Plot-holes

[penfold]

Agree HellsBells -how boring the world would be if we all thought the same.

[molecatcher]

(07-04-2011 09:45 PM)Byatil Wrote:  

(07-04-2011 07:02 PM)molecatcher Wrote:  Anyway, as someone else suggested I do, I'll get off the thread since my opinion is causing such a furore.

Aw, please don't! Not before I've asked you a couple of questions, at least?

Do you have any issues with the way S9 was conducted at all, or do you just see it as light-hearted entertainment? How many series of Spooks have you watched prior to S9? Are you more interested in the "threat of the week" or the characters?

I'm just interested because I watched Silk recently, and whilst the character plots were at times ridiculous and often completely unrealistic, I went along with it because it was entertaining and I enjoyed the characters. Is that how you view Spooks? I wonder if some of us are a little too emotionally invested in the show to disregard a plot as "light-hearted entertainment", which, whilst not entirely plausible, is still "good drama".

I can't say I had any real issues with Series 9 and nothing in the way of a plot hole jumped out at me although initially Harry proposing to Ruth was a giant leap from the previous series but I understood the writers had to move them on rapidly in order to set them up nicely for some emotional turmoil. I only became a fan at the start of Series 8 because work commitments previously restricted tv viewing. That first episode when Harry and Ruth were reunited was so moving I needed to find out what had gone before so I then purchased Series 1-7 over a few months to see what I'd missed. For me, and it is just a personal opinion (!!), Spooks is pure entertainment and yet the writers often appear to have a crystal ball with their ability to foresee national and international threats in real life. Yes, of course I get caught up in the characters but don't look on changes in their direction as a plot hole but rather an acknowledgement that we humans are complex characters and there's no knowing who always tells the truth or means what they say, especially in the world they live in. Lucas' story was unadulterated entertainment but it's not for me to say others should see it that way. I've read thrillers that have left me feeling let down when a character I loved turned out to be the villian but still applaud the author's ability to surprise and even upset me.

I haven't seen Silk but sounds like your approach was great, sit back and enjoy the ride.

[HellsBells]

I personally don't think that Lucas' change in direction was a plot hole, but felt that if the writers were going to take that particular direction then I wanted the reasons, the why and the how explained to me, for example how does someone get into MI5 by pretending to be someone else.

The Harry marriage proposal also jumped out at me to, but I agree with you that there had to be some movement in their story, it also allowed new viewers to understand (partly) their relationship.

[molecatcher]

(11-04-2011 03:29 PM)HellsBells Wrote:  I personally don't think that Lucas' change in direction was a plot hole, but felt that if the writers were going to take that particular direction then I wanted the reasons, the why and the how explained to me, for example how does someone get into MI5 by pretending to be someone else.

The Harry marriage proposal also jumped out at me to, but I agree with you that there had to be some movement in their story, it also allowed new viewers to understand (partly) their relationship.

I thought it was explained. John got in with a bad crowd, murdered his double, the real Lucas, to escape knowing he'd been interviewed and already accepted into MI5. It's a huge organisaton so it would just be a case of John avoiding those people who initially vetted Lucas. Not an amazingly strong story I'll give you but it was there nonetheless. How does anyone do anything in fictional stories? Don't answer that, I'm moving on and will see you all in September (or whenever) for the start of Series 10.

[BravoNine]

(14-04-2011 12:23 PM)molecatcher Wrote:  I thought it was explained. John got in with a bad crowd, murdered his double, the real Lucas, to escape knowing he'd been interviewed and already accepted into MI5. It's a huge organisaton so it would just be a case of John avoiding those people who initially vetted Lucas.

I'm sorry but it was a flimsy explanation at best.

When your whole central storyline is hinged on a plausible character change this dramatic, you have to explain more clearly than simple few quick gloss-overs. Oh yes they touched on his reasons briefly, but the story was more about "what" he did than "why" or "how" he was doing it, which is just as important as the "what", and maybe if the show was a soap opera, it would be okay, but for a drama that boasts its ability to be realistic, it failed at doing its job.

The real Lucas North had not had his interview yet, his application was accepted, but he was not interviewed, and this is where John/Lucas stepped in and magically sailed through the interview without raising any alerts or having anyone notice that he is not the real Lucas North. No offense, but I don't care how big an organization MI5 may be, am I suppose to believe that they have no database carrying agent pictures before doing interviews? A simple gym in Africa still carries the real Lucas North's IDs yet somehow MI5 can't even find it? And the only explanation (if you can even call it that) of how John/Lucas got into MI5 was just a simple toss-away line of how John/Lucas sailed through the interview, filling in the missing pieces, and because real Lucas had already gone through initial vetting. It was a rather lame attempt at an explanation.

And I don't even want to get into the non-explained issue of what is really going on with John. Did he suffer from mental illness or was he just an evil guy? That wasn't even bothered with by the writers either.

This was in the end, a shock and awe, hell even the writers themselves pretty much admits to it in their own commentaries that they thought this was an intriguing storyline, that they didn't really have to fit in all the explanation because it was cool.

But I suppose if one just watches a show to simply pass time and enjoy, then sure, it doesn't really matter. But as a passionate fan of my shows, I like to be engaged, to feel like the writers aren't treating me like an idiot, and that I get quality on my shows. Needless to say, the Spooks writers this series failed.

