Things we noticed watching TV this week: Torchwood Special (Spoilers)

There was only really one show to watch this past week, but in between Celebrity Masterchef I manage to catch a glimpse of Torchwood: Children of Earth.

The dust has settled, opinions have been shared, and a disgrace has taken place - which I will come back to later. But as for the actual series itself, my goodness, what a great bit of British television that was! All the controversy beforehand had been about Torchwood being 'relegated' to just five episodes, stripped across one week. But because of the long wait, because of the build up, because of the switch to BBC1, in the end, it felt like a big TV event and not just another series of a popular, but not mainstream show. With viewing figures hovering around the 6 million mark all week, and even rising at one point, there can be no doubt it was a resounding success. Five hours of TV is a lot to cover in one blog post so I will just pick out a few moments of what worked, and what, in my opinion, didn't.

A stand out moment of Episode One was undoubtedly the reveal that potential new Torchwood member, Dr. Rupesh Patanjali, was actually a mole, and his betrayal led to a bomb being planted in Captain Jack's stomach. I didn't see either coming and to blow up Jack and the Hub in the first episode is setting the drama metre pretty high right from the off. We knew of course that Jack would survive, proving I think beyond any further speculation that he really