Alec Hardy Remembers And Dreams About Drowning As Much If Not More Than Actually Carrying Pipa’s Body

Wish Jodie the absolute best as the Thirteenth Doctor! You’ve shown us what you can do as Beth Latimer in Broadchurch with Chris Chibnall as the writer-- give us more of your brilliance now!

I refuse to believe that Jedi younglings, before they learned proper shielding, didn't accidentally broadcast an earworm song to the rest of the class and then get it stuck in their heads too.

Maybe I've seen too much Doctor Who, but having just finished reading the Outlander series my headcanon look for Brianna Fraser is similar to a young Catherine Tate.

Broadchurch is a story about mothers

Yes, it’s stated and shown that Alec Hardy and Ellie Miller are certainly the main characters, and Alec’s journey is certainly the most obvious storyline in the series, I won’t argue that.

But Broadchurch is a story about mothers.

The series opens up with a shot of Danny Latimer standing on the cliffs and then it cuts to Beth Latimer waking abruptly the next morning. Most of the first episode focuses on Beth and her journey finding Danny’s body, in fact, and her struggle trying to understand the loss of her son is a main focus of the first series. Several scenes in those episodes focus primarily on her:

(Realizing what “finding a body on the beach” might mean.)

(Opening of s1e2, when she’s folding Danny’s clothes.)

(S1e7. “I lay there thinking what would I go through to have him back? I’d be raped, I’d be tortured, I’d have a gang of men on me, I’d be left for dead if it meant [Danny] was safe.” This was Jodie Whittaker’s finest moment, in my opinion. She hits Beth’s desperation and agony right on the head.)

(And of course the moment when she tries to process the fact that it was Joe Miller who killed her son, and all of the fucked-up irony that comes with it.)

There are so many more moments when Beth is the prime example of the Mother Angle that Chibnall approaches but these were the moments when I think it was strongest.

Ellie is another example of mothers in this story. She’s constantly protective of Tom when Hardy pushes to speak to him and take part in the recreation. We all laugh at the moment when Ellie threatens to throw a cup of piss at her boss but the reason WHY she says it in the first place is the clue:

-”I’m his mum, I decide.”

-”Oh, so your commitment to this investigation stops outside these doors.”

Hardy tries to trump her authority over Tom. She explicitly states she doesn’t want her son to take part in the investigation in any way and Hardy keeps on pushing, even insulting her commitment as a police officer.

Don’t push the protective Mama Bear.

Favorite moment of Ellie as Protective-Mama-Bear is s1e8. It’s the moment that bothered me the most when Jocelyn Knight brings it up in s2.

Ellie does confront Joe as a wife, certainly, at the end of s1e8. But again it’s interesting to note exactly what it is that Joe asks that sets her off:

She’s in control enough to only scream at Joe from a distance in the beginning of this scene. It’s only when Joe requests to see Tom that she sets upon him uncontrollably.

Seriously, do not piss off the Protective Mama Bear.

S2 deals with Sandbrook more than it really deals with Broadchurch as a whole, I think, and it definitely focuses more on Alec as a character, but the theme of Mothers is still prevalent in the contrasting images of Cate Gillespie, a drunk and unable to cope with the loss of Pippa; Tess Henchard, Alec’s ex-wife who loves her daughter but is willing to keep her guilty actions a secret so that Daisy won’t hate her; Beth, focused so much on getting closure for Danny she almost forgets about her newborn child (until Mark’s actions shake her out of her obsessive need for ONLY Danny); and then finally Ellie again, warning Joe away from their sons with the threat of death if he dares show up around either Tom or Fred again. It will be very interesting to see what direction Chibnall will go with the Mothers theme in s3.

Throughout all of my recent research into Ulysses S Grant and William T Sherman, I realized that we were never really taught in school about the Western Theatre of the Civil War; i.e., Grant’s mostly-successful campaigning around the States of Kentucky, and Tennessee, and Missouri. It’s his and others’ victories there that later helped win the Mississippi River and cut the Confederacy in two.

But what do we learn about in Social Studies/History? Gettysburg. Fort Sumter. Bull Run/Manassas. Antietam. In other words, the Eastern Theatre of the War. And those battles were dominated by incompetent Union commanders for a large majority of them: McClellan, Burnside, Hooker, McClellan again-- men who were more likely to retreat at the very cusp of victory than jump forward and seize the day. It’s bad enough learning about the Eastern Theatre that I remember saying to my parents that with such incompetent commanders the Union deserved to lose the Civil War.

I understand that History class has only so much time to teach students, and I understand that the Civil War is too big to teach in-depth, but why do we focus so much on McClellan and Lee, Hooker and Lee, Burnside and Lee, Meade and Lee, and brush over such an important part of the War as the Western Theatre? We effectively forget about Grant and Sherman until they’ve entered the Eastern campaign, let alone all of their fellow commanders and soldiers, and their years of fighting to take back and then keep the Mississippi in Union hands.

you know it’s really hard to obsess about just one fandom. just really freaking hard, it’s like you look at people who can be into Harry Potter for ten years of their life and I’m just over here thinking HOW DO YOU STAY IN ONE FANDOM FOR 10 FREAKING YEARS I DON’T HAVE THAT KIND OF TIME

At this point I’m half-convinced that there will be no release date for Good Omens; Amazon will simply put all of the episodes up and not tell anyone, and wait for the first fan to find out.

'Nuff said.

Dear Avengers fandom:

Here’s the thing about Steve Rogers; he is not a delicate little flower. He is not really at all about patriotism, and you could even argue he’s not really about America, at least not exclusively. He is an extremely charismatic and intelligent leader, though he does sometimes have his faults when it comes to that. He’s a complex and compelling character, and when you distill his characteristics into a single, innocent, naive, cookie-cutter narrative, it honestly weakens the interesting aspects of who he is.

He is not completely ignorant about sex, sarcasm, or swearing. Steve Rogers frequently has sex, often initiates it, has an extremely dry sense of humor, and swears a lot, especially under stress. While he loves America, he’s slightly cynical because of how much it has changed since his time, and how he never asked to defend a time period that isn’t his.

His main things, however, are nobility and loyalty. He does what he thinks is right, even if it goes against the government, even if it involves violence or killing. He does what needs to be done, even if he doesn’t want to do so. He’s only human, after all.

I know that MCU Steve is different than comics Steve, but using the lack of MCU development to distill his character into an unfairly flat one is simply not something that should happen.

“As long as you are proud, you cannot know God. A proud man is always looking down on things and people; and, of course, as long as you are looking down, you cannot see anything that is above you.”

— C. S. Lewis