Disc Specs
- Region:
2 - Released:
8th September 2008 - Country:
United Kingdom - Running Time:
Approx. 270 minutes - Screen Format:
1.78:1 Anamorphic PAL - Discs / Sides / Layers:
2 / 1 / Dual/Single - Soundtracks:
- English DD 2.0 - Subtitles:
- English - Special Features:
- None - Distributor:
Contender Home Entertainment
Spooks: Code 9
05-09-2008 18:00 | 3841 views | Michael Mackenzie | Show Backlinks | Other "Spooks" Content
The Show
BBC Three describes itself as an outlet for “new drama, talent, comedy, films, and accessible news”. I presume that Spooks: Code 9 is meant to fulfil the “comedy” quotient of this brief, for two reasons. First of all, it doesn’t appear to be a film or a news broadcast; nor does it convince as a drama, and I certainly didn’t spot any talent on display. Secondly, I found myself laughing at it on several occasions. Admittedly, I’m not convinced that my reaction was what the producers originally intended, but given that the schedules are increasingly dominated by depressingly puerile reality TV and variety shows commissioned by executives who think the likes of Jimmy Carr and Russell Brand are funny, I take my humour where I can get it.
In a word, Code 9 is shit. Not just run of the mill, take-one-look-and-change-the-channel shit, but oh-my-God-am-I-really-seeing-this shit. No doubt the brainchild of some jaded executive who saw the perfect opportunity to craft some exciting yoof TV and get down wif da kidz, the result is a bit like being locked in a room with Eugene Levy’s character from the American Pie films. In other words, cringe-inducingly embarrassing, very probably for both parties. The basic setting is Britain in the year 2012, months after a nuclear attack during the opening ceremony of the Olympic Games killed thousands and made London uninhabitable. With the government having upped sticks and moved to Manchester, the security services have established several cells around the country, for some reason consisting primarily of attractive young people fresh out of drama school. We're told that this is because “terrorists are getting younger”, the logic clearly being that the people best placed to fight twentysomething bombers are spies of the same age.
It’s actually a horrendously cynical venture when you stop to think about it, given that it assumes its target viewers are only interested in watching people their own age, and that they have killed so many brain cells sending incomprehensible text messages to each other or sniffing glue (or whatever it is teenagers do nowadays for kicks) that they now have the attention span of a goldfish and therefore require to constantly be kept engaged by hyper-frenetic camerawork, loud “whoomf” sounds during cuts between scenes, and banal plotting that is less about the nitty-gritty of espionage and more about the tired interactions of a bunch of interchangeable pretty faces. Even I, despite being a massive misanthropist, would like to credit the younger generation with a bit more intelligence than this.
In itself, the premise raises several questions. First of all, why are terrorists getting younger? Did all those over the age of 25 with such tendencies become extinct at some point between now and 2012? Secondly, what about Spooks causes it to require a separate spin-off to be created for teenagers? Nothing about the original series excluded younger viewers, and in fact, one of my biggest criticisms of the later episodes was their increasing tendency to dumb things down, abandoning old-fashioned mind games in favour of frenetic shakeycam and in-your-face action. Judging by Code 9, the people in charge clearly thought that the latter is what the modern teenager craves most in his or her television viewing. That, and cringe-inducing performances by a cast so hopelessly inexperienced that the end result is akin to watching high school children putting on a play that requires them to pretend to be adults, only with worse acting.
But I digress. Over the course of six 45-minute episodes, we are introduced to a group of six generic men and women in their late teens or early twenties, with the central focus soon falling on newcomer Charlie Green (Liam Boyle), thrust against his will into a leadership role following the untimely death of the squad’s original boss. Charlie’s special ability is that he is a mathematician and specialises in risk assessment. His personality is defined only in the broadest possible sense: he’s a nerd, and you can tell that because he wears glasses and gets flustered easily. In the context of the show, he’s rather unique, as he’s the only member of the group who actually has a personality. The rest all have the same basic “thrill-seeker” persona. They’re people who live life on the edge (you can tell this because they consume massive quantities of alcohol and drugs and have lots of sex), existing for the adrenaline rush provided by the life-threatening situations in which they continually find themselves. As the series’ tagline puts it, “for Queen, for country, for kicks.” Oh, God.
