Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

**A Cousin** · (This post was last modified: 16-03-2011 03:05 PM by A Cousin.)

(15-03-2011 10:58 PM)binkie Wrote: Your optimism apparently knows no bounds

Nah! Just trying to make sense of all the posts. It seems to go round and round and round. I have a hard time absorbing all of it.

(15-03-2011 11:55 PM)WhiteSwan Wrote: 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.

Not the question I asked, but I can dig what you are saying here, it was the sudden the turn around and lack of back-story. Spooks has done that plenty of times before and it worked. So, to answer the question I asked, is there anything they could have done differently that would have allowed you to accept it in any way? If so, what?

(16-03-2011 12:11 AM)Byatil Wrote: 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?!

I've done that. When I have done it, it has turned out to be a good thing! What I am trying to get all of you help me with is make some order of this for myself, not confuse myself further. The question requires that you a) accept Lucas as the evil sociopath, b) choose the most greviously errant plot hole (or two) for you, and c) how you you have fixed it so that you could have bought it.

(16-03-2011 04:39 AM)BravoNine Wrote: 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.

Thank you for being so succint in your response, Bravo. You and binkie are actually the two that got me thinking along these lines. You have both expressed the thought that some of the plot holes you would have accepted. Re-watching S6 and the Connie story prompted me too. You're a writer, how would you have done Lucas recruitment into 5 differently to make it believable for you?

(16-03-2011 08:57 AM)penfold Wrote: 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!

Endearing - I like that! Its a good term for it! Smile

re: Nicholas Blake as a Nightingale member. For me I bought the logic that sometimes the best place to hide is in plain view. I won't go into my personal experiences in this area, but it has happened to me in a rather horrible almost lost my job kind of way. (I was not the perpetrator.) Suffice it to say that if one makes effort to be practically perfect in every way but one, that one will be harder to identify. So what is it about NB as a Nightingale member specifically that bugs you? How would you fix it. Would you just cut it? How would that have affected the series as a whole?

I have questions for all who have answered my question. Just not the time to respond in one go! I'll be back later.