+- Spooks Forum (http://www.spooksforum.co.uk)
+-- Forum: MI5 Operations (/forum-3.html)
+--- Forum: Series 9 (/forum-29.html)
+--- Thread: Plot-holes (/thread-1504.html)
RE: Plot-holes - HellsBells - 15-03-2011 02:09 PM
You're right binkie!! I think in 9.6 wasn't there a blind spot in the toilets or something where they had private meetings? So MI5 do have internal cameras just not a the main archive storage room?
RE: Plot-holes - binkie - 15-03-2011 10:19 PM
Evidently MI5 has learned nothing from the unfortunate incident between Connie and Ben and the killer underwear of 7.7 as to the importance of monitoring the archive storage areas
RE: Plot-holes - Byatil - 15-03-2011 10:28 PM
(15-03-2011 10:19 PM)binkie Wrote: Evidently MI5 has learned nothing from the unfortunate incident between Connie and Ben and the killer underwear of 7.7 as to the importance of monitoring the archive storage areas
Hah, I never thought of the fact that there were no cameras in the archives! That was at least believable though, seeing as Connie was inevitably going to be caught out whether it had been recorded or not. Believable enough for me not to have picked up on it, anyway
RE: Plot-holes - binkie - 15-03-2011 10:33 PM
(15-03-2011 10:28 PM)Byatil Wrote:(15-03-2011 10:19 PM)binkie Wrote: Evidently MI5 has learned nothing from the unfortunate incident between Connie and Ben and the killer underwear of 7.7 as to the importance of monitoring the archive storage areas
Hah, I never thought of the fact that there were no cameras in the archives! That was at least believable though, seeing as Connie was inevitably going to be caught out whether it had been recorded or not. Believable enough for me not to have picked up on it, anyway
Failure to monitor archive and library spaces just results in missed opportunities for information gathering in a number of areas of extra-curricular activity:
http://timesonline.typepad.com/dons_life/2010/10/bedding-down-in-the-library.html
Tsk! MI5 for being so lax
RE: Plot-holes - A Cousin - 15-03-2011 10:49 PM
What they need to do is keep their archives in the toilets!
So here are my questions to all plot-holers. Are there plot holes in S9 that you would have accepted at face value or been willing to overlook if there hadn't been so doggone many of them? Because, lets be honest, the willing suspension of disbelief has always been necessary to some extent with Spooks from the beginning. Is there one (or two) plot holes above all others that, if they hadn't done them or had explained them sufficiently, would have made the Lucas portion of S9 work for you? Accepting the idea of Lucas as an evil sociopath of epic proportions as a given, I am curious to find out what did work for you and/or how you would have fixed what didn't work for you to make it work for you.
RE: Plot-holes - binkie - 15-03-2011 10:58 PM
(15-03-2011 10:49 PM)A Cousin Wrote: What they need to do is keep their archives in the toilets!
Does the concept of document preservation in controlled environments mean nothing to you??!!! You're setting up either an extremely short-lived archive, or an extraordinarily complex convenience break
(15-03-2011 10:49 PM)A Cousin Wrote: So here are my questions to all plot-holers. Are there plot holes in S9 that you would have accepted at face value or been willing to overlook if there hadn't been so doggone many of them?...Is there one (or two) plot holes above all others that, if they hadn't done them or had explained them sufficiently, would have made the Lucas portion of S9 work for you? Accepting the idea of Lucas as an evil sociopath of epic proportions as a given,...
Your optimism apparently knows no bounds
RE: Plot-holes - WhiteSwan - 15-03-2011 11:55 PM
(15-03-2011 10:49 PM)A Cousin Wrote: So here are my questions to all plot-holers. Are there plot holes in S9 that you would have accepted at face value or been willing to overlook if there hadn't been so doggone many of them? Because, lets be honest, the willing suspension of disbelief has always been necessary to some extent with Spooks from the beginning. Is there one (or two) plot holes above all others that, if they hadn't done them or had explained them sufficiently, would have made the Lucas portion of S9 work for you? Accepting the idea of Lucas as an evil sociopath of epic proportions as a given, I am curious to find out what did work for you and/or how you would have fixed what didn't work for you to make it work for you.
Well, for me the biggest plot hole of all was exactly that - trying to tell us that Lucas wasn't really the Lucas of S7 and S8, but that he was an evil psychopath instead. It's something that I will never believe nor accept! If those writers hadn't come up with this ridiculous storyline, then I would have been willing to overlook a lot of things, but because of that "mother of all plot holes" I just can't help pointing out all the illogical and absurd developments of S9 - it's like therapy to me!
RE: Plot-holes - Byatil - 16-03-2011 12:11 AM
Just typed out a ridiculously long reply and then accidentally refreshed; currently in a severe state of depression over the loss of my precious anti-S9 argument, so will refrain from re-answering the posed questions until a later date. Why did my stupid finger have to slip and hit the F5 key?!
RE: Plot-holes - BravoNine - 16-03-2011 04:39 AM
My only issue is Lucas/John getting into MI5, if they had put out a decent explanation for how the hell the guy got through so easily, I would have gladly accepted any other little detail.
I mean, I understand that every show has its suspension of disbelief, hell I went through Series 8 just fine even though it was practically just Lucas and Ros running around saving the world. I didn't get all jumped about a lot of Spooks goofs over the years because the stories made sense then, at least those little overlooked things didn't matter as much.
But when a whole storyline hinges completely on the fact that Lucas/John got into MI5 so easily and they never bother to give a proper explanation and just expect me to take it at face value, well, I have a GIGANTIC issue with this!!
Even Connie being the Russian turncoat that she is made sense with her change as it was just her philosophy that turned during her years at MI5, she wasn't suddenly some random Russian woman who loved her country so much....
Lucas's turn just doesn't make sense, even if I can forgive it psychologically and understand why Lucas would break down or how he can fool everyone, just the fact that the technical aspect of this storyline made absolutely no sense and the writers did not even attempt to give a good explanation make me not ever believing this storyline.
If the writers won't even bother to make it seem real, why the hell should I take the effort to explain it or believe it for them?
RE: Plot-holes - penfold - 16-03-2011 08:57 AM
Like you BravoNine - I can and do overlook little hiccups- like getting from A to B in a nanosecond; staff members who don't remember Lucas hanging round the mainframe when their password was copied; spelling mistakes [Helman province anyone?].
They are almost endearing - but there are a few 'biggies' for me.
I couldn't really accept Connie as an FSB agent after her stint in 6:2, where she appeared to have a mini Porton Down in her basement, and saved the world; Nicholas Blake as a member of Nightingale -no! , and the Lucas/John 'revelation' - double no!