Line of Duty (BBC) **Spoilers**

freshpopcorn

I wasn't as invested in this as some because I only started watching series one about 10 days ago.
I wasn't overly disappointed with the final reveal but just felt it a little poorly executed.

My only question is Chris Lomaz also dodgy?

FunLover18

Madelyn wrote: »

I dont buy that at all.. Hastings and Fairbanks were good friends.. He would have known JO. Fairbanks was not married to JOs mother.

He wasn't Jo's father and had no knowledge of her at all. Tommy merely told Jo that Fairbanks (a bent copper) was her father. They never met irl.

OmegaGene

Madelyn wrote: »

I dont buy that at all.. Hastings and Fairbanks were good friends.. He would have known JO. Fairbanks was not married to JOs mother.

how would fairbanks have told hastings when he didnt know who she was ? it was hunter tricking her because he was her father


from the series review online


Davidson’s real dad was Tommy Hunter. But after her mum died, the gang leader convinced Jo that Patrick Fairbank was her father.

Fairbank and Hunter were paedophiles, weasels and a rotten duo. They had abused and used Davidson to help them out, when they needed a clean-cut copper to help them.

Davidson believed that it was Fairbank putting in the orders and controlling her via the computer programme. She never realised it was the bloke in the office next door to her all along.

sporina

Sardonicat wrote: »

Jo's father is Tommy Hunter, her mother's brother. The man she believed to be her father was Fairbanks,.

yeah I knew Hunter was Jo's biological Dad but didn't know it was 100% that Jo was led to believe that Fairbanks was her Dad

freshpopcorn wrote: »

I wasn't as invested in this as some because I only started watching series one about 10 days ago.
I wasn't overly disappointed with the final reveal but just felt it a little poorly executed.

My only question is Chris Lomaz also dodgy?

we dunno.. that never played out - another queue for Series 7 mayb or an oversight..

Talisman

Has the fume over the finale died down yet?

For me the series as a whole was a mostly enjoyable journey and the finale was totally bland.

Hopefully Mercurio will leave the series as it is because I wouldn't trust him to pull off a rescue attempt with another season.

OmegaGene

Talisman wrote: »

Has the fume over the finale died down yet?

For me the series as a whole was a mostly enjoyable journey and the finale was totally bland.

Hopefully Mercurio will leave the series as it is because I wouldn't trust him to pull off a rescue attempt with another season.

I think there is another season coming, I’m sure it was in the media Martin compston signed a 2 series deal and this is the halfway point of said deal

Bbc would be crazy not to pay itv to make another

sporina

Talisman wrote: »

Has the fume over the finale died down yet?

For me the series as a whole was a mostly enjoyable journey and the finale was totally bland.

Hopefully Mercurio will leave the series as it is because I wouldn't trust him to pull off a rescue attempt with another season.

oh there will "definately" be another series :pac:

we have to find out who Buckles' other half was (they seem to exist in two's)

ShineOn7

Mercurio posted a 4 part Tweet defending the episode earlier

An Irish journalist (rightly) called it out as nonsense

Mercurio then didn't exactly take the high road

https://twitter.com/jed_mercurio/status/1389913472151003143


He was better off doing complete radio silence for a couple of months after it aired, similar to the Lost writers did after the controversial finale aired

As it stands, it looks like he doth protest too much

There's also this patronsing clickbait nonsense in the Telegraph

ShineOn7

Mercurio's 4 part Tweet (click through for the rest)



https://twitter.com/jed_mercurio/status/1389903188569034759?s=20

SimonTemplar

ShineOn7 wrote: »

Mercurio posted a 4 part Tweet defending the episode earlier

Yeah, saying that 50% of the 1000 people in BBC's sample poll rated the finale 9/10 or 10/10, and then complaining that social media doesn't accurately reflect how most people think because there are only hundreds or in some cases thousands of likes doesn't exactly make much sense.

SimonTemplar

funkey_monkey wrote: »

2. I think 'H' was so built up, it was always going to be a disappointment no matter who it turned out to be. Osborne was obvious. Nesbitt wasn't in it long enough for anyone to care. The DCC was in it to little to care about either. No-one wanted any of the holy trinity to be 'H'. Carmichael - meh but would have been more believeable.
Actually, the old bloke who pished himself would have been a better option and the interview with them trying get his 'faked' dementia to drop would have been great viewing.
No one else really was an interest to the audience.
.

