c. And another small moment. Not so quiet, but from Ellen Hart's similiar story "Taken by the Wind."
One boy tries to force himself on the other boy in the story. He would not do this when sober, but if they were drunk on a bottle of whiskey they found in the cellar of the home where they were hiding out from the story's villain . . . ? And a truer moment between the two boys then any moment gotten up between the two boys in the TV series.

I know why some of this occurred and did not occur in the TV series, but you think a better writer would have been able to write his way out of some of these plotholes.

Next time: to be continued with more examples of crap writing from the TV series.

Continuing from before . . .

5. And if the characters are not acting in a way that is often overblown and/or overheated, then they are acting way too laid back to be as passionate as they should be.

6. Multiple plotholes.

7. The characters are just not credible, especially the two most important characters in the story: the victim and the villain. Whether it is true or not, the writer gives the appearance of not understanding his characters.

8. Motivations are murky and/or non-extant.

9. Stories
a. Too many
b. Unnecessary stories
c. Stories brought up and just dropped without any explanation as to why they were dropped.
d. And an unrealistic story that takes the viewer out of the story.

10. Actions that are often non-believable.

11. Writer is unable to bring the intensity and veracity to the story that most other writers are able to bring to a similiar type of story.

12. And reactions that are often unrealistic.

13. Where a missing child is better than a known dead child, because it offers greater suspense in story and more story options, the writer is unable with dead child to bring proper suspense to the first episode, beyond the opening scenes. One solution, and there are others, is to hold out hope for the child to the opening of the second episode, and then resolve the child's fate. That'd have made a good opening for the second episode and a better on than the one we get in the show.

14. And conclusions that are often non-credible.

15. Unlike other, better, bolder writers, instead of facing the sexual implications inherent in story, the writer sweeps them aside and tries to dance around the issue, by making excuses for the villain's actions.

Next time: And the ending is crap. Which we'll take up next time.

And the ending is crap, as well. Not the ending one saw on TV, which I don't remember, but which was the alternative ending anyway, but the original ending, which can be seen on youtube, which ended in a wake for the dead victim, and says so much about what was wrong with the writing in the show.

An ending should be a winding down of the passion in the story, but there is little or no passion in the ending or in the story for that matter. The characters are too laid back, which makes them uncredible. Or, if they show any passion it is too overblown to be realistic.

And ending should be a celebration of a job well done, but the only thing to celebrate in this ending is the incompetence of the police. If the pervert (and I am sorry, if one does not see it, but if you look at any real life 11-year-old, either a boy or a girl, you realize what a pervert the villain was) had not turned himself into the police, in a scene that is not believable, the police would still be looking for the victim's murderer.

The ending is too diffuse. The story should be more focused with fewer storylines, that take away from the viewer's concentration on the main storyline.

Next time: The fun continues with several possible reasons that viewers are so accepting of such crap writing.

Why people are so accepting of crap!

1. People see the forest, but miss the trees, or they see the trees but miss the forest. Or, in other words, they see the big picture, but miss the little scenes, or they see the little scenes, but miss the big picture. When, in this case, they need to see both the big picture and the littlest scene.

2. Ignorance runs rampant, or people are ignorant of . . .
a. The mechanics of good writing.
b. What is better out there, and there is a lot that is better.
c. How a person would behave in a certain situation.

3. People lack the interest to question, or they are unquestioning of what they are fed.

4. They know not what is important and what is unimportant.
For example, in "Gracepoint," which is the American remake, people are already most concerned about Tennant's dodgy American accent. Not the writing nor the acting nor the cinematography nor the costumes nor the directing nor the editing nor the music nor the sets nor the other 101 things more important than the accent of one of the characters.

5. They do not know what is a mystery.
Mysteries use to be nothing more than a series of clues and red herrings, which the reader had to solve before the detective in the story did. And I miss those days. Now a mystery is nothing more than reactions to a crime in a particular place and time. Just like in the series. So there is nothing unique about the series.

What is unique about the series is the lack of emotional intensity that should be and would be in the story. The characters are just unbelievable laid back. That is especially noticeable in comparison to similar stories, where the writers ARE able to generate some credible emotional intensity in their characters. And if the writer does have the series characters show any emotion, it is so overblown, that it is not only unrealistic, but also ridiculous. It is the worst of all worlds. One that is both under inflated and overblown at the same time.

Next time: the fun continues with final questions for which I have no answers.

Q: Is someone who molests, but then refuses to kill the victim, even if it means discovery, and then admits to what he is and takes responsibility for his actions better or worst than someone who refuses to molest, but then kills the victim to prevent discovery, and then when captured, refuses to admit to what he is and refuses to take responsibility for his actions.

A: Of course, the 1st is taken from the book "Taken by the Wind," and the 2nd is from the TV series "Broadchurch." With the 1st being better than the 2nd, as he may molest, but he refuses to kill like the 2nd, and he takes responsibility for his actions, again unlike the 2nd. And the 1st is more realistic than the 2nd, for in order to make it better the writer of the 2nd makes it worst, or to make a better character the writer creates a worst characterization. For we know how such characters behave in fact. They have written books on the subject. Their victims have written books on the subject. People who work with them have written books on the subject. And even their spouses have written books on the subject. And none of it applies to the character in the TV series, who is unrealistically written.

Q: There is no question that children make the best victims, but does a boy child or a girl child make the best victim?

A: Of the previous 28 novels and mysteries read, from various authors, from various countries, and taking place in various times, 12 had child victims or potential victims or (43%) of kidnapping, murder, and/or rape (both forcibile and statuatory.) The age of the victims ranging from under 1 to 17. Of these victims there were 5 or (42%) that were both boys and girls. 4 or (33%) were girls only. And 3 or (25%) were boys only. Or to divide it out: Girl victims (52.94%) and boy victims (47.06%) With no answer as to whether boys or girls made the best victims. But, there was one interesting thing that came out of it. In the books with girls being only the victims, boys could have been exchanged for the girls with some change in the story. But, in the books with boys being only the victims, boys had to be the victims. Girls could not have been exchanged for the boys, for if such was done, the story would cease to exist.

Next time: 1 final question, and then after that, some final thoughts.

The whole scenario of the boat to transport the dead victim from where he was killed to where he was found, then the burning of the boat to destroy the evidence, is really not credible, but it gets worst.

So, what type of boat was it?

At first, I thought it might be what is known as a Montauk Whaler, but it's not. Then in a fluke, I was reading a mystery set in the Shetland Isles of Scotland, and on the book jacket, there was a picture of a boat very similiar to the one in the TV mini-series. A boat called a Shetland yoal.

At first used as a fishing boat in the Shetland Isles, it is now used in racing regattas in the Shetland Isles. While it can take a mast with a square sail, propulsion, both in racing and in normal use, is by oar. It needs as little as 3 people with 2 oars each, but in racing the crew is normally 6 people with 1 oar each, and with a coxswain calling out the stroke.

