How did you feel about Season 9?

[BoHenley]

For me, it's the fact that MI5 didn't pick up that he was John/Lucas that's the most unbelievable part of the whole stupid S9 storyline. And it could've been (almost) circumvented by the inclusion of one small scene: Lucas at the computer changing his details AFTER being hired (like Beth did). They could've done this in a flashback, as obviously the Lucas=John idea didn't exist when S7 and S8 were written.

And another great summary Binkie, Belle, Kiirayuki (and others).

Best part of S9 for me (in order) = RA because quite simply he was outstanding, NW - elevated to another level, PF - the man is a genius. Loved the others, and quite a few of the guest stars (eg Kai) but those 3 were just amazing. I'm starting to ignore the story and just enjoy such great acting, and also some brilliant directing (see Kirayuki's post) and cinematography.

[BravoNine]

I will forever sit here and glare at Series 9 unless one day they decide to fix and retcon it and redeem Lucas.

[BoHenley]

You're far too intelligent for that, Bravo. Pick out the good bits, and there were plenty, watch the brilliant acting and some great cinematography, and ignore the ending.

[Byatil]

I agree, the entire sub-plot undermined the Lucas/John plot for me. There is no conceivable way that John could have only had to sit through an interview to get the job. There is no way that the real Lucas would have undergone a series of evaluations without anyone ever seeing what he looked like. The entire thing is a farce, and it just seriously undermines our intelligence! I refuse to believe that it would be that easy for John to 'become' Lucas and magically secure the job Lucas had been attempting to get at MI5. It just doesn't make sense... especially when you factor in people like Beth who were rejected in the past.

The more I think about it, the more it annoys me. Nothing the writers created for John's past made any real sense. I understand that it is possible for someone to 'believe' they are someone else, but it was never explained how well John knew Lucas before he murdered him. To make yourself believe you are someone else, you literally have to become them. Act like they would, think like they would, dress like they would. This was never properly explained... and even then, I don't see why it was only the suitcase that triggered anything - surely it should have been the appearance of Vaughn that would have shaken John up the most. Maya seemed wholly irrelevant - once again, because nothing about her was explained properly!

I do wonder if this series would have made more sense if there had been 2 more hours of film to play with, but as it stands, the entire plot makes so little sense it's insulting. It was good entertainment, and there were some fun moments as well as a lot of fantastic acting, but the actual writing was ridiculous on the whole.

[BravoNine]

(21-11-2010 02:11 PM)Byatil Wrote:  There is no way that the real Lucas would have undergone a series of evaluations without anyone ever seeing what he looked like.

EXACTLY my point! Is MI5 security THAT bad? Did they not know the real Lucas North had been in Dakar? Wouldn't that come through on the security checks? Wouldn't Harry then have already known that Lucas had been in Dakar?

I mean seriously! What happened to procedure? I don't care that John was supposedly a natural and sailed through the interview, I am suppose to believe that no one ever went looking for the real Lucas North? That he had no family or friends that may wonder where he is?

That there are no photographs taken of him to match during the interview? No one noticed that this guy looked different??

Well it's no wonder moles are in MI5 everyday, if they never saw Lucas/John coming, then clearly they can't see their way out of a paper bag and is a joke of an intelligence agency!

And how did it take Beth about 5 seconds to locate a photo of the real Lucas North? I thought John said that he had been so careful, well clearly not careful enough!

There are a lot of things I can suspend my disbelief for in a storyline, and I have done that many times for Spooks, but this is just getting ridiculous! So I guess I'm suppose to believe that John Bateman not only hoodwinked MI5, but also the CIA, the Chinese, the FSB, and just about every other intelligence agency who never knew his true identity! I mean WOW, so everyone is apparently stupid and useless then. One man fooled them all, and they call themselves "intelligence" agencies?

[binkie]

Thanks very much to everyone who took the time to start unpicking the suitability question.

Belle provides an excellent assessment of the suitability question as it applies to the Lucas/John storyline, while illustrating the extent to which it can be held to have been rather more successful in its application to other characters:

(20-11-2010 11:19 PM)Belle Wrote:  Unless John/Lucas suffered from split personality disorder none of this makes sense, because they are not the same person! ... I don't really think the sub-theme had a purpose, maybe in Harry and Ruth's story (Harry becoming softer and in doubt of his abilities and Ruth hardening up but also in doubt)...