I think bringing back Nigel Morton as H would have been a great twist. He could still be controlling everything even though he is no longer an active cop. Could have a lot of dirt on people still on the force so they do his bidding. He's a right basterd too and clearly only interested in himself.

Hollyworth

Mercurio needs to pipe down.

His writing is very good, but Line of Duty became a massive hit for two reasons:

Adrian Dunbar and Carly Paradis (who did the music for the show).
Change either of those things and Mercurio's show would not seem as great.

Talisman

ShineOn7 wrote: »

Mercurio posted a 4 part Tweet defending the episode earlier

An Irish journalist (rightly) called it out as nonsense

Mercurio doesn't take criticism well at all - he comes across as a complete d!ck when journalists point out the flaws in his tv shows.

I got a good laugh out of him calling another Irish journalist a moron a couple of years ago because they dared to question the goings on in the show. Mercurio obviously didn't appreciate Ed Power's humor.

Why Line of Duty has become too clever for its own good (The Telegraph, 8 April 2019)

What is going on at AC-12? Jed Mercurio’s Line of Duty has never exactly taken audiences by the hand. But two episodes into the fifth season and even the most attentive viewer could be forgiven for feeling all at sea without a life jacket.

As a youngster, Mercurio would grow frustrated when his favourite show dangled a shock twist only to wimp out at the last moment. With Line of Duty and Bodyguard, he has built a blockbuster screenwriting career subverting that long-standing aversion to frightening the livestock.

Whatever it takes – assassination-by-suitcase, soft-core frisky business featuring off-duty cabinet ministers – Mercurio is determined to drop-kick you out of your comfort zone.

Unfortunately, this has resulted in storylines that are increasingly convoluted and, with the latest Line of Duty, often baffling. Especially hard to swallow is the suggestion that upstanding AC-12 supremo Ted Hastings (Adrian Dunbar) is a potential baddy – shadowy uber-villain H no less (“H” is for Hastings!).

Mercurio has also crowbarred in more acronyms than you could shake a baton at: OCG, AC-12, UCO – you need a glossary to keep up.

Equally bewildering is the storyline involving undercover copper John Corbett (Stephen Graham), who is determined to bring down a conspiracy of corrupt senior officers. The lengths to which he is prepared to venture were underscored in the first episode when Corbett and crew raided a police convoy transporting a confiscated drugs shipment. In the process they shot dead three officers. The problem is that, at the time, we didn’t actually know Corbett was an undercover detective. As far as the audience understood, he was the leader of the gang.

Actually, he still IS the leader of the gang. And he’s still shooting cops (this week he led a raid on a second convoy, carrying decommissioned firearms). So… he’s a good guy pretending to be a bad guy so that nobody will suspect he’s a good guy. Unless he really IS a bad guy (pretending to be a good guy pretending to be a bad guy etc).

Back at AC-12, we are meanwhile clearly to infer Hastings is up to no good from the frosty glares he’s throwing through his office window. Less obvious is how we are supposed to feel about AC-12 regulars Steve Arnott (Martin Compston) and Kate Fleming (Vicky McClure). Arnott reached out to Corbett by calling from a random phone box. I’ve watched the episode three times now and it’s still not obvious how he knew to do this.

And quite how PC Maneet Bindra ended up spying on Corbett and then getting herself killed is a puzzle I have failed to solve even with a calculator, diagrams and lots of string.

The show hasn’t jumped the shark so much as bamboozled the shark to the point where it doesn’t know in which direction to swim. With Bodyguard, it was clear Mercurio was in danger of prioritising knotty storylines over plausible, human drama. That the new Line of Duty is bonkers with a big flashing blue light on top is a twist that many viewers will have seen from miles off.

ShineOn7

Talisman wrote: »

Mercurio doesn't take criticism well at all

For sure, and not just this season either

He has "form"

He tweeted: “This story about @martin_compston #LineofDuty by @StuartPink is a lie. We’ve told you it’s a lie. You’ve printed it anyway. I’m not writing S6 let alone S7. The only thing I’m desperate to do is tell people what a cúnt you are @StuartPink”.