The size is . . .
23'5" length
14'10" keel
5'8" beam

Clinker construction and all wood.

Normally, it is an easy boat for 1-man to launch from a trailer. Just back the trailer into the water and then float the boat off, but the man in the TV miniseries did not launch it from a trailer. He had to push the boat, what I took to be some 40, 50, 60 meters along a flat sandy beach into the water, but first as the boat was most likely resting upside down, he had to lift it upright and turn it over on its keel, before he pushed it into the water. At least the writer of the script didn't make him row the boat, but use the outboard motor, which was attached to the boat by a chain of sorts. Which means he would need a bolt cutter to cut the chain, whic is plausible. And what is not plausible, and while I did not find out what the boat weighs, it probably weighs more than 1 man can manhandle into the water, and certainly more than 1 man can lift upright.

Which is the problem, as I see it. The script writer making no effort to find something that 1 man could manhandle into the water, such as a regular rowboat, but just throwing anything into the story, plausible or not. Credible or not.
Or, a case of bad writing (IMHO.)

What is more the owner of the boat is portrayed as being too blase about somebody borrowing his boat without his permission, as this is not--apparently--the only time it has happened. Too blase like so many characters in the TV miniseries. And again bad writing.

Next time: 1 final question and then some final thoughts on the TV miniseries.

Who is the most important character in a mystery, including this one?

The most important? The victim. For without the victim, that story ceases to exist.

The 2nd most important? The villain. For the villain is the actor who initiates the action. Everyone else, for the most part, then becomes a reactor, reacting to the villain's action.

And the least important, especially here. The hero or heroine. Here . . .

take away 1 policeman and you have 1 policeman.

take away 2 policemen and you have . . .

the reporter who seeks to solve the murder.

the minister who seeks to solve the murder. Indeed, there are a couple of mystery series set in small towns in present day England, where the local minister is the hero who takes the lead in trying to solve a murder.

the victim's parents. Who are dissatisfied with the job the police are doing and seek to find their young son's murderer themselves.

the victim's older sister and her boyfriend. Who are dissatisfied with the job her parents are doing, with the job the police are doing and seek to find her younger brother's murderer themselves.

or any of the other suspects, who are not the murderer, who are trying to clear himself or herself of suspicion of the murder by finding the murderer themselves.

And then we have the two most interesting characters who could be the hero.

the grandmother of the victim who seeks to find the murderer of her young grandson. Frankly, I hate those know-it-all types like Jessica Fletcher and Jane Marple, but thinking about it, they know-it-all because they have seen it all and heard it all, because they have lived in the same place all their lives, and knowledge about what is normal and abnormal is often what is needed to solve a crime.

the psychic guy. A completely unnecessary character and story line the way the story is written, but what if we make him the hero who seeks to find murderer of the young victim in the story. And maybe his advantage is that he more "sensitive" to everything that is going on around him than most of the other characters in the story.

So, what we get is a story with too little face time with the two most important characters in the story: the victim and the villain, and too much face time with the two least important characters: the heroes, who are actually also the least interesting of the possible heroes in the story.

Next time: I said this would be the last question. I lied. There is to be one more question, or who is as "bad" a writer or maybe as overrated a writer as the writer as this one. And then some final thoughts on the story.

Q: Are there any writers out there as "bad," or maybe I should say as "overrated," as the writer who wrote the British original version of "Broadchurch?" Unfortunately, yes. But, first . . . ? Let me say that from everything I have heard this man say and what has been said about him, he's a decent human being. No, more than that. He's more than a decent human being, but as a writer . . . ? His writings suffer from the same problems (IMHO) that "Broadchurch" suffers from.

1. Unbelievable character reactions.
2. Ridiculous events.
3. Unrealistic characters.
4. Incredulous character actions.
5. Too long of a story.

Plus . . .

6. Too many characters that are not different, which makes the story hard to follow. Even in the graphic novel version of the story.

So what makes the writer so overrated, when (IMHO) there are a lot of similar writers who are far better.

the Chris Piersons
the Dennis McKiernans
the Douglas Niles
the Margaret Weises
the Terry Brooks
the Tracy Hickmans

Ignorance of what is out there that is better. For example . . .

in the writer's writing, there is a scene where you have a 6-year-old boy nursing on his mother's teat.

Now compare that scene with the following scene from the writings of Chris Pierson.

After some time apart, a mother and son, the boy not much older than the other boy in the other writer's writings, are reunited. And they are both sitting on the steps of a building, totally exhausted: physically, mentally, emotionally. And the boy lays his head on his mother's shoulder. And she not only allows him to rest his head on her shoulder, but she puts a comforting arm around him.

Now what is better about that scene than the other scene. It is . . .

more realistic
less ridiculous
more maternal
less perverse
more warmth to it
and it's less "shocking."

"Shocking." Why the other writer's writings are said to work. Ah, no. Not really. Or they should not work. The reasons for which we will get to later, but thinking about it, that is why "Broadchurch" does not work as a well written work. The writer tries to "shock" his audience like the other writer.

As for the other writer, if one has not yet guessed, who I am talking about, I am talking about George R. R. Martin, and his work "Game of Thrones."

Next time: that was finally the final question, so we'll have some final thoughts about why "Broadchurch" is so poorly written (IMHO), and why maybe people so overrate it.

The standard for unreasonable stupidity by a victim is "Broad church," because the reasons for the stupidity of the young victim are either non-extant or so murky ([1] maybe the victim got smacked around a couple of times by his father) that they are unclear. Being smacked around is bad, but it is also bad writing.

On the other hand . . .!?

The standard for reasonable stupidity by a victim, because reasons are given for the victim's stupidity, is the boy scout in Ken Russell's "Lair of the White Worm," where the young scout is stupid enough to get into a strange car with a stranger, then compounds that stupidity by allowing the stranger to take him home, instead of the youth hostile, where he wants to go. But, there are clear reasons for his stupidity.

(1) He is hungry. And (2) tired, coming some 8 miles or more by hiking the distance since 1:00 p.m. that afternoon and carrying a heavy backpack besides. The (3) strange car is a classic Jaguar XKE, and the (4) stranger driver is a sexy, beautiful woman. What boy could resist?

Thus, there is no need for a rainstorm to be written into the story, but one is written into the scene, so he is now also (5) wet and (6) cold and (7) chilled to the bone.

And when she has him at her home, she has him (8) out of his wet scout uniform and underwear and (9) into one of her comforters, which makes him vulnerable to whatever plans she has for him, and then (10) out of that and (11) into the bath, which makes him even more vulnerable to whatever plans she has for him, where (12) she bathes him with a loofah, while (13) coming on to him. And during all this time in her home, (14) she is plying him with brandy to further lower his inhibitions. And on an empty stomach, too. Not good, but good writing.