Thanks also to Kirayuki for addressing some interesting issues around subjective memory. I am, as part of a lengthening list, working on something for the Lucas thread about the treatment of memory in relation to this character across seasons 7 and 8 (I do have other interests, honestly!). BravoNine, BoHenley and Byatil all point out some of the many logic gaps in the execution of the storyline. I suspect we will never tire of doing this!

I’m just going to have to be a pedant for a moment now (it is, as Harry might say, sort of in the nature of my job description) and maybe clarify my interest.

The problem I am trying to resolve is not so much whether the writers served well the sub-theme of suitability, or whether this was done in a logical or rigorous way. I think we can all pretty much accept that it wasn’t. I understand that the writers believe they are trying to make us think about existential interpretations of identity. What I do not understand is what the writers expect us to do now with what seems to be the conclusion of the suitability sub-theme that there is no such thing as suitability? This is what I mean when I suggest the sub-theme invalidates itself. What does the conclusion mean for the narrative and emotional integrity of the show, both retrospectively and in future? Ignoring, for the moment, the fact that the character used by the writers to develop this sub-theme was John/Lucas, and ignoring the individual details of that storyline, my questions are: what are we to take from the suitability question? And what are we to do with this information now we have it?

[Byatil]

(21-11-2010 03:19 PM)binkie Wrote:  The problem I am trying to resolve is not so much whether the writers served well the sub-theme of suitability, or whether this was done in a logical or rigorous way. I think we can all pretty much accept that it wasn’t. I understand that the writers believe they are trying to make us think about existential interpretations of identity. What I do not understand is what the writers expect us to do now with what seems to be the conclusion of the suitability sub-theme that there is no such thing as suitability? This is what I mean when I suggest the sub-theme invalidates itself. What does the conclusion mean for the narrative and emotional integrity of the show, both retrospectively and in future? Ignoring, for the moment, the fact that the character used by the writers to develop this sub-theme was John/Lucas, and ignoring the individual details of that storyline, my questions are: what are we to take from the suitability question? And what are we to do with this information now we have it?

I think the main thing I gathered from it is that emotions cannot get in the way of your job - because it's emotions which affect your suitability, ultimately. In a way, perhaps they were trying to show us that it's only human to make mistakes, and that whilst (sorry, going to have to use examples here) Lucas was very good at his job, it was only when he was emotionally-detached from the situation that he worked best. We also saw this with Jo in series 7 - after her rape and imprisonment, she was no longer suitable for the job. She couldn't detach herself from it anymore.

We're beginning to see this in terms of Harry and Ruth's relationship as well. Harry's judgements are beginning to be affected by his concern for Ruth - which is in stark contrast with how he treats her when she returns form Morocco in series 8! It seems that the major characters are all beginning to get too emotive, whereas Ruth, who has always been the person who can relate to others on a more emotional level... seems to be losing that somewhat. Are we going to see a massive role-reversal in her relationship with Harry I wonder?

Beth wasn't suitable for a job at MI5 because she seemed too selfishly motivated, as well as not appearing trust-worthy. She returns, and is accepted. What has changed? Why do they trust her now? Is it because she helped Lucas? Once again, emotions are coming into play here.

I think the suitability theme is very strongly linked with the theme of loyalty and trust. Lucas was always loyal to his job, even though he wasn't ever really trusted. The fact that he was loyal pulled him through though. He was suitable because he would deliver results, at whatever cost. That in turn, ironically, creates stronger emotional bonds between the team - which is their hamartia in a way. Whilst they are human, emotional, and care for one another, they will always be weaker than the people they are fighting against.

I hope that makes sense, and I hope you were referring to suitability in terms of the job! Otherwise I might look like a bit of an idiot

[Belle]

(21-11-2010 03:19 PM)binkie Wrote:  The problem I am trying to resolve is not so much whether the writers served well the sub-theme of suitability, or whether this was done in a logical or rigorous way. I think we can all pretty much accept that it wasn’t. I understand that the writers believe they are trying to make us think about existential interpretations of identity. What I do not understand is what the writers expect us to do now with what seems to be the conclusion of the suitability sub-theme that there is no such thing as suitability? This is what I mean when I suggest the sub-theme invalidates itself. What does the conclusion mean for the narrative and emotional integrity of the show, both retrospectively and in future? Ignoring, for the moment, the fact that the character used by the writers to develop this sub-theme was John/Lucas, and ignoring the individual details of that storyline, my questions are: what are we to take from the suitability question? And what are we to do with this information now we have it?