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/line-of-duty-writer-jed-mercurio-labels-journalist-a-c-for-writing-lies-about-star-martin-compston-signing-up-for-new-series_uk_5cc932e2e4b0d123954c2f1e

sporina

I think the reason I am so disappointed with how the season finished is because of how JM had built it up.. that there was a big shot top dog H or 4th man behind it all.. but then he reveals Buckles.. and not even in a very dramatic way.. twas so lazy.. so who helped Buckles climb the ranks? surely someone in higher power.. now we have to watch another season to find out..

I was also under the impression that then the whole story line would come to an end in this season - but it seems not?

Maybe if I knew that there was gonna be another season before series 6 then I might not have been so underwhelmed..

Maybe JM didn't think it thru from the perspective of the viewer..

joe40

sporina wrote: »

Slightly different genres i'm talking impact; just finished the last season of Cracker... wow - absolutely fantastic stuff... soo bloody well written.. and having watched the final ep of LOD season 6 earlier this eve this really puts things in perspective; it was actually worse than I originally thought..

If I remember correctly there was a young Adrian Dunbar in the first Cracker series.
Long time since I watched I but I remember thoroughly enjoying that programme.

sporina

joe40 wrote: »

If I remember correctly there was a young Adrian Dunbar in the first Cracker series.
Long time since I watched I but I remember thoroughly enjoying that programme.

yes your bang on - he was in the 1st episode - twas v good (I watched all of them only recently - had never seen it before - upside of the restrictions)..

Sardonicat

Madelyn wrote: »

I dont buy that at all.. Hastings and Fairbanks were good friends.. He would have known JO. Fairbanks was not married to JOs mother.

There was never any claim that they'd been married.

OmegaGene

sporina wrote: »

I think the reason I am so disappointed with how the season finished is because of how JM had built it up.. that there was a big shot top dog H or 4th man behind it all.. but then he reveals Buckles.. and not even in a very dramatic way.. twas so lazy.. so who helped Buckles climb the ranks? surely someone in higher power.. now we have to watch another season to find out..

I was also under the impression that then the whole story line would come to an end in this season - but it seems not?

Maybe if I knew that there was gonna be another season before series 6 then I might not have been so underwhelmed..

Maybe JM didn't think it thru from the perspective of the viewer..

The person that promoted buckles is also likely the person thats shutting down the ac12 and reconstructing everything because there’s no corruption (allegedly)

sebdavis

Just finished season 4, I cant remember Hasting lazer shooting some lad in the head in the last episode.....why didnt they have him instead of Steve on the sting misson?

qwerty13

This is from a piece by Hannah J Davies in The Guardian. From last Thursday

“Yet, the creator of a major BBC crime drama – yes, that one – had taken it another way. Reflecting on a (very) short piece online, he described me as snide, and talentless, and said I shouldn’t be doing my job. Never mind that this was the dance that we had both essentially entered into by doing our jobs – him to create art that was to be judged, me to write and judge said art – I was wrong. I was a horrible person.

I am not one for Twitter beef – and also couldn’t face paying another £200 for data – so I left it. I thought that was it, until the same person resurfaced a year and a half later, just before the new series of that crime drama, wanting me to know, in a national magazine, that I was a “****” and a “piece of ****”. The words rose off the page like some kind of twisted Magic Eye picture. Yes, this was about me; I was the bad guy.”

I can understand how it would be very hard to take something that he has put into the world being criticised - but I think it’s fair game, as long as it’s not done nastily. Jed’s reactions are bang out of order. Maybe there’s a reason why he doesn’t appear to have anyone in his camp who will shout “stop” (or suggest a rethink or a rewrite).

sporina

Prime Suspect writer Lynda La Plante: ‘Line of Duty and Unforgotten? I find them preposterous’

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/features/lynda-la-plante-interview-prime-suspect-b1829103.html

I disagree with her on Unforgotten but she might have a point when it comes to LOD (of late)

ginoginelli

sporina wrote: »

Prime Suspect writer Lynda La Plante: ‘Line of Duty and Unforgotten? I find them preposterous’

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/features/lynda-la-plante-interview-prime-suspect-b1829103.html

I disagree with her on Unforgotten but she might have a point when it comes to LOD (of late)

They are preposterous for the most part. But the audience doesn't mind that. Suspending belief is the viewers part of the tacit contract you enter with the creator when you watch their work - their side is to stay true to the fundamental rule of film, that everything has to add up.