There’s an ongoing storyline threaded through the series, involving – ta-dum! – the presence of a traitor within the ranks of MI5, but it too is hopelessly dreary because the villain’s identity is so obvious that he/she might has well be sporting a handlebar moustache and cackling evilly at any given opportunity. In the first episode, said traitor organises the assassination of the group’s original leader, which actually proves to be something of a blessing, because if there was a competition to determine which of the cast was the most dreadful, the actress playing her, Joanna Froggatt, would win hands down. (She both looks and sounds uncannily like that awful woman in the green overalls who used to front those infuriating Yes Car Credit ads on daytime TV, and is just as insincere.) By far the biggest problem, I suspect, is that, with all of the main characters under the age of 25, there’s not a single authority figure to give them a sense of purpose or keep them in line. We’re supposed to believe that the nerdy, insecure and borderline neurotic Charlie has the ability to lead his own squad of security officers, and more laughably still that he was actually hand-picked for the job, which destroys the last shred of credibility the show was still clinging to. Liam Boyle does his best to play the part, and his underlings try very hard to look serious and hang on his every word, but it’s just not convincing. It’s all incredibly predictable, barrelling through the usual series of contrived scenarios in which our intrepid adventurers race against time to diffuse ticking bombs, go rogue to avoid information leaks and brutally interrogate uncooperative suspects. On paper, all of this might sound quite exciting, but a combination of the characters’ ages, the awful acting and the unconvincing attempts to portray a futuristic Britain continually strive to undermine any prospect of actual tension or drama. There’s not a single new idea here, with every storyline being cribbed from a far better one in the original Spooks.
With all that said, I hope Spooks: Code 9 gets commissioned for a second series. In terms of the absurdity stakes, it easily beats out Bonekickers, another much-reviled BBC disaster from 2008. I’d say it’s fairly unlikely, though, given the combination of dismal viewing figures (losing nearly half of its audience by its second week of transmission) and the scathing reaction from the press. Even if the final episode does show the vaguest hint of promise, with both the acting and plotting improving from gut-wrenchingly awful to merely appallingly bad, I can’t see any possible future for this series other than as an unintentional farce.
The Discs
Spooks: Code 9 is presented anamorphically in its original aspect ratio of 1.78:1. This is one of those naff-looking shows that is shot on video and then deinterlaced to make it appear like film, the result being that every second field is discarded so you end up with half the vertical resolution and distracting stair-stepping artefacts on anything that looks remotely like a diagonal line. As such, the DVD release probably looks about as good as it possibly could have, which is not to say that it looks particularly good at all.
Sound is a no-frills Dolby Digital 2.0 stereo track, which is perfectly crisp and clear but is understandably flat and never more than serviceable. Optional English subtitles are provided.
There are no extras. The six episodes are spread across two DVDs, with Disc 1 containing Episodes 1-4 and Disc 2 housing the final two.



Comments
The Duck
Posts: 705
I dobut it would make much/any difference to the image quality, and obviously it wouldn't improve the show itself, but why are the episodes split 4 and 2 instead of the more logical 3 and 3? Did someone forget to put the extras on the second disc or something?
This sort of oddity/stupidty seems to happen fairly often these days. The most recent example I can think of was Damages, which squeezed five episodes onto disc one, five onto disc two, and then just three and extras onto disc three, in spite of the fact that the first episode is the longest by far and the extras were barely the length of another episode.
Perhaps the most annoying example is on the Jeremy Brett Sherlock Holmes series though. I can't remember exactly how the episodes are divied up, but they cram as many 50-minute episodes onto each disc as they can... until the last, which has a sole episode on it! Did these people last take maths in primary school and fail it?
Member
Posts: 173
Maybe disc two is a DVD-5?
Contributor
Posts: 1645
------
Reviews | DVDs | My Web Site
The Duck
Posts: 705
A sensible point, should've thought of that!
I'll stand by my witterings on the others though, especially Damages.
das contributor
Posts: 897
Contributor
Posts: 1645
Thanks, glad you enjoyed the review.
I haven't personally seen any US shows that use the de-interlaced trick, I believe mainly because the technique appears to have originated in the UK - in fact, I believe it happened quite by accident at some point in the early 90s when an editor working on a show (I forget which it was, but it may have been Heartbeat) suddenly noticed that the footage looked more film-like with half the fields removed. Of course, back in these days we were all watching big bulky interlaced TVs, so the jagged lines and lost resolution wouldn't have been so noticeable, if at all, but as progressive scan equipment has become the norm, the flaws in this practice have become all too clear.
Wikipedia has a decent article about the "filmizing" process, of which deinterlacing footage shot on video is a component. It also includes a list of "filmized" productions, although I believe there are a few discrepancies. For instance, Casualty, as of its 22nd series, adopted a "film look", but actually uses modified cameras so the footage shot is natively progressive 25p to begin with, eliminating the need for deinterlacing and the resulting jaggies and loss of resolution. Why other series (including its sister show, Holby City) don't go with this technique instead of intentionally degrading their image quality is a mystery to me. I suppose it ultimately comes down to that fact that, a lot of the time, the producers of these shows have more ambitious aspirations than they budget will allow, and tweaking the contrast, deinterlacing etc. is a fairly cheap way of making the material look a little more film-like, which has obvious connotations with "quality".
