@bluesqueakpip
Which is why the argument that Broadchurch was saved by the amazing acting isn’t really valid.
It is also a straw man.
Broadchurch was brilliant, character-centred drama, which the fairly slight plot supported well.
Broadchurch 2 was a train wreck that never hit its stride because it relied on too many absurdities to sustain willing suspension of disbelief – and all storytelling relies on that..
Nobody here – or anywhere else that I’ve seen – has complained about the strong female characters (another straw man from upthread). The problems is the fundamental flaws of structure and execution of the story. We we never allowed to give a stuff about the victims and it had 2 new characters who were both introduced as brilliant, who then behaved in a quite incredible (as in, lacking in credibility) stupidity.
And then there’s the fastest recovery from heart surgery ever. Lancet articles will be written about it.
But it was sustained by the main leads giving it everything.
We can only hope that he pulls a Highlander and airbrushes 2 out of history.
My hope comes from the fact that I have liked his Who episodes. 42 was fun for what it was (a knowing spoof of 24), DOAS was a hoot and the Silurian 2 parter intelligent and thoughtful – and, as you say, he writes strong characters. What I haven’t seen yet (because no opportunity within Who, and severe doubts outwith) is enough evidence that he can maintain a character in a credible way.
But he’s got the gig now, so back him and let’s have fun finding out.
