Bad Movie Logo
"A website to the detriment of good film"
Custom Search
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 20, 2018, 05:06:14 PM
610204 Posts in 47105 Topics by 6273 Members
Latest Member: DocAcula Forum  |  Other Topics  |  Television  |  Broadchurch: the American Remix Version « previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5
Author Topic: Broadchurch: the American Remix Version  (Read 17594 times)
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema

Karma: 239
Posts: 4501

« Reply #15 on: December 18, 2013, 04:55:43 PM »

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."

Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema

Karma: 239
Posts: 4501

« Reply #16 on: December 26, 2013, 08:54:14 PM »

"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.
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema

Karma: 239
Posts: 4501

« Reply #17 on: January 14, 2014, 05:54:34 PM »

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.
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema

Karma: 239
Posts: 4501

« Reply #18 on: January 28, 2014, 06:04:47 PM »

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.
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema

Karma: 239
Posts: 4501

« Reply #19 on: February 04, 2014, 02:13:05 PM »

One thing I discovered about this British TV limited series is how many stories are similiar, if not superior. Some we have already talked about, here is another one Ellen Hart's "Taken by the Wind," which is part of the Jane Lawless series of mysteries. We'll take this in two parts. First, we'll point out the dozen similiarities, then next time we'll go into greater detail for each similiarity, as we compared the TV series with the book.

(01) Focus
(02) Suspenseful and gutwrenching scenario.
(03) A confrontation
(04) A scene set in the bedroom.
(05) A happy (?) ending
(06) A not totally competent policeman
(07) A suspicious character
(08) An unlikable character with a twist to the character
(09) A minister in conflict
(10) A man driven by desire
(11) A broken couple wracked by grief
(12) And two boys

To be continued . . .
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema

Karma: 239
Posts: 4501

« Reply #20 on: February 18, 2014, 06:40:50 PM »

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 . . .
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema

Karma: 239
Posts: 4501

« Reply #21 on: February 25, 2014, 06:36:09 PM »

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.
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema

Karma: 239
Posts: 4501

« Reply #22 on: March 05, 2014, 01:18:27 PM »

From Marty Sklar's
"Dream It! Do it!"
p. 324

While he was best known for designing theme park attractions at the Disney theme parks, and these are rules for designing a good theme park attraction, but,  maybe, because he was a writer before he started working for the Walt Disney Company, and he first began his career with the Walt Disney Company as a writer. These are also the 5 best rules I have seen for writing a good story.

1. Experience your creation.

2. Make sure there is a logic and sequence in your story.

3. Resist the temptation to overload with too much information and too many stories.

4. Stick to one storyline; a good story is clear, logical, and consistent.

5. Details in content that contradict one another confuse.

Of course, Chibnall in "Broadchurch" breaks all 5 rules, but next time: we'll stick with rules #1 and #3.
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema

Karma: 239
Posts: 4501

« Reply #23 on: March 11, 2014, 05:05:19 PM »

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 . . .


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.
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema

Karma: 239
Posts: 4501

« Reply #24 on: March 25, 2014, 03:04:13 PM »

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.
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema

Karma: 239
Posts: 4501

« Reply #25 on: April 06, 2014, 02:48:14 PM »

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.
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema

Karma: 239
Posts: 4501

« Reply #26 on: April 15, 2014, 05:14:56 PM »

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.
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema

Karma: 239
Posts: 4501

« Reply #27 on: May 10, 2014, 03:37:25 PM »

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.
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema

Karma: 239
Posts: 4501

« Reply #28 on: May 29, 2014, 06:26:31 PM »

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.
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema

Karma: 239
Posts: 4501

« Reply #29 on: June 08, 2014, 04:44:08 PM »

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.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 Forum  |  Other Topics  |  Television  |  Broadchurch: the American Remix Version « previous next »
    Jump to:  

    RSS Feed Subscribe Subscribe by RSS
    Email Subscribe Subscribe by Email

    Popular Articles
    How To Find A Bad Movie

    The Champions of Justice

    Plan 9 from Outer Space

    Manos, The Hands of Fate

    Podcast: Todd the Convenience Store Clerk

    Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill!

    Dragonball: The Magic Begins

    Cool As Ice

    The Educational Archives: Driver's Ed

    Godzilla vs. Monster Zero

    Do you have a zombie plan?

    ImageThe Giant Claw - Slime drop

    Earth is visited by a GIANT ANTIMATTER SPACE BUZZARD! Gawk at the amazingly bad bird puppet, or chuckle over the silly dialog. This is one of the greatest b-movies ever made.

    Lesson Learned:
    • Osmosis: os·mo·sis (oz-mo'sis, os-) n., 1. When a bird eats something.

    Subscribe to and get updates by email:

    HOME B-Movie Reviews Reader Reviews Forum Interviews TV Shows Advertising Information Sideshows Links Contact is owned and operated by Andrew Borntreger. All original content is © 1998 - 2014 by its respective author(s). Image, video, and audio files are used in accordance with the Fair Use Law, and are property of the film copyright holders. You may freely link to any page (.html or .php) on this website, but reproduction in any other form must be authorized by the copyright holder.