------
Reviews | DVDs | My Web Site
Spel chequer
Posts: 330
It was indeed 'Heartbeat' that first used field removal to imitate a filmic look. I joined YTV a few years after the show started.
Ironically we also hosted the post-production work on Spooks: Code 9. But don't tell anyone...
'Similar releases: Noddy'?
Come on Michael - you can do better. :D
The Duck
Posts: 705
I don't know why it would be, but I always think the BBC's shows that are made in HD (which Code 9 is) suffer more from filmising than SD ones (when both are watched at normal broadcast / DVD quality, at any rate). The look of Torchwood vs the look of Doctor Who being one obvious example, I think -- I frequently think Torchwood looks video-y, but never catch myself thinking the same for Who. Of course, that could just be down to their respective qualities :p
Contributor
Posts: 1645
Thanks for the clarification. So were you involved directly in the post work for Code 9?
Badblokebob:
Wait a minute - Code 9 is shot in HD? Are you sure? In that case, there should be no reason for the jaggies deinterlacing technique, unless they shot it in interlaced mode, downscaled it to standard definition and then deinterlaced it there. The ill-fated Holby Blue, for example, was shot in HD but didn't suffer from any jaggies or loss of resolution in standard definition.
I must say that, from what little I've seen of the Russell T. Davies resurrection of Doctor Who, it has always looked rather cheap and video-like.
------
Reviews | DVDs | My Web Site
The Duck
Posts: 705
I only know Code 9 is in HD because I happened to spot it on the BBC HD schedule this evening, but it's there, so...
As for Who, it often doesn't look great, but Torchwood is worse imo.
Contributor
Posts: 1645
------
Reviews | DVDs | My Web Site
Member
Posts: 18
"I’d say it’s fairly unlikely, though, given the ... dismal viewing figures (losing nearly half of its audience by its second week of transmission)" Sometimes people can be quite dismissive of BBC3 viewers, but this suggests that half of them are pretty much on the ball! Perhaps even more than half if viewing figures continued to tail off...
Regarding filmised US shows, the only one I can think of is Curb Your Enthusiasm (which looks so bad when converted to PAL afterwards that the Beeb and More4 use raw interlaced versions - although the PAL DVDs don't). I would think the reason the US didn't go in for filmised video, aside from usually having the money for film or HD, is that converting 60 to 30 still looks too smooth for film, and breaks the illusion - especially since the American viewers are also used to film having 3:2 pulldown. Aside from Curb, I've only ever seen it used in the US on DVD extras or brief gag-shots in interlaced programmes.
With Torchwood, one of the regulars at the Dr Who RT forum used to explain that the cameras they were using were responsible for the dodgy pictures. Might be worth seeing if he still posts there if you want to find out more.
Spel chequer
Posts: 330
Originally Posted by Michael Mackenzie:
Phaideaux2000:
Thanks for the clarification. So were you involved directly in the post work for Code 9?
No I wasn't involved myself, I was booked (as editor) on other shows throughout. In addition the show was edited (at YTV) primarily by non-ITV freelancers, with our people only stepping in to do late 'tidy up' work. Most of which stemmed from our greater familiarity with Final Cut Pro. All the sound post production was handled by the YTV team though.
I do know the Beeb had enormous difficulties getting their heads around the HD format on Torchwood, which is why they never went that route for Doctor Who. Torchwood looked appalling on air, but does look better on Blu-Ray. A bit.
YTV's first foray into HD shooting and editing was with 'The Royal Today'...another show i was not involved with but my colleagues tell me it was a hell of a learning experience!
Member
Posts: 173
Originally Posted by phaideaux2000:
...the Beeb had enormous difficulties getting their heads around the HD format on Torchwood, which is why they never went that route for Doctor Who.
No, it's because Who uses far more CGI which is expensive and time-consuming to render in HD. That said, the technology's improving so HD Who is probably just a year or two away.
Spel chequer
Posts: 330
Originally Posted by Rossyross:
No, it's because Who uses far more CGI which is expensive and time-consuming to render in HD.
Kinda what I meant; our lot experienced the same rendering nightmares on relatively simple stuff on 'The Royal Today'. As they discovered on 'Torchwood' its a laborious pain - hence Doctor Who not being HD yet as you say.
I don't know the specifics, but filming on the format was not as straightforward as SD was (same with 'Torchwood' according to Russell T) which also no doubt affected the decision.