Next time: the one thing that "Broad church" is good for.

It is good for . . . ?! And it may be a low standard, but it does serve as a standard by which to measure other writers and their mysteries and other similar stories.

Thus, a measurement of . . .
HD=Harry Dolan's "The Last Dead Girl"
with . . .
MC=Marc Chibnall's "Broadchurch"

1. HD: Of human behavior, he seemingly has understanding.
MC=Of human behavior, he seemingly has no understanding.

2. HD=Thus, he does not soft soap and soft peddle sex.
MC=Thus, he seemingly soft soaps and soft peddles sex.

3. HD=Thus, his villains are credible human beings and villains.
MC=Thus, his villain is not a credible human being and villain.

4. HD=Thus, they are scary.
MC=Thus, he is not scary.

5. HD=And dangerous.
MC=Nor dangerous.

6. HD=Thus, revealing villain is like getting smacked between the eyes by a sledge hammer.
MC=Thus, revealing villain is like no impact.

7. HD= Wish for more explanation, but villain's motivation is provided.
MC=No or little motivation for villain is provided.

8. HD=Some flashbacks work better than others, but flashbacks work.
MC=Flashbacks do not work.

9. HD=Most twists work well.
MC= Most twists work poorly.

10. HD=Realistic emotions are in control, except at the end, which is why . . . (See 11.)
MC=Unrealistic emotions are out of control or non-extant.

11. HD=the ending fails.
MC=the ending also fails.

12. HD=Two stories which do not really merge.
MC=Too many story lines, but one story which works, but would work better with better writing.

Apparently, a prequel to two older books, Dolan is hard to get into, or, at least, I found it hard to get into, but bear with it. It is one of the best written books out there. At least, it is better written than Chibnall's "Broad church."

Next time: something else the British original is good for.

This is not only a standard by which other works of fiction can be measured, but it also serves as a good intellectual experience. Though, unlike "Maleficent," which gets better and better, the more you think about it, this gets worst and worst the more you think about it and compare it to better writings by better writers. For example . . .

As loosely focused as the story is in "Broad church," you do get something on . . .

the police
their families
the victim
the victim's family
the townspeople, including the town's minister
the children of the townspeople, including the victim's best friend
the suspects
their families
and the killer.

But, if you compare it to Amanda Kyle Williams' who is the better writer, "Don't Talk to Strangers," which is better written, and which is tightly and solely focused on the hero and the case of the 2 dead girls and 1 missing girl, she is investigating, unlike Chris Chibnall's "Broad church," which is loosely focused on several stories, you do not only get all the above, but also . . .

a hero who is not police, so one gets something on her and her . . .
boyfriend and
the friends she left behind.

And you get all this in and with more detail than Chibnall's " Broad church."

And not only more detail, but also fewer problems, both major and minor.

Minor
The town in "Broad church," (15,000 population) is so large, that some do not even know who delivers the mail. That is not true with Williams, whose town (2882 population) is so small, that not only does everyone know who delivers the mail, but everyone else in the town, as well.

Major
The police in "Broad church" may be likable, but they are clearly less than competent (i.e. no victimology done, etc.) That the case is solved almost solely and merely by happenstance. Again, unlike Williams, where the police may be unlikable, some of them, but they are none the less competent (i.e. victimology done, etc.) That the case is not solved by happenstance nor luck, as in "Broad church," but by good, solid police work.

Thus, a better writer than Chibnall and a better written story than "Broad church," and one to be sought out and read.

Next time: the villain.

Different author.
Different book.
Different location.
But, same time period.

"All the elements of masculine sexuality . . . 'dominance and power, youth . . . power over innocence, and of course, performance. If you combine these elements into a single fantasy, into a single act, you have then created the ultimate sexual encounter . . . one that contains all the necessary sins to make it forbidden and irresistible dominance over the subject, the destruction of youth, physical coercion, the corruption of desire. And that is precisely why it is so powerful.'"

Andrew Brown's "Cold sleep Lullaby" p. 178

Did the writer of "Broad church" know what he was doing, when he created the villain for the limited TV series? Because what you see above, is not only from a much better writer, but describes the villain in "Broad church" to a T.

Now, taking what we know from the series, let us extrapolate something that is logical and credible, from what we are given about the villain. Recently, the villain's wife gave birth to a child, their son, so the villain was potent an year ago, but what if within that year, for some reason--emotionally? mentally? physically?--he has become impotent. And the only way he can now get it up is to be hugged by a young boy. With both of them clothed. With both of them naked. With one or the other naked. That is what the writer for the series may have created. Does the writer for the series even know this?

Next time: We'll continue talking about the villain in the series.

I was watching "Heathers" for the 3rd time. A film I don't particularly like, and which I think is overrated, but while watching it, I did realize something I had not realized before, and that is that the villains are actually better conceived than the heroes, and not on purpose, but seemingly by accident. Which may be why, unlike most fans of the film, my favorite character is not the heroes in the film, but one of the villains. Namely, Kurt. As there is more there than one first supposes. Also . . .

The villains are often more important than the heroes, because they initiate the action and become the actor in the story, while the hero often only reacts, and thus becomes the reactor in the story. They are also often more colorful than the hero. More entertaining. More complex. More interesting. And if played by a foreign actor, better acted than the hero, which is often played by an American.

Of course, none of this applies to the villain in "Broad church," except for being more important than the heroes.

So, unlike Kurt in "Heathers," I have no empathy for the villain in "Broad church." Who I do have empathy for in that, is the young victim. Who I think does not get the respect that a victim deserves. especially, if the victim is a child, as here. And those are the victims, especially in films and TV shows, for whom I have the most empathy. Those that don't get the respect that I think they deserve as victims.

And as for what heroes I feel empathy. Those that seemingly have an emptiness inside of them. And emptiness that is so big, that they are willing to give up their lives to fill it.

Next time: we'll continue to talk about the villain in "Broad church," and all the contradictions inherent in the character.

There are two types of villains with mass contradictions.

Those that are so complex and complicated and credible and well-written by someone who knows what they are writing about, and then there are those that are not credible, poorly written, and written by someone who apparently does not know what they are talking about. One guess as to which of these applies to the villain in "Broad church."

01. The villain is a pedophile and will eventually want sex from his victim.
The villain is not a pedophile and will never want sex from his victim.

02. He is a psychopath.
He is not a psychopath.

03. He is a sociopath.
He is not a sociopath.

04. He is a recidivist.
He is not a recidivist.

05. He has offended before.
He has not offended before.

06. He will offend again.
He will not offend again.

07. The killing was deliberate.
The killing was accidental.

08. He is careless about leaving clues.
He is not careless about leaving clues.

09. He is stupid.
He is not stupid.

10. He shows no sympathy for his victim.
He shows sympathy for his victim.

11. He wants to be dominant.
He does not want to be dominant.

12. His final act of dominance. Leaving the victim's body in a public place.
Or not?

13. He wants the victim's body discovered and is a thrill killer.
He wants the victim's body discovered, but he is not a thrill killer.

