MovieChat Forums > Spooks: Code 9 (2008) Discussion > Could this be any worse?

Could this be any worse?


I think not. Worst BBC Drama since Robin Hood. Not impressed.

reply

There is a giant room in BBCTV centre, where writers, producers, and executives all masurbate furiously while shouting "WE'RE JUST LIKE AMERICAN TV, WE'RE JUST LIKE AMERICAN TV'.

And on the far wall, a giant picture of Russell T Davies looks down, and above this the slogan, in bright black letters, "BAD IS THE NEW GOOD".

reply

hehe that's hilarious - i think i'll check out spooks now instead of code 9 first.

reply

I enjoyed it, apart from the union jack transistions i thought it was exciting. Lets be honest BBC 3 don't half shovel a load of *beep* to us most of the time.

"I just need a MATE"
"You aint mating with me sunshine"

reply

[deleted]

I think it is quite badly structured I fount it up and down for me, some points were entertaining and drawn me in only to throw me back at out again with crappy dialogs and predictability. To be honest I do not really understand are they the MI5 or some kids in an experiment/

- http://www.cr0ps.com
- http://www.jimgenfor.com

reply

Well, I've considered your question carefully and the answer is clearly: "No, it couldn't be any worse."

reply

I'm reserving judgement, at times I felt it was decent, others it was far too cliche and badly written. I especially hated the flag-waving bit, FAR too americanised. Im all for transfering American drama ideas onto British series, but not cheesy things like that - urgh! Otherwise, I'm going to give it a bit more of a run-in, see if the arc-story gives it a bit more edge, etc. At least, I think it is better than Robin Hood and Bonekickers.

Sexually transmitted disease...sexually transmitted...sexually...sexy...I'm feeling sexy...

reply

[deleted]

>>>The idea behind it, that terrorists are getting younger, is quite intriguing, if done right, in a kind of, get to the young coverts who become suicide bombers,

That SOUNDS fine, yes, but on closer inspection it falls utterly to pieces. Extremists are usually recruited from among the young as it is. Who does the recruiting? Older people.

I'd suggest that the emphasis on younger people in this show is down to one thing only - reaching out to BBC3's presumed audience by making a patronising, dumbed-down aged-down version of the grown-up's programme.

Still, one interesting thing I thought this show raised: does this mean that Spooks will automatically terminate after series 10, when London is nuked? Or will they have buried that unfortunate piece of continuity if it's still going in four years time?

reply

[deleted]

>>>our terrorist threat comes from Muslim extremists, so what does this ridiculous scooby doo style spook outfit do? Yes, hire lots of white people and one asian guy who sounds

And mostly blondes again. I don't quite get what it is with this Creeping Aryanisation of the security services...

>>>I hadn't thought about the continuity issues with Spooks, but then that's probably because in four years it'll be axed anyway, along with this.

No. Well, on evidence so far I find Spooks Code 9 pretty difficult to reconcile anyway since it's basically a science fiction show without wanting to admit to the fact, and the basic concept is ridiculous (correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Spooks originally about the social/professional lives of young people joining the security services? Granted, probably a few years older, but the original concept was that these were YOUNG people, trying to live young lives alongside their job.

As you say, Spooks will probably be axed before they get to series 10, but if it isn't, then I've a feeling Code 9 will be long dead, and they'll conveniently forget about the nuke thing.

The feeling I got while watching it was pretty much that somebody had wandered into a sixth form college and asked the students to improvise an episode of Spooks (series 6, obviously) while they filmed the result.

>>>I suggest you watch The Sandbaggers and read Le Carre

Ah... but I think you're missing what has happened. Spooks was originally much more reminiscent of these sources. The fact that this is no longer true is surely more to do with an editorial decision than anything else. They're simply not interested in that kind of thing anymore.

reply

[deleted]

This show is actually a celebration of, and perpetual continuation of, shark-jumping. It's pro-celebrity Shark Jumping.

reply

Yes it could be worse. It could be called Bonekickers and be shown on Tuesday.

reply

Fair comment - it's really a toss up between the two - and, let's face it, both are a pile of toss.

reply

by - markbc-2 on Sun Aug 10 2008 15:27:13
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I was hopeful about this, after all the original Spooks went to pot once Tom and the gang left, but i don't know it was a bit poor. I'll reserve judgement, especially as the 2nd ep was better than the opener, but it veered far too perilously close to Hollyoaks:MI5 for me.

Hollyoaks:MI5? No, Hollyoaks is Hollyoaks:CFNM. This sounds like Spooks:CFNM Barely Legal, following on from Rupert Penry-Jones dreadful turn(s) in Spooks:CFNM.

reply

well said r00nie! This should not be related to spooks in anyway, shape or form, the two episodes are just vile, rotten tripe!! I'm going to stick to watching re-runs of spooks because clearly this code 9 is utter bollox!

