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?
September 21, 2014, 05:31:23 AM
533909 Posts in 40397 Topics by 5066 Members
Latest Member: Lightman42 Forum  |  Other Topics  |  Television  |  Broadchurch: the American Remix Version « previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3]
Author Topic: Broadchurch: the American Remix Version  (Read 3498 times)
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema

Karma: 148
Posts: 2942

« Reply #30 on: June 18, 2014, 05:40:19 PM »

Final questions for which I have no answer.

1. I do not expect a fictional story to be totally realistic. It is most likely impossible, but when does an unrealistic story = bad writing?

2. Nor do I expect a story to be totally devoid of plotholes. Again, it is most likely impossible, but when do multiple plotholes = bad writing?

3. Not this TV miniseries, obviously, but what mystery TV series accurately portrays small town life?

4. What if a viewer, who thinks this is the bee's knees, and it is not, take their ignorance of what is good into someplace that is important? Such as the voting booth?

Next time: Final questions for which I have a partial answer.
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema

Karma: 148
Posts: 2942

« Reply #31 on: June 24, 2014, 05:16:32 PM »

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.

Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema

Karma: 148
Posts: 2942

« Reply #32 on: July 07, 2014, 05:22:37 PM »

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.
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema

Karma: 148
Posts: 2942

« Reply #33 on: July 17, 2014, 04:30:23 PM »

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.
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema

Karma: 148
Posts: 2942

« Reply #34 on: July 22, 2014, 12:07:15 PM »

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.
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema

Karma: 148
Posts: 2942

« Reply #35 on: July 31, 2014, 05:31:02 PM »

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.
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema

Karma: 148
Posts: 2942

« Reply #36 on: August 11, 2014, 02:48:24 PM »

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.
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema

Karma: 148
Posts: 2942

« Reply #37 on: August 18, 2014, 05:58:32 PM »

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.

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.

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.
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema

Karma: 148
Posts: 2942

« Reply #38 on: August 28, 2014, 04:29:29 PM »

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.

Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema

Karma: 148
Posts: 2942

« Reply #39 on: September 11, 2014, 06:47:04 PM »

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.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 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.