The state within vs. spooks
What do you think?
what would be great is of they showed some of the character's storylines linking. i.e. if Harry Pearce was on the phone to Mark Brydon or something (although Harry would need to be MI6).
shareHarry doesn't like MI6.
"I've never seen purple underwear before."
The Times (UK paper) calls it 'Spooks for adults'. Well, it has comparatively adult characters in it but I'm not sure it's a particularly matured offshot. I think the makers have tried to use some politically nuanced drama characteristic of The West Wing (I thought I'd start another thread to this end: http://comments.imdb.com/title/tt0770652/board/flat/58288216).
I think it's the distended pace and humourlessness of it which is closest to Spooks.
Ooops, never saw this thread. It's currently the best programme on TV.
shareWell, they both consistently portray Americans as the worst kind of pugnacious, reactionary hillbillies with out any variation. The Secretary of Defense in The State Within was a total caricature, like a post-menopausal Rumsfeld. It's so funny how this show is like a huge Freudian slip for Brits.
Was anyone else guffawing out loud when it was repeated more than once that the death row prisoner was a "Hero of the Falklands"? Talk about political schizophrenia. So apparently the writers of the show give us a Thatcher-esque character we're supposed to loathe in the form of the Defense Secretary, yet, Lady Thatcher's crowning achievement of British Foreign Policy, the Falklands War, is something that produced "heroes" that must be protected at any cost from the evil American death penalty. Yeah that makes total sense. Give me a break.
saucybetty.blogspot.com