[A Cousin]

(14-04-2011 12:43 PM)BravoNine Wrote:  When your whole central storyline is hinged on a plausible character change this dramatic, you have to explain more clearly than simple few quick gloss-overs. Oh yes they touched on his reasons briefly, but the story was more about "what" he did than "why" or "how" he was doing it, which is just as important as the "what", and maybe if the show was a soap opera, it would be okay, but for a drama that boasts its ability to be realistic, it failed at doing its job.

Ya know, I don't agree with that last statement. Spooks has done nothing but market itself as, and I quote, "high octane hokum." It hasn't been even marginally "realistic" since S2 when they lost their ex-MI5 consultant. Sure, every now and again they hit kinda close to the mark politically or they sort of surprise even themselves by projecting a specific event and golly-gee, it happens! In the end. Theater is about ordinary people put in extraordinary circumstances. The circumstances of MI5 have always been extraordinary!

As for the MI5 vetting process presented in S9, does it make sense in the real world? I hope not! Is Spooks the real world? I hope not! I allow it because I accept that an extraordinary character like Lucas found a way to wiggle through the cracks. I've seen it happen in my life although on a much much much smaller scale. Its an option. A highly improbable, but possible, option. So I jumped the hole.

Thinking about the Harry/Ruth proposal, I like think of that more as plot-chasm than a plot-hole. It's bridgeable because we already had a lot of back story for both characters. And while it may have been an eentsy-teensy bit of a pander to the fans (IMO, of course) it wasn't out of the realm of possibility. As others have said, it drew a line under their history and said, OK, we start from here.

All three of the focus characters in S9 - Harry, Ruth and Lucas - had a bit of a reset in S9.

(14-04-2011 12:43 PM)BravoNine Wrote:  Needless to say, the Spooks writers this series failed.

Hahaha, as my 10 year old would say, "Epic fail!" Although I don't agree categorically. Most of S9 was very successful for me. Unfortunately the one part that did not work for me morphed into the main plot line. When Lucas became the threat of the week, it lost me.

[HellsBells]

I think Spooks works because they do think carefully about how the plot would/could work to at least make the story plausible. I'm thinking of the fact that Towers referred to the coalition government, that this was inserted after the results of the election was known, to make it as realistic as possible. If Lucas was the threat of the week, his storyline deserved that much attention to detail. But I sure that non-Lucas fans would have hated the scene time devoted to Lucas to make sense of the storyline, after all it is not the Lucas North Show!!

[BravoNine]

(14-04-2011 03:06 PM)A Cousin Wrote:  As for the MI5 vetting process presented in S9, does it make sense in the real world? I hope not! Is Spooks the real world? I hope not! I allow it because I accept that an extraordinary character like Lucas found a way to wiggle through the cracks. I've seen it happen in my life although on a much much much smaller scale. Its an option. A highly improbable, but possible, option. So I jumped the hole.

Though the cracks that contradict itself at every turn, and barely explained properly?

I'm sure people wiggle through the cracks all the time, but when the very center point of your main storyline is built upon cracks, then how can it be a well-constructed story?

The writers expect me to believe in this drastic sudden 180 character change and newly created backstory we've never heard and a new love interest, that's all fine and dandy, but if they want me to believe that, they better give me some damn solid evidence. I don't need flimsy explanation or quickly glossed over quips. I want a real proper explanation, I want to see the logic that makes sense. That is not too much to ask for in writing a good story because I have seen it done well.

Maybe my expectations are high, but Spooks has always held itself up as quality good drama, so I expect it to be done well.

And if other shows that I watch can bring in plausible and well-written sudden character changes (and Spooks itself had done well with Connie), then I see no reason why they couldn't put more effort into explaining and outlining all the focus points of Lucas's storyline.

This whole thing hinges on Lucas getting into MI5 undetected, making his alias so airtight that no one ever figured it out......yet somehow a newbie agent with less than 5 minutes on the computer finds out the truth? Sorry but a quick little toss-over line is not an explanation, and at this point, it will never be satisfactory for me.

As a writer myself, I'm disappointed at the story planning.

[Jackk14]

(21-01-2011 09:40 AM)Belle Wrote:  also:

When Lucas was interrogated in Russia, wouldn't the Russians have found out about him being John?

If so, why didn't they do something with that info?

What was the point of sacrificing 8 years of his life, if Lucas wasn't Lucas in the first place?

The total shift of personality, simply triggered by a suitcase?

Apologies for quoting from so far back, this may have already been explained, but tl;dr.

Despite John acting as Lucas, he'd still been a spy for the British for a while, so whatever his identity he still knew stuff about the Security Services that the Russians could use. I think they would assume that the British SS had carried out the neccessary checks to ascertain who Lucas was, and the Russians wouldn't bother, they'd just torture him for the information.

They kept him simply because he was a spy and was probably caught spying on the Russians.

[WhiteSwan]

(18-04-2011 11:46 PM)Jackk14 Wrote:  Despite John acting as Lucas, he'd still been a spy for the British for a while, so whatever his identity he still knew stuff about the Security Services that the Russians could use. I think they would assume that the British SS had carried out the neccessary checks to ascertain who Lucas was, and the Russians wouldn't bother, they'd just torture him for the information.

They kept him simply because he was a spy and was probably caught spying on the Russians.

If Lucas had in reality been John, there would have been no need to torture him. He would have made a deal with the Russians, giving them all the information they wanted and betraying his country without a moment's hesitation in exchange for being happily reunited with the love of his life. Because John Bateman wasn't someone prepared to suffer for any higher moral values, he was portrayed to us as a treacherous wimp whose only real interest in life was to be back in the arms of Maya. That's why that whole story just doesn't make any sense at all.