-
How did she(Jodi) get the audio and video of Bette...was she wearing a camera in her forehead?

reply

You're right this is absolute rubbish but I have seen a slight glimpse of spooks. Maybe the makers need to sit down and watch every episode first before they make any more of this shocing eps.

reply

Holy crap, this is bad. I read the premise and thought it might be cool. I like sci-fi and I loved the early years of Spooks. I knew it was going to be awful when the blonde girl says "the terrorists are younger...", younger and blonde? ALL of them are younger? Why? The whole premise is silly. Anyone with a pulse knows that the entirely too young cast is for target demographics. But at least TRY to explain it decently within the plot. I don't get the connection from nuclear bomb to all young people in powerful positions? That one sentence in the intro does not cover it. The lazy writing just screams bad TV. I don't think "Spooks for the younger crowd" has to be "Spooks for the superficial, dim, younger crowd" does it?

And why does everything bad these days have to be "americanized"? Sorry everybody, but you can't just take credit for all the good things and slag off the americans for anything bad. SOMEONE needs to take credit for this mess and it isn't me!

"Calling me sir? How cool is that?" UGGGHHHH.

reply

Another problem with the show is the lack of any real credible threat. Who did we have in the first episode? A dim-witted, 12 year old northerner, a 15 year old hoodie with a hamburger fetish, and Rafe from The Apprentice. It's not exactly The Wire is it?

Hell, it's not even The Sarah Jane Adventures!

There are just so many other problems with this show. Like the fact the section chief (or whoever the hell she was) couldn't stop walking about with her handbag slung on her arm as if she were a Vogue model, or the fact that they feel the need to crowbar yet another conspiracy plot into the proceedings. And what the hell was with that Union Jack challenge!?

I've got nothing against the central premise, I think the idea of a post-crisis Spooks is intriguing, but it just wasn't well executed...

Baba O'Riley... the best song in the world

reply

And since when did the AK47 make a credible sniper rifle.

reply

Ah, well, as unlikely as it may seem, sniper variants of the AK47 do indeed exist. Any reasonably accurate rifle can do the job, I guess.

reply

[deleted]

You don't get it. The post apocalyptic UK is run by teenagers, chasing teenangers, protecting teenagers. And once in a while you'll see someone in their twenties because the other teenage actors had some homework to finish up. Just remember that they still feel like teenagers too! And hey, who cares about a gun. As look as it looks cool, right?


P.S. Please note the sarcasm in this post.

reply

With the accuracy of only 250 meters I think not and even when bench fired I have found most models only good just under 195 meters.
My experience of 15 years as a army sniper i have yet to find any model made in any of the countries who manufactured it any good for a snipers rifle.
Its very good close combat weapon but crap over the distance to be used for sniping.
PS this program is total dross who ever commissioned it should be held by the ankle out of the top floor window of BBC House until He or She apologises for this rubbish.
I should add NO not any rifle will do for sniping were on earth did you get that idea from.
By far the best are bolt action rifles.

reply

Perhaps the hip and happening executives down at BBC3 and Kudos know something old farts like me don't and the 'kids' have a special crap TV hormone which disappears when you hit 25. After this date you are able to follow decent well crafted pieces of escapist drama such as Hustle, Life on Mars and Spooks.

To get down with the kids I conducted my own unscientific straw poll with my teenage nephew and his mates to see what they thought of this and who they would rather watch.

It seems they are deprived of the crap TV hormone and would rather be watching repeats of old farts like George Cole as Arthur Daley.

To refer to the previous poster's reference to Charlie Brooker are these youngsters weird? or maybe they are just people who like decent TV.

reply

Glad to see I'm not the only one who's not happy with this. I'm a big fan of the original Spooks. It was an intelligent show, good scripting, great acting, serious stories that were often relevant to what was going on in the world. All this made it one of the best drama series out there for many years.

After two episodes of Code 9 I'm just very sad to see that this is what 'Spooks' had become. They obviously wanted nothing more than some hot 20 yo girls and guys running around doing dangerous and cool spy stuff to score some ratings. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the original Spooks and what it stood for.

They could at least have given it another name. It's all fictional and has nothing to do with MI5 per se. It could've just as easily been another government branch, making it a completely seperate series (to ignore). At least that way it wouldn't damange the Spooks reputation and appreciation.

I'm sure there are a lot of teens who can identify themselves with these I'm-just-here-to-look-good-actors. They won't notice the crappy dialogs, thin and cliché story lines and they'll enjoy themselves for 45 minutes. Hurray. I guess the original Spooks fans and people who value serious and intelligent scripts will just have to read a book.

reply

The Toker too has some doubts surrounding "The Famous 5 go spying", you would have thought there would have been one character old enough to cross the road unsupervised, a "Harry" type leader is what is required. Oh and a script that wasn't written by 4 yr old may help too.