14. He is emotionally detached from his violent behavior.
He is not emotionally detached from his violent behavior.

15. He has no remorse for what he has done.
He has remorse for what he has done.

16. He is in denial about what he has done and does not take responsibility for what he has done.
He is not in denial about what he has done and takes responsibility for what he has done.

17. The character is not credible.
The character is credible.

Next time: how the writer is a mass of contradictions.

Maybe the villain is such a mass of contradictions, because the screenwriter is himself a mass of contradictions.

1. He has more respect for the villain, then he does for the victim.
He does not have more respect for the villain, then he does for the victim.

2. He tries to make the villain a "better" person.
He is not trying to make him a "better" person.

3. If this is what he is trying to do, then he fails.
If this is what he is trying to do, then he does not fail.

4. He muddies the waters of the story.
He does not muddy the waters of the story, but makes all clear.

5. He little understands or has no understanding about what he writes.
He understands about what he writes.

6. He does not have the courage to write about what he writes.
He does have the courage to write about what he writes.

Next time:

But, 1st . . .?! The American version, called "Grace point" has started to play on American TV, as I do not have a TV set, I can't see it that way, but it is also apparently available by streaming on the world wide web, and more importantly, it is free. I may try to watch it that way. But, till then . . . as we wind down . . .

Next time: a reminder why the British original is such an unmitigated, overrated piece of crap. Till then . . .?!

If you do not already know, then I think much of the writing for this British limited series is overrated crap, but what about the other aspects of the series?

Crap, or, at least many of the scenes are poorly presented. The would include, but not limited to . . . as compared to similar scenes from other stories.
1. the funeral scene
2. the confrontation with the paparazzi.
3. the murder scene.
4. the victim's father's reaction to hearing his young son's killer confessing to killing the boy.
5. the wake for the victim.

And as a reminder as to why I think much of the writing is crap.
1. Character(s) . . .
a. . . . actions are unbelievable.
b. . . . reactions are unrealistic.
c. . . . motivations are murky or non-extant.
d. . . . emotions expressed are either overblown or under inflated.
e. . . . behave stupidly without justification for behavior.
f. . . . misbehavior ignored. No repercussions.
g. . . . of victim and villain, the two most important in the story, are underwritten.
h. . . . are just not credible, for the most part.

2. Story lines . . .
a. . . . unnecessary added.
b. . . . dropped without explanation as to why they are dropped.

3. Story . . .
a. . . . lacks intensity of similar stories.
b. . . . lacks focus.
c. . . . lacks logic.
d. . . . lacks continuity
e. . . . lacks tension.
f. . . . and like George R. R. Martin, the story is "shocking." As to what is wrong with that, this . . .

A. It is unrealistic, as one character, in a better story, pointed out "Mankind is not by nature totally violent."
B. It loses effect quickly. Seeing a man slapped is "shocking." Seeing him slapped more than once is not.
C. It is dangerous. One has to constantly ramp up the violence to be "shocking."
D. It is based on audience ignorance, as to many audience members think this is typical behavior, when it is not.

4. Miscellaneous
a. Multiple plot holes.
b. Seemingly no or little respect shown for young victim by writer.
c. Poorly plotted, as villain seemingly comes out of nowhere.
d. When most mystery stories now contain one or more characters that are gay or lesbian, that there are no gay or lesbian characters in this one is a point against it (IMHO.)
e. Writer seemingly lacks the courage to tell the story that should be told.

A. child kidnapping
B. child murder
C. child pornography
D. child prostitution
E. pedophilia and other child -philias
F. and child rape videos

. . . are all ugly subjects, but other better writers writing better stories have faced up to these subjects more or less squarely. They have not danced around the subject as this writer seems to do.

Nor does the writer seem to have the courage to have a scene where the victim is found naked or nearly naked, as is often the case for such crimes in real life. Both to male and female and to young and old. As to why such occurs, again, as pointed out in another better story similar to this . . .

A. Dehumanization and humiliation of dead victim.
B. Psychological need of villain to to show dominance over victim.
C. Destroys evidence, except that which is kept as souvenir of victim

f. and police are seemingly incompetent with no explanation as to why they are so incompetent.

Next time: reasons as to f directly above.

Mostly, on the previous posts, we have been talking about my opinions. This time we are going to get away from my opinions and on to the facts. Not my facts, but facts from other better writers taken from their better writings, or "7 Reasons as to Why the Police in 'Broad church' Are Written as Being Incompetent."

1. They do not know how to meet, when in a better mystery, by a better writer, the police are always meeting. Either formally at the station or informally at the pub. Why?
a. To share ideas with each other, thus to share their ideas with the reader.
b. To share what they have done in the past, thus to share these with the reader.
c. To share what their future actions will be, thus to share these with the reader.
d. To share how close they are to finding the book's villain, thus to share this with the reader.

Little of this occurs in "Broad church," so . . .?!
The viewer has little idea what has been done, what needs to be done, what their ideas are on how to catch the villain, nor how close they are to catching the villain.

2. They do not know how to prioritize.
When the federal marshal service of the U.S. government gets an arrest warrant for a child kidnapper, a child murderer, a child pornographer, a child rapist, that warrant goes to the top of the stack of the outstanding warrants to be served.

That does not only not happen in "Broad church," but they allow themselves to work short handed, because some of the police have been sent off to provide security for an event outside of town, even when the best chance to catch a murderer is within the first 24 48 72 hours. And there is no hint, that they even asked that the missing police be sent back to catch the murderer, and we are told that the police that were needed, but missing, returned to town several days after the murder.

3. They seemingly do not know the value of a trace of semen on the victim.
No one wants to see another child sexually assaulted and/or murdered, but to be happy that no trace of the murderer's semen can be found in the victim's anus, mouth, on his body, on his clothes, when that is one of the best clues as to who is the murderer, that is just inexcusable.

A semen trace is so valuable in certain cases that in a better story by a better writer, the semen trace found on a victim was tied to the semen trace found on a previous victim, which the hero had a personal relationship. Thus, find the murderer in one case, and you have solved both cases.

The next three are from the same story.

4. The police here seemingly do not know how to use a computer and the world wide web to seek information. In this other story, when a girl goes missing the police are immediately doing a computer search for any previous crimes that are similar and to any and all information about the victim that the friends and family may not know about the victim.

5. The police here do not have an in-town expert who can go into the victim's computer to find any pertinent information that may solve the case, but have to send the computer out of town, and thus delay the receipt of the information. When the other story, the police have someone in town that they can send a computer for the information to be extracted. Thus speeding up the receipt of the information, even when this town is not even half the size of the other town.

