+- Spooks Forum (http://www.spooksforum.co.uk)
+-- Forum: MI5 Operations (/forum-3.html)
+--- Forum: General Discussion (/forum-20.html)
+--- Thread: Spooks = Reality... Sort of? (/thread-193.html)
RE: Spooks = Reality... Sort of? - almh - 11-10-2009 04:36 PM
What's that???
RE: Spooks = Reality... Sort of? - Tomsdouble - 11-10-2009 04:44 PM
You know, French philosopher Jean Baudrillard. He coined the term 'hyper-reality' to mean those artificial realities we create such 'James Herriot Country' (when referring to an area of North Yorkshire where Herriot set fictional works. So cos its fictional it can't be real.... It's basically a blurring of reality with some made-up version. Oh god, this is getting all very pretentious, sorry. But getting back to the point, Spooks is very real when I watch it, it can be nothing but!
RE: Spooks = Reality... Sort of? - almh - 11-10-2009 04:46 PM
I am so glad that I didn't chose Philosophy A-level! But it sounds interesting.
It is so easy to get pulled into a television program so you think it's real, and the characters are real. I have a problem where I keep getting too pulled into a program, and can't get out. Hence fanfiction
and videos, backgrounds, icons...
RE: Spooks = Reality... Sort of? - Tomsdouble - 11-10-2009 04:53 PM
Spooks is the sort of programme that pulls you in. Anyone I have lent the DVDs to has got right into it without fail. Don't really do the fanfiction thing and cos I'm so new I still have a lot of the forum to see. I don't want to get lost in Spooks that much that I fail to tell which reality I'm in! Roll on series 8!
RE: Spooks = Reality... Sort of? - RoninExec - 11-10-2009 06:10 PM
Fictional is fine, even if it's not real. But on themes like those brought up in "Spooks", things gotta be plausible
On one hand you are watching a show alright, based on credible events, even if a little "enhanced" for production constraints such as time or locations. There are stories behind stories, second and third degree interpretations, links to moments and places, people with their skills (or lack thereof), weaknesses, interests...
On the other hand, you are watching a TV show and can't really take it beyond a very superficial first degree, because there is none. Characters are all skilled in everything, from surveillance to firearms to computers (well, until a plot twist requires that they get stupid all of a sudden of course, and then they get hit on the head when going thru a door - pathetic!). It becomes a show like "24". Dumb stuff.
Spooks used to be (up to S4) all of the former. And this is what made its particular flavor : credibility. Since then, it's been sliding towards the latter, a UK version of a terrible (although successful) US show.
RE: Spooks = Reality... Sort of? - almh - 11-10-2009 06:16 PM
I wouldn't say that it's been getting worse, I would say that it was getting better. They may have been closer to the truth in the beginning, as you say, 'enhanced for production constraints,' but I think that the more recent series have a bit more oomph, and I have to admit I love explosions. I would say that the sliding scale that Spooks is on is the one between completely believable non-fiction and utterly non-believable drama that purely exists for people who love romance, explosions, and no real plot. The best tv programs have to lie in the middle of that scale, to have a believable plot, and also the romance, etc. It's getting the balance that's hard and something that I feel that Spooks have been getting better at. Occasionally, I agree, it does lurch a bit far over towards the superficial, but overall I think it's still getting better and better, instead of sliding back down.
RE: Spooks = Reality... Sort of? - RoninExec - 11-10-2009 06:20 PM
I'd say you are a fan.
RE: Spooks = Reality... Sort of? - almh - 11-10-2009 06:22 PM
A fan of what? Spooks or post series 4 specifically?
RE: Spooks = Reality... Sort of? - Tomsdouble - 11-10-2009 06:33 PM
In many ways RoninExec, I agree. The early series were, for me, the better ones and parts of series 4 and 5 are patchy. Part of this is because they were not as 'reality-based' as the previous ones. It also helps if the writers avoid cliche. Sometimes the odd clunking phrase or sentiment comes tumbling out of the telly but mostly it's not the case, and I mention cliche as for me you can tell if a writer is really taking care of his or story by the language used. If cliches are dotted about then what else is wrong with the overall writing of it? First cliche and then implausability?
If a writer can be original then they can also keep it rooted in something like reality. Not that far-fetched episodes are entirely cliche-free, just making the point that a writer should take care with what is written. I don't want to hear a wonderful character like Harry uttering the words 'this could light the blue touchpaper'. It's sloppy writing and Spooks is usually so good that I expect better. Maybe someone can write an academic paper on the link between cliche and implausability???
RE: Spooks = Reality... Sort of? - ausfan - 16-10-2009 04:16 PM
Have to remember that London got hit by the bombs aroun series 3 or 4 and the threat against them became more apparent. With the security services given more powers etc. I think its good the writers brought change to the show without actually going into the bombings etc.
sorry if that made no sense maybe one to many drinks tonight.