If God was a woman, jism would taste of chocolate.

reply

DoctorDrake wrote:

> I'm sure there are a lot of teens who can identify themselves with these
> I'm-just-here-to-look-good-actors.

You're quite correct. These young actors just aren't convincing in the roles they are supposed to play.

The scene with the red haired girl with "da attitude' trying to 'look tough' (while her partner does a bit of Jack Bower and shoots a suspect 'in the big toe') just had no depth and no credibility.

That young actress didn't scare anyone. While she was supposed to be a tough and menacing interrogator, she came across as a joke. The sort of girl who would go off and cry for an hour if she broke a nail.

As Black Adder would say to Baldrick: "It's not that it isn't 100% convincing... it's that it's not 1% convincing."

reply

Oh god, i just watched an episode !! What a bunch of bum gravy it was too !! Please, please Beeb, sell it to the yanks, dont make US watch this for much longer............

God is a comedian, playing to an audience too afraid to laugh.
-Voltaire-

reply

BBC 3's audience demographic is around 19-25. Studies have decided, rightly or wrongly, that this age group doesn't watch television, but prefer gaming and the internet. Because they fear that this age group, as it grows, will learn to live without television, certainly all of the UK channels are desperate to encourage a TV watching habit within this generation, otherwise, no one will be watching in the next 15-25 years.

It's so far, untrue. Whilst there is more internet, gaming and mobile phone use, viewing figures have not fallen as feared. The TV is still on, just in the background.

In my opinion, this is why you have shows like this, desperate attempts to capture the imagination of this nonchalant and hip demographic. All the UK channels are doing it. Quick edits, fast set pieces, attractive cast, repetition to avoid some-one losing the story because they received a text and a cathartic ending, so no matter what happened during the show, if you catch the last couple of minutes, you'll feel a sense of satisfaction.

Until the TV channels credit it's younger viewers with the intelligence it deserves, we will keep getting half baked shows like this that only serve to alienate the older established watcher and patronise those that it aims to entertain.

reply

Decent post, allseeing. Reminded me of Charlie Brooker's Screenwipe report on "yoof TV" where he ran his own focus group of 'young adults' aged between 19-24 and found that they had quite a mature taste in what they watched (they said they preferred sitcoms like Yes, Minister and Fawlty Towers over shows like Skins).

The gist of his report was that 'young adults' aren't some fringe demographic of dunderheads who just sit open-mouthed, but are actually as mature an audience as any other and that if you make quality programming for them they will actually watch it.

It's just a pity nobody at BBC3 watches BBC4, otherwise somebody might of taken note and intervened during the production of Spooks: Code 9 to give the show-runners a good slap...

Baba O'Riley... the best song in the world

reply

allseeing wrote:

> BBC 3's audience demographic is around 19-25. Studies have decided, rightly or wrongly,
> that this age group doesn't watch television, but prefer gaming and the internet.

Interesting analysis, but the remedy proposed by the BBC won't cure that problem they perceive.

For one thing, the average age of video gamers is around 38. But for the sake of argument, let's say it's 19-25 as they perceive it.

What sort of games do these people play? presumably hot tiles such as Grand Theft Auto IV, Gears of War, Halo etc... Do these games feature 19 years olds? no. The main characters look more like people in their 40's.

If the BBC thinks that simply populating shows with 19 year olds is going to somehow attack gamers, I'd say they are shooting themselves in the foot. Today's audiences (whether it's film, TV or games) wants more realism in their entertainment. Even in fantasy films such as The Dark Night, part of the appeal is that the fantasy world seems possible.

Spooks Code 9 seems to go against notions of plausibility and realism that may turn out to be it's ultimate downfall.

reply


I'm old fashioned and clearly deluded, because... you know... I seem to remember that when I was 19 to 25 I didn't solely watch stuff about 19 to 25 year olds. In fact, I can't remember a time when I ever only watched stuff about people my age. How many children loved Star Wars despite being about ten years younger than their obvious identification figure, Luke Skywalker?

I think by the time a person is 19, they're probably capable of wanting to watch something because it's good and/or entertaining, not because of the contrived youthfulness of the cast.


Perhaps if BBC3 starts worrying about making programmes that are 'good' instead of making programmes that have to be twisted to fit a demographic, they might actually have some successes on their hands.

reply

exactly what I was thinking

reply

Then we need to unite and form an army to march on the headquarters of BBC3. Then Channel 4.

reply

Dear Dr Drake neither is Spooks That is any thing to do with MI5.
But where spooks is all round a very good Program.
Spooks 9 should never been commissioned at all its total rubbish.

reply

No it could not, its BAD BAD BAD!

II:IV....You know it makes sense.
24 s7 Prequel: 23rd November

reply

[deleted]