Plot-holes

[Byatil]

(25-01-2011 12:27 AM)binkie Wrote:  [Sigh] So here are some Lucas-is-his-own-plot-hole questions, and even an attempt to resolve some of them. The key word there, obviously, being ‘attempt’. It is getting to the point now where my greatest concern is that the fabled ‘Downfall of Lucas North’ feature on the season 9 DVD is going to establish that Lucas-is-John really was the intention for the character from the start. Given how incoherently it was done, I’m not sure if this is a better thing than the unsuccessful retcon we have generally assumed season 9 to be in respect of this character. Either way, it was an operational failure, and all these questions apply whether Lucas-is-John was a plan or a convenient get-out.

I seriously hope they don't try and tell us the whole Lucas-is-John plot was intentional I will forever lose my faith in the writers if they do. It's just absurd to think that the S7 writers would have taken Lucas' character in such a direction, but I digress.

(25-01-2011 12:27 AM)binkie Wrote:  1 – Why did Lucas-is-John not kill Vaughan, as well as Lucas-really-Lucas, in Dakar? If he was opportunistic enough to kill his friend for a passport, he was ruthless enough to realise the foolhardiness of leaving a witness to his every crime.

The only explanation I can come up with for this one is that Lucas-is-John was too scared to go through with it. I'm assuming Vaughn was someone he grew to admire and look-up-to; a father-figure, so to speak. Vaughn was the one calling all the shots in their relationship - he had total control. Lucas-is-John killed Lucas-really-Lucas because Vaughn suggested he should, did he not? Vaughn handed Lucas-is-John the suitcase that was to blow up the embassy with Lucas-is-John thinking that he could trust him. Once Lucas-is-John had murdered Lucas-really-Lucas, it might seem totally illogical to him to then go on to kill the man who he thinks is helping him. This is the crucial element, I feel. Lucas-is-John still believes Vaughn to be a 'good' person at this point, ultimately someone who is helping him out of a sticky-situation. Of course, once Lucas-is-John has reinvented himself on his return to England, Vaughn apparently (conveniently) disappears for 15 years. This explanation does require the suspension of any form of morality in the face of fear on Lucas-is-John's part, but it's the only rational explanation I can formulate!

(25-01-2011 12:27 AM)binkie Wrote:  2 – Does Lucas-is-John really believe that “I was so careful” extends to online and telephone research into the whereabouts of the mother of a former MI5 officer using government secure equipment in a government office? I have, in the recent past, worked for a judicial office of government. Keystrokes were logged, ‘phone calls were monitored, e-mails were filtered through GSI, URLs outside the .gov.uk domain were flagged. I am hardly crouching librarian, hidden traitor, but even I have a better understanding of the concept of ‘careful’ in secreting blatantly illegal activity... in the workplace!!

"Crouching librarian, hidden traitor" xD!

I think in order to make this believable we're expected to think that MI5 have extremely lax security standards... there really is no logical explanation for the way Lucas-is-John managed to land a job with MI5, or as to how he managed to completely cover-up the murder of Lucas-really-Lucas.

(25-01-2011 12:27 AM)binkie Wrote:  3 – If we are to conclude, as season 9 wishes us to do, that the reason for Lucas-is-John’s lack of personal effects is he was consciously and intentionally distancing himself from any statement of personality (since he didn’t really have one; or, the one he was using wasn’t really his, and he didn’t know how to express it), what are we to make of the quite plainly personal possessions shown in 7.2? Why does Lucas have a life in a box, but Lucas-is-John has only anonymous interior design kit?

Once again... something I can't make any sense of. Lucas' obsessions with figures such as Blake are focussed on throughout S7 and 8, yet we are expected to believe that these interests and beliefs are either a lie, or have been adapted from another man...? I don't think you can really 'adapt' to someone else's morality, no matter how terrible your psychological trauma. If we are to believe that Lucas-is-John would have been forced to base his personality on Lucas-really-Lucas, then it seems that Lucas-is-John didn't actually have any interest in the things he thought he was interested in at all. Essentially, we are expected to believe that Lucas-is-John is unaware of the fact that his beliefs are not his own. Which hardly makes sense, because surely, at the point where he accepted another man's beliefs (even as a coping mechanism), they essentially became his own? Yet he lived his life the way "Lucas would have wanted to", so it seems Lucas-is-John was aware that his beliefs were not his own. So then, why force himself through torture and interrogation for 8 years under the pretence that it was 'Harry's fault', even though Lucas-is-John should feel no anger towards Harry seeing as he admits the torture to be some form of "personal punishment" for murdering Lucas-really-Lucas? Was his doubt over Harry's trust (and therefore his relationship with Katchimov) completely manufactured to create a more believable "Lucas North" by Lucas-is-John?

I think I'll try and address some of the other points tomorrow, even though some of them seem beyond redemption and only seem to raise more questions! I seriously hope BBC/Kudos researchers come across this forum at some point