6. No victimology is apparently done for the victim. And when this happens for a previous victim in the other story, the other story's hero frankly states that this is police incompetence at work.

7. Preventing contamination of the crime scene.
a, The victim's hands were not bagged to prevent contamination, even though, with a strangulation murder, there may be some trace of the murderer found under the victim's fingernails.

b. The tent put up over the victim and the crime scene seemingly was not put up as fast to prevent contamination as it should have been.

Next time: a scene that should have been in "Broad church," but was not.

I do not know whether this is SOP or not for any police force in the world, as the 1st time I came across it was in Cath Staincliffe's "Dead for Me," but something his logical and believable, the reasons for which we will get to later, that you'd never find it in "Broad Church," where much of the police work is anything but logical and believable. So, how should it play out, if it was in "Broad church?"

01. Forensics places a plastic ground sheet next to the boy's body, after the body has been screened off, to . . .
a. prevent the lookers from seeing the body,
b. show respect for the victim,
c. and to prevent contamination of the crime scene.

02. Place the boy's body, carefully and with little disturbance as possible, on the sheet.

03. Undress the boy totally, as carefully as possible. Item by item.

04. Place each item of his clothing into its own individual and labeled evidence bag for later examination in the lab.

05. Then place the boy's now nude body, as carefully as possible, into its own labeled body bag for transport to the morgue for later examination.

06. Then, carefully fold up the sheet, with little disturbance as possible, for later examination of any evidence that might have fallen off the boy and/or his clothes.

Of course, this depends upon rigor mortis not having set in, which sets in some 4 to 6 hours after death, depending upon the sex of victim, the muscular condition, the physical condition, etc..

So, SOP or not, why is this so logical and believable? It prevents the contamination of the crime scene, which mystery writers are always harping about in their mysteries.

And something so logical and believable it could not be found in "Broad church," whose police incompetency is exceeded only by that of the police in 1959's "Plan 9 from Outer Space." Whose incompetency does at least have a modicum of inadvertent humor. Here the incompetency is only painful to watch.

And that's it.

Next time; changes in "Broad church." Those made by myself, and those made by the writers of the American version "Grace point."

The American TV version under the title "Grace point" is already playing on American TV, and I might watch it, when I have the time, and if I can find it on the world wide web. But, so far the changes between this American version and the British version make for a better written TV series for American TV.

Murder method
Broad church: strangling
Grace point: bludgeoning

The problem with strangling is that it immediately ruled out one very viable suspect, because their hands were too small.

Murder motive
Broad church: He wanted a "hug."
Grace point: Unknown at this time.

I still don't know why the writer for the British version gave this motive to the murderer. Unless he wanted to make the murderer a "better" person. If so, the only thing it did was create a character that was not credible, unrealistic, and ridiculous. Because we know what that type of person wants, and it is not a "hug."

Overheard conversation
Broad church: unfriendly argument with local mailman.
Grace point: friendly conversation with non-local hiker.

That argument made the mailman a "person of interest," because the victim died less than 24 hours later. Yet when there was a conflict between what the mailman said, and the witness to the argument said, instead of taking the mailman down to the police station and getting the conflict straightened out, the mailman is allowed to walk away and even set up an alibi, true or false, with his friends for the time the victim was murdered.

Next time: changes I would have made in the original plot.

Of course, I was not asked to adapt the script of the original British TV version for the American TV version, but if I had been . . . This is what I would have done.

(1st) If all possible keep the victim alive to the end of the show, as a missing child is always better than a dead child, and if that was not possible, then keep the child's fate secret to the beginning of the 2nd episode with the dreaded phone call coming at the end of the 1st episode. Good ending to 1st episode. Good beginning to 2nd episode. Otherwise, the child's fate is revealed too early in the 1st episode.

(2nd) Change the method of murder. The method of murder used in the British version eliminates a viable suspect, because the suspect's hands are too small to have strangled the victim.

(3rd) Some child molesters learn how to control their impulses, so when they get out of jail, they do not molest again. Thus, change who one suspect molests from girls to boys, because by molesting girls we lose a 2nd viable suspect, as most child molesters molest either boys or girls. Only the minority of child molesters molest both boys and girls.

(4th) The psychic is a needless character, as he adds nothing really to the story, but if one has a psychic in the story let him create conflict not with one of the police, as in the British version, but with the victim's parents. And to make it less of a stereotypical situation, let it be the father who believes everything the psychic says, and the mother who believes nothing that the psychic says, increasing the conflict between the victim's parents.

(5th) The policeman's failure in his last case, should have been brought up from the start of the British version, as in another British mystery, or it should have been eliminated entirely, because bringing it up, when the British version does, is not as effective as the two alternatives.

Next time: how I would have written the story

This is how I would have written the story, but, understand, it is no more than a bare bones outline, including some information about the victim, the suspects, and how the murder scene would play out.
First up, the victim.

Age: 15
The original does this better, as the victim is only 11, and while an 11-year-old may not be as innocent as a 15-year-old, it gives the appearance of innocence, and that is what you want in a victim--innocence, but my version only works if the victim is older than the one in original.

The Good
the altar boy
the golden boy
the newspaper boy
the sea scout
the triathlete
the sea scout

Neither Bad nor Good
the bisexual

The Bad
the drug mule
the poser for nude photos
the sexual whore

The Ugly
the blackmailer
who would make a better blackmailer than someone who has secrets of their own.

The Motive
What does almost every soon to be 16-year-boy want. What but a cool car. And as his father cannot afford to buy the victim the car he wants, he is doing everything he can to get the money, so he can buy the car he wants.

Next time: the suspects

The suspects

The homophobic, racist father, who is not a blackmail victim.

The older sister, who is a lesbian.

The older sister's half breed female lover.

The BF, who got roped into becoming a drug mule, and then was cheated out of his share of the proceeds from the drug deliveries.

The BF's physically challenged father, who is having an affair, he does not want his son nor his wife to know about.

The BF's mother, who has a sexual fondness for underage boys.

The closeted gay man, who works for the boy's father, but he needs a job, and jobs are scarce in that area.

The photographer who likes to take nude photos of underage boys for his own enjoyment.

The policewoman who turns a blind eye to the drugs that are passing through her town.

The priest who is having an affair with one of his female parishioner.

And the parolee, the local sea scout leader, who has not since transgressed, but earlier served time for sexually molesting two of the boys in his sea scout troop of which no one in town knows about.

Ten towns people. Ten towns people with secrets who are vulnerable to a boy who is desperate to get the money he needs to buy the car he wants.

Next time: the murder

There's always that one clue that points to murder, when it is thought at first to be either a suicide or an accident. And here is where my ignorance shines through. As the only thing I can think of is sand being found where there should be no sand. As for the rest . . .?!