About the narrative and emotional integrity of the show:
retrospectively: The former writers(S7&S8) couldn't know what the S9writers were up to, so I think the integrity of those two seasons remains untouched.

As for S9 and the future (depending on if there will be different writers or if it will be the same team): It seems like they started from scratch with the character of Lucas, S7 nor S8 appeared to be of any interest to them (they kept building on the Harry and Ruth story, however).
Because there were new writers, maybe they thought that they could have some 'artistic liberty' on the Lucas-theme, as in: they weren't obliged to follow what the previous seasons had given them. I have no idea how that can be reconciliated with contracts and so they surely must have signed in advance, but i'm not a lawyer.
So, I think we will have to wait and see what happens in S10 and then decide what to think of it in terms of integrity.

On what we have to take home from S9 in terms of suitability:
I do not know if it is ment that we even learn something from a series, maybe we could in the past, but with such dodgy storylines and character assassinations, i don't think they are people(the writers) we should learn from.
Maybe you are giving them too much credit when you say they are trying to make us think about identity, for they are the ones that came up with the no-sense-at-all-Lucas-John-thing.

Maybe there is a lesson in all of this, that people always will be people and never flawless, not the characters from this show, Harry, Ruth, Lucas, and not the writers.
I do believe that there is such a thing as suitability: one person would be good for a certain job and another person wouldn't be, but they still will be humans and no human is ever black and white, so one moment you will be 'more suitable' than the next moment, but to what extend you could find this rather heavy psychological debate back in a show like S9, i remain puzzled.

I also think that Byatil has a good view on this (see post above).

I hope that helps you somewhat, Binkie, if not tell me and I'll try again

[xRuthx]

It was far too hit and miss for my liking overall...

Like most people on here I enjoyed the plot of the week format but the Lucas/John storyline really overshadowed things and made me mad. Like Binkie says (and I believe implicitly in the power of words and the responsibility of people to think about how they are using them) it was reprehensible on the writer's part to rewrite Lucas as they did, invalidating his experiences as a tortured prison victim by making him a repressed villain and therefore as someone else pointed out, placing the blame on Lucas' weakness of spirit rather than the service's way of using its agents. It's one of the biggest things that bugged me and I know I am in the minority when I say this, but I also found it annoying how Harry was upheld as morally upright and correct, never having to ever face any consequences yet again for the upteenth season. The Harry/Lucas confrontation felt necessary for me but was dodged sideways for a storyline that allowed the writer's an easy way out that relied on shock value rather than intelligent drama. I am also annoyed that the integrity of seven and eight Lucas is now undermined. I am now going to have to watch seven and eight selectively ignoring show canon and I hate it when shows force you to do that.

I do have to say though that series nine isn't the worst series for me (that would be six) and I did enjoy the cinematography, makeup, costuming and the acting was outstanding! I also loved that Ruth became more of a character in her own right and I loved her story line in 9.4? (with the Chinese) and 9.7. Incidentally, the only time I believed in Lucas is John was in the 9.8 Ruth and Lucas scenes. They singlehandedly salvaged that finale for me (though I still think it's one of Spooks worst). I also liked alot of the guest stars... the Chinese guy was astounding, I liked the new CIA guy, Towers and the actress who played Daniella.

My overall feeling is frustration, because the series could have been one of the best and it fell flat on its face because of the Lucas/John debacle. 9.8 left me upset enough that despite my extreme love for Spooks, if Ruth dies/leaves in series ten or the storyline is such that we get a repeat of Lucas is John with another character in ten, I don't know if I will continue to watch Spooks. Also, please give Tariq. Dmitri and Beth storylines. Please. I miss old school Spooks when we knew bits about all of the characters

[Lomoto]

How did you feel about Season 9? ................



Simple, inspired me not to watch any more of this rubbish

The writers really took the micky out of the loyal followers with this far fetched storyline...who ever the writers were on this series deserves the boot....