Jed broke that contract; He wrote himself into a corner, and then decided to cheat his way out of it with an illogical childish conclusion.

His ego driven bitch-fit about the wholly fair criticism the finale received is just adding insult to injury now. Implying that the audience are not smart enough to "get it" is just condescending and deflecting.

He must really be living in an echo chamber if he thinks that poorly written, pseudo political, disparate nonsense was a satisfactory conclusion to the story.

archfi

ginoginelli wrote: »

They are preposterous for the most part. But the audience doesn't mind that. Suspending belief is the viewers part of the tacit contract you enter with the creator when you watch their work - their side is to stay true to the fundamental rule of film, that everything has to add up.

Jed broke that contract; He wrote himself into a corner, and then decided to cheat his way out of it with an illogical childish conclusion.

His ego driven bitch-fit about the wholly fair criticism the finale received is just adding insult to injury now. Implying that the audience are not smart enough to "get it" is just condescending and deflecting.

He must really be living in an echo chamber if he thinks that poorly written, pseudo political, disparate nonsense was a satisfactory conclusion to the story.

^^Bit in bold
For me, I wouln't have minded the ending versus the build-up (promoted by channel, writer and cast) if that episode had've had one morsel of drama or intensity to it.
The Bodyguard was the same - he can do build up but not *satisfying conclusion.
*satisfying doesn't even mean the baddies have to get it
He tried holding in his inner bitchiness and quite astounding paper thin defences to criticism but within two days he crumbled!

PieOhMy

A better way of demonstrating that corruption is an endless cycle would have been to use the ending that showed Ryan in police college. It just implies so much about the future without saying anything.
That was really cool and well done I thought.

I also think the whole area of him being a cop was pretty interesting and could have had lots of areas to explore but he was killed after a few episodes of not doing much that he couldn't have done even if he wasn't a cop. After a few days reflecting on it all I think I'd have been happy to stop watching after the Stephen Merchant season and ending mentioned above and have the programme go out on a high.

OmegaGene

PieOhMy wrote: »

A better way of demonstrating that corruption is an endless cycle would have been to use the ending that showed Ryan in police college. It just implies so much about the future without saying anything.
That was really cool and well done I thought.

I also think the whole area of him being a cop was pretty interesting and could have had lots of areas to explore but he was killed after a few episodes of not doing much that he couldn't have done even if he wasn't a cop. After a few days reflecting on it all I think I'd have been happy to stop watching after the Stephen Merchant season and ending mentioned above and have the programme go out on a high.

Stephen merchant ?? Did I miss a series he’s 6ft 7 so I’m sure he would stand out

PieOhMy

OmegaGene wrote: »

Stephen merchant ?? Did I miss a series he’s 6ft 7 so I’m sure he would stand out

Hahaha such a rediculous mistake I'm not even going to edit it out. I mean Stephen Graham!

OmegaGene

PieOhMy wrote: »

Hahaha such a rediculous mistake I'm not even going to edit it out. I mean Stephen Graham!

Made me laugh, I still listen to merchant and the other two from the xfm podcast

Loafing Oaf

Apologies if this is already asked and answered, but where does the 'H' business stand now? Was yer man somehow referring to Buckles when he tapped it out, and if not to who or what?

Ceist_Beag

ginoginelli wrote: »

His ego driven bitch-fit about the wholly fair criticism the finale received is just adding insult to injury now. Implying that the audience are not smart enough to "get it" is just condescending and deflecting.

He must really be living in an echo chamber if he thinks that poorly written, pseudo political, disparate nonsense was a satisfactory conclusion to the story.

Maybe this is the new world we live in where everyone is on social media (and maybe people feel free to behave like this since the former US President set a precedent there!) but I have never seen a creator behave the way Jed has (recently or even in the past given his previous attack on Hannah Davies). It's incredibly unprofessional of him. His ego is obviously very fragile. As others said, surely the best thing for him to do would be to ignore all the reaction and leave it to others. I'm not sure the BEEB would tolerate this type of behaviour from others but obviously if you're breaking records with viewership numbers you're allowed to do as you please...