In searching the boy's bedroom, and here is where "Broad church" went wrong, and some writers will actually come out and say, as in "Broad church," the police not searching the victim's room for possible clues, is a sign of police incompetency. But, there are so many instances of police incompetency in "Broad church." But . . . ?! In searching the room they find an account book, hidden in the bed, with names, dates, and amounts. And while the names are in code, with the dates and amounts, the police then go to all the ATMs in town, and as it is a small town, there are only 2 or 3, and each ATM snaps a photo of each person making the transaction, the police now have a possible list, from the dates and amounts, of people who might have been the blackmail victims, and thus a person with a motive to commit murder. And now it is just a case of going down the list of possible suspects and eliminating those that have a rock solid, cast iron alibi for the time of the murder, till there are only 2 or 3 left for the big denouement.

Actually, the police do come up with the key, from a surprise source, to the coded names, but that is later in the story, and thus just confirms what the police already know.

Next time: final thoughts, and that's it.

"The gift that keeps on giving."

I thought that I could wrap up in 1 post, why such a crap piece of writing such as this, would be so . . .? But, on second thought, it needs more explanation as to why it is such a piece of crap writing. In part, I think it boils down to 3 ignorance and a willing.

1. Ignorance of proper police procedure, which we will get to later.

2. Ignorance of what is better out there, and nearly everything out there is better written in some form or the other.

3. Ignorance of what constitutes good writing.

4. And a willingness to accept crap writing, which I am not willing to do in this case, as it is for me a case of expecting better.

1st about the stupidity. There is reasonable stupidity, such as one of the married suspects having an affair, and then telling the police lies about it, which is stupid but reasonable. Then there is unreasonable stupidity, as is most of the cases of stupidity in this, as there is no reason for the stupidity, except as examples of bad writing. Thus . . .

Next time: the murderer's stupidity. Who should be, besides the fact of being a murderer, one of the smartest characters, but instead, comes across, as being one of the stupidest, if not the stupidest.

The Murderer's Stupidity

1. What the murderer wants from the victim. That is just STUPID! We know what those people want, and it is not what the murderer wants.

And if one looks at any real-life 11-year-old, one realizes what a perverted s.o.b. the murderer was, and I do not appreciate anybody trying to tell me differently, especially, when it is not true.

2. To destroy a boat, one takes it out onto the water, opens up the seacocks, and watches it sink. No fuss! No muss! No draw interest to oneself. But, the murderer does the STUPIDEST thing possible. He sets fire to it, which would draw interest to him from all over, because the worst disaster at sea is a fire, which would be seen, when he burns the boat.

3. To make it look like the victim accidentally fell to his death from the cliff's edge, the murderer places the victim's body so far from the cliff's edge, that it could not have been an accident.

4. Give victim approximately $800.00 and a new smart phone, which would only attract attention to the murderer's affair with the victim.

5. The length of time which the murderer remains in close contact with dead victim. Which only increases the chance of him being seen with the dead victim and/or him leaving trace evidence upon the victim.

6. The murderer's whole attempt to clean up the murder scene. One cannot clean up such a scene without leaving some sort of evidence behind. Indeed, if the murderer had been any less STUPID, instead of trying to clean up the scene, he'd have dirtied it up, leaving contradictory and extraneous accouterments and encumbrances behind. That could not be tied back to him. So, he'd have the police chasing their tails, trying to figure out what was and was not a clue to the murder.

7. And then the murderer did a half-ass job in trying to clean up the crime scene.

Next time: The Townspeople's Stupidity

The Townspeople's Stupidity

1. Not recognizing the mailman who delivers mail to your place of residence and/or business.

2. The anonymous townsperson who complaining that because of the murder, no tourist would want to now visit the town. STUPID! Because it is that type of juicy murder that has just occurred, that will draw tourists to the town.

3. Buying drugs for guests staying at one's inn, when such a buy could make one lose one's liquor license..

4. Then when guests leave without taking drugs with them, returning drugs to whom one bought drugs from, instead of just destroying drugs.

5. Then the drug dealer's giving of said drugs to his girlfriend, the older sister of the murder victim, after the murder, which would make her at that time one of the few suspects in the murder, and thus bring police attention down upon her.

6. Then girlfriend's decision to keep the drugs in her bedroom, while police search for clues to her younger brother's murder, instead of just destroying the drugs, and thus causing the police to find the drugs.

Next time: Suspect stupid. Victim stupider.

Maybe the writer has a family. Maybe there are/were children in the family. Maybe some of the children were boys, but what the writer tells me in "Broad church" is that he has no understanding of the mindset of tween boys, because the two characters in the series that are tween boys are written so stupidly. And what do I mean by stupidly. This.

The motivation for the victim turning to his murderer is STUPID! because the motivation is so weak.

The suspect destroys his computer in a place where he can be seen, which is STUPID!, instead of a place so private he cannot be discovered.

That with the equivalent of about $800.00 that he has been given by the villain, the victim is STUPID! enough--apparently--not to spend any of it on either himself or someone else.

The suspect is STUPID! enough to destroy his computer in an effort to destroy any text messages and/or phone calls received and/or sent. This after he has just taken a course in computer science, in which he did quite well, which should have dealt with the fact that a list of phone calls and/or text messages sent and/or received would be kept by his I.P. provider.

That the victim is STUPID! enough, once he breaks free of the villain to return to the villain, instead of continuing to flee from the villain, and which would be the more logical thing to do.

That when someone walks into your home unannounced, it is STUPID! not to say or do anything, but just sit there, not doing or saying anything, even if you know the uninvited visitor, as the suspect does.

When the victim is being strangled by his murderer, it is STUPID! of the victim not to fight back. This one does not even need to think about, as it is instinctive, especially when victim is not unconscious or even semi-conscious.

Next time: Other stupid acts. From other stupid people.

Newspaper editor
It is STUPID! to possibly p**s off reporter from an out-of-town major daily, by denying the reporter the use of an empty desk in the newsroom.

Out-of-town Reporter
It is STUPID! to steal a child's stuffed toy from the memorial set up for the victim.

Father
The father of the victim's rage is STUPID! because it comes at the wrong time. If he is raging, it should come at the time, when he first learns of his son's murder at the beginning. Not at the ending, when he confronts his son's murderer in the police station jail, which is itself an act of stupidity/incompetence by the police.

Both father and mother
Not to notice that their son has a brand new smart phone, which they did not buy him, which should raise questions, but does not, who did buy it for him and why?

And not to find the equivalent of almost $800.00 that their son has stashed in his room, when they are always finding that porno magazine, one has stashed in one's room.

Next time: since we have taken up the stupidity of the town's citizens, we'll take up the incompetence of the town's police force.

That is all for the stupid residents of Broad church. Now on to the incompetent police farce or police force of Broad church. How incompetent? Probably the most incompetent police farce or force since the one in "Plan 9 from Outer Space" from 1959. At least, there was some inadvertent humor in seeing their incompetence. The incompetence expressed by the farce or force in Broad church was just painful.

