Search
Member List
Help
|
Series 9 Newspaper Reviews / Viewing figures etc
|
|
06-10-2010, 09:47 PM
Post: #41
|
|||
|
|||
RE: Series 9 Newspaper Reviews / Viewing figures etc
(06-10-2010 07:19 AM)Tea Lady Wrote: Article in the Independent today. More general than season 9 specific. Anyone else get annoyed that they simply refer to Harry as head of MI5? I thought the DG was the TopDog with Harry being Head of Section D? |
|||
|
|
07-10-2010, 07:29 AM
(This post was last modified: 07-10-2010 07:29 AM by JHyde.)
Post: #42
|
|||
|
|||
|
RE: Series 9 Newspaper Reviews / Viewing figures etc
That mistake has been made a lot over the years, I've noticed. It doesn't help that Harry is actually Section Head as opposed to Section Chief (currently Lucas).
![[Image: colleagues.png]](http://i973.photobucket.com/albums/ae211/TygerMag/spooks/colleagues.png) Many thanks to Tyger for a terrific signature |
|||
|
|
|
07-10-2010, 09:37 AM
Post: #43
|
|||
|
|||
|
RE: Series 9 Newspaper Reviews / Viewing figures etc
I may have this wrong but didn't "Racing Rupert" even say to Clarkson on Top Gear that Peter was head of MI5? Doesn't help does it.
![[Image: Banner106smaller.jpg]](http://i847.photobucket.com/albums/ab32/thorpy74/Banner106smaller.jpg)
|
|||
|
|
|
08-10-2010, 02:27 PM
Post: #44
|
|||
|
|||
|
RE: Series 9 Newspaper Reviews / Viewing figures etc
Now cracks a noble heart. Good-night, sweet [Spooks]; And flights of angels sing thee to thy rest. ~Wm. Shakespeare, Hamlet |
|||
|
|
|
08-10-2010, 02:35 PM
Post: #45
|
|||
|
|||
RE: Series 9 Newspaper Reviews / Viewing figures etc
(08-10-2010 02:27 PM)A Cousin Wrote: This is funny and affectionately satircal: This is so funny A Cousin. I trust the "two old gimmers" are Harry and Ruth. "Iffy forrins" ha ha ha ...
|
|||
|
|
|
08-10-2010, 05:59 PM
Post: #46
|
|||
|
|||
RE: Series 9 Newspaper Reviews / Viewing figures etc
(08-10-2010 02:35 PM)Tea Lady Wrote: This is so funny A Cousin. I trust the "two old gimmers" are Harry and Ruth. Quite. I confess I had to look that one up.  Better than being "an exposition-spouting foetus with a genius for computers and stating the bleeding obvious" I suppose. Poor Tariq. He really does need more development, doesn't he? (*sigh!* Wipes tears of laughter out of her eyes....) Now cracks a noble heart. Good-night, sweet [Spooks]; And flights of angels sing thee to thy rest. ~Wm. Shakespeare, Hamlet |
|||
|
|
|
09-10-2010, 12:49 PM
Post: #47
|
|||
|
|||
|
RE: Series 9 Newspaper Reviews / Viewing figures etc
Can't quite decide where the best place is for this post, but if any of you read Best magazine, or look at richardarmitage.net, DO NOT READ the interview with Laila Rouass linked there recently. There is a spoiler warning, but I read it anyway and wished I hadn't, because it's a big one... and I'm INCREDIBLY IRRITATED NOW!!! Hope this spares some of you the same!!!!!
|
|||
|
|
|
09-10-2010, 07:40 PM
Post: #48
|
|||
|
|||
|
RE: Series 9 Newspaper Reviews / Viewing figures etc
Thanks for the tip-off Sporadico
|
|||
|
|
|
11-10-2010, 09:58 PM
Post: #49
|
|||
|
|||
|
RE: Series 9 Newspaper Reviews / Viewing figures etc
Vicky Frost has posted her Guardian blog for 9.4. Very funny as usual.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/t...ooks-drama  We move on from this It's the realisation that I make a negligible difference Sometimes you have to give a man a chance |
|||
|
|
|
12-10-2010, 10:53 AM
Post: #50
|
|||
|
|||
|
RE: Series 9 Newspaper Reviews / Viewing figures etc
No figures for Spooks yet but Whitechapel drew 5.4m which is down on Banks last week so it should be interesting.
Preview of next week's episode in TV Times is intriguing Series 9 Spoiler: show |
|||
|
|
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