Of course, these examples of police incompetence are not unique to Broad church, but what is unique is the variety and number of examples of incompetence.

And while some of these examples may not apply to British policing, I am sure for every one that does not apply, there is one example of incompetence that I missed. Thus, the number of examples probably is about equal.

01. FAILURE to understand that most likely murderer of a family member is another member of the family.

02. FAILURE to sort out conflict between witness and suspect, but, instead, allow suspect to walk away and to set up a possible alibi with friends for the night of the murder.

03. FAILURE to search victim's room for possible clues to crime. And by search, I mean the officers involved not forensics, who did search the room. When this happened in another mystery, the writer was quick to point out this as a sign of police incompetence.

04. FAILURE to properly prioritize police duties.

05. FAILURE to do anything about the buying and selling of drugs in town, when such is brought to their attention.

To be continued . . .

It's been an year and a half, almost, since we took up this subject, and in that time, we have had the American remake "Grace point," and a 2nd season of "Broad church." Both of which, I may get around to seeing, if I can find them on the world wide web, and I have the time, but . . .?! till then some final thoughts on what I started.

"The proof is in the pudding," or in this case, "The proof is in the writing."

Some people who have seen the 2nd season of "Broad church," thought it was so bad, that they have no interest in even trying to see the 3rd season, which is planned. I could have told them that, as it takes an extraordinary writer to (see Anne Perry) write a 1st season police procedural, and a 2nd season courtroom drama, as they are so different, and from seeing how badly the 1st season was written (see previous posts) it would be a forethought that the 2nd season would be as bad, or even worst, as some people think.

Not only does the 1st season include the death of a child, but so does the 2nd season, with "even less reason," then the 1st season, or some people have posted, who have seen the 2nd season.

"Even less reason" or not, there is just something odd about the writer's attitude to children, at least in the 1st season, that I find disturbing.

When people talk about the 1st season, they talk about the acting, the directing, but they seldom if ever talk about the writing.

Even though good writing is the foundation upon which a good story is based, and the writing, at least in the 1st season, was (IMHO) far from good.

Next time: Tabula Rasa.

Why . . .?! Only now complaints about the bad writing found in the 2nd season of the show. When the writing, more or less, has always been bad, even in the 1st season. Where . . ?! Without reason, the boys' behaviors are unbelievable, the citizens are played as being stupid, and the cops are played as being incompetent. And that is only 3 reasons. There are other things, such as the psychic character, that add nothing to the story, that are indications of bad writing.

What "Broad church" is good as, is as a standard, and it might be a low standard, but . . .?! as a standard to measure other writings. For example: Ruth Downie's "Tabula Rasa." Where . . .

When a rumor causes a boy to disappear, the heroine goes to the boy's mother, who says: "You don't know what it is to lose a child, as you have no children of your own."--"No, but as a woman, I understand how you feel as a woman, and that is why I am going to do everything I can to find your son, and I'm going to get my husband, and I'll see that he does everything he can to find your son."

The operative word here is "everything." These characters and others are doing everything they can to find the missing boy. Unlike in "Broad church," where the boy is not missing, but dead, but . . .?! the characters are not doing everything they can do to find the boy's murderer. Indeed, they even seem strongly blasé about the boy's murder.

That's 1 up for "Tabula Rasa."

And while our heroine is riding all over God's green earth, getting saddle sores, to find the source of the rumor that caused the boy to go missing, for if she finds that source, she might find what happened to the boy. Her husband, our hero, is visiting every brothel in town, one of whose owners says: "No. We don't have any boys here. There is no demand for them. You might try the next town over."

And when our hero finally catches up with the missing boy and his new owner, who says: "Do you like boys? I saw you looking at the boy. If you like boys, then maybe we can make a deal."

The writer does not approve of such. She does not like such, but . . .?! She does have the courage, or whatever it takes, to admit that . . ."Yes. There are sexual predators who prey on children--both boys and girls."

Unlike the writer of "Broad church" who refuses to admit, at least in the 1st season, for whatever reason, that there are such predators out there, as there was in the series, and to compound that refusal, he makes up excuses for the predator's behavior.

That's 2 up for "Tabula Rasa"

As for the boys themselves . . .

In "Tabula Rasa," to protect the family farm from strangers, including our hero, the boy, before he goes missing, to look fierce, holds up a axe, half his size, but . . . ?
He gives it away, when with one hand, he reaches up to brush the hair out of his eyes. And he totally gives it away, when he gives out a gap-toothed grin, at the situation.

That is boyish behavior. That shows that the writer understands how boys behave. Maybe, because she has boys of her own.

Unlike in "Broad church," one boy destroys his computer to destroy the messages sent and received from the victim, and in a public place, where he can be seen destroying his computer. And what is more, just after he took a class in computer science, in which he did very well. Which class would probably point out that his I.P. would have a list of the messages sent and received from the destroyed computer

And the boy who is the victim does not fight back, when he is being strangled, even when he would instinctively fight back somehow. He would not even need to think about it.

That is not boyish behavior for either boy. That just shows that the writer does not understand how boys behave.

And that is 3 up for "Tabula Rasa."

And that is 3 up and 1 down and over, as we have finally come to the end of this thread. And if you enjoyed it, then please join me at another thread on this board "Aaron and Bianchi's 'Thanos Rising' Dissected, as we discuss whether Thanos will ever get his own film.

The writing in "Broad church" may not be good for much, but . . .?! It is good as a standard. Maybe not a particularly high standard, but . . .?! a standard nevertheless. Thus, how does Chris Chibnall's writing in that compare to Mark Billingham's "Time of Death." The similiarities of which we'll get to as we continue.

More realistic. More credible. More believable.

1. The wife and children of the suspect.
Chibnall: No
Billingham: Yes
Thus, they are more sympathetic characters with Billingham.

2. Killer
Chibnall: No
Billingham: Yes
Smarter. More worrisome. More loathsome. More fearsome. Thus, a better villain with Billingham.

3. Earlier history of sexual abuse in story of hero.
Chibnall: No
Billingham: Yes
Thus, one of the heroes has a greater personal stake in the case with Billingham.

4. Language
Chibnall: No
Billingham: Yes.
More profanity with Billingham, which is truer to the way people actually talk.

Thus, so far . . .
Billingham: 4
Chibnall: 0
Next time: failure to understand

Failure to understand

01. Seize all electronic devices in a timely manner.
Billingham: Not only do the police seize the suspect's cellphone and computer, they also seize the computers and cellphones of the suspect's children.
Chibnall: the dead victim had a cellphone. The cellphone is missing. At no time are we told that the police made any effort to find the cellphone. The police only obtain the missing cellphone, when it is accidentally found by someone, who then turns it into the police.

02. The importance of trace (forensic) evidence.
Billingham: Not only do the police seize the clothes the suspect was wearing the day the victim disappear, they seize all his clothes. They seize the suspect's vehicle in which one victim was seen. Not only to search the vehicle, but . . .?! to take the vehicle apart piece by piece. Looking for that once trace that would tie the suspect to another victim.
Chibnall: at no time do we learn that the police made any effort to seize either the clothes or the vehicle of any of the suspects to look for trace (forensic) evidence of the victim.

03. Children's behavior
Billingham: the victim is restrained, but . . .?! when she thinks she is about to be killed, she screams, she kicks, she fights back. One does not even have to think about it. It is instinctive.
Chibnall: the victim is not restrained, but . . .?! when he thinks he is about to be killed, he does not scream, he does not kick, he does not fight back. That is not instinctive. That is a lack of understanding of how children behave.

04. One does what ever one needs to go to find a murderer.
Billingham: normally, every suspect within a certain age range and range of location, would have a DNA sample taken, with that DNA sample compared to the DNA found on the dead victim. Except . . .?! There is no DNA evidence on the victim this time, the reason which we'll get to later, thus all this would be an exercise in futility.
Chibnall: But . . .?! This time there is a DNA sample. The DNA left on the cigarettes smoked and left in the vicinity of the victim's body. Yet . . .?! One is never told that the police make any effort to obtain a DNA sample from any of the suspects in the murder.

Chibnall: 0
Billingham: 4 more

Next time: Incompetent and Stupid

Incompetent and Stupid

I think previously I had pointed out at least 2 dozen ways the police proved their incompetency in Chibnall. Which is far more than anything else I have come across that involved the police in a fictional story. Yet, there are some that I knew I missed. One being the incompetence of the family liaison officer in Chibnall's story, which I did not recognize till I read Billingham's story. Chibnall's incompetent. Billingham's competent. The difference is as clear as night and day.

The SOCO team in Chibnall always comes across as being less competent than the one in Billingham. In Billingham, we have a scene in which the SOCO team is sifting the dirt in which a body was found, trying to do everything they competently can do to connect the murderer with his murder victim. Nothing like that scene exists in Chibnall.

Stupid

I knew it was stupid when one of the characters in Chibnall says: "No one will want to come here [after a murder has occurred.]" I just did not realize how stupid it was till Billingham. Not only do you have the police from outside coming to help in the investigation, but . . .?! you have the national press, both print and broadcast, coming to town to cover the story, and you have, with less reason, a large group of ghoulish public come to town, staking out the suspect's house, the victim's house, the house of a surprise alibi witness, and no doubt staking out where the body was found, and the murder occurred.

No one in Chibnall seems to be smart enough to question the use of how the police are using their manpower, especially, in the beginning of the case, when it is most likely that the murderer will be found. "Shouldn't the police be here looking for the murderer, instead of over there, doing something else?" Some one in Billingham is smart enough to ask that question: "Shouldn't the police be here looking for the missing victims, instead of over there, doing something else?"

Burning of evidence to destroy evidence. Twice stupid in Chibnall. Not only does it not work, but . . .?! Oddly enough, or, maybe not, one of the most feared things at sea is fire. Thus, when the murderer sets fire to the boat, which was used to transport the victim, there'll be reports coming in from all over from people who see the fire at sea. Thus, drawing more attention to the evidence rather than less, if the boat had just been sunk at sea.

But . . .?! Twice smart in Billingham. Not only does it destroy the DNA evidence on the victim's body, but . . .?! It opens up the body to greater insect depredation, and as the time of the murder is being determined by the amount of insects on the body, the fire distorts the timeline.

Keeping of a drug stash.

Stupid in Chibnall, but . . .?! A character in Billingham also keeps their drug stash, instead of destroying it. It might be the difference between a large amount of cocaine, and a small amount of weed, but . . .?! since it also occurs in Billingham, we'll give something to Chibnall for his character's stupidity.

Billingham: 5 more
Chibnall: 1

Next time: better and bolder

Bolder and Better

Bolder

Cheating
Chibnall: one of the suspects cheats on his wife with an adult woman.

Billingham: one of the suspects cheats on his wife with a teenage girl, who is barely above the age of consent.

To Billingham

Sexual molestation of children
Chibnall: makes excuses for molester and dances around the subject.

Billingham: makes no excuses for molester and faces the subject squarely.

To Billingham

Better

Wrong suspect
Billingham: while initially the police have the wrong suspect in custody, there are strong clues as to why they suspect the wrong suspect.

Chibnall: even though there are strong reasons not to suspect several of the wrong suspects (physical size, past behavior, etc.) the police continue to pursue the wrong suspect at the expense of pursuing the right suspect.

To Billingham

Right suspect
Billingham: Strong reasons to finally suspect right suspect in case.

Chibnall: suspect comes out of nowhere. No reason to suspect right suspect, or reasons are so weak, as to be nearly extant.

To Billingham

Billingham 4
Chibnall 0

Miscellaneous

Both feature an older girl and an younger boy.
Chibnall: acquaintances, but not brother and sister.
Billingham: brother and sister. Thus, they play off of each other better than if they had been mere acquaintances.

Suspense
Chibnall: failure to generate any suspense at the end.
Billingham: at the end, the villain is on the way to kill the only witness left to the crimes committed. Can our heroes get there first and stop the villain? Generates suspense at the end.

Higher sense of morality
Chibnall: suspect has sex with underage girl. Goes to prison for crime. Comes back. Marries girl. All is fine.
Billingham: suspect waits for underage girl to be of age, ere he has sex with her. All is fine. NOT! Of age or not, an adult male does not have sex with a teenage girl, whether she is of age to consent or not. Thus, Billingham operates with a higher sense of morality.

Chibnall : 0
Billingham: 3

Next time: final thoughts

While, what we have here is 2 different types of stories, Billingham's novel, and Chibnall's limited TV series, the foundation of any good film or TV program is a good story. Thus, when a story is . . .

1. unrealistic
2. non-credible
3. unbelievable
4. lacks understanding
5. lacks suspense
6. lacks boldness
7. has incompetent police
8. and stupid characters

And while we each have our own level, a story that is not good, takes us out of the story.

On the other hand, as story that is good, that is or has . . .

1. realistic
2. credible
3. believable
4. understanding
5. suspenseful
6. bold
7. competent police
8. and smart characters.

Keeps us within the story.

Thus, while not all the reasons need to be given to prove that Billingham is a better writer, writing a better story, than Chibnall. It is the accumulative affect of all these reasons that proves Billingham is the better writer, with the better story, than Chibnall.

Concluded! . . . For now?

Badmovies.org Forum

Other Topics => Television => Topic started by: BoyScoutKevin on September 09, 2013, 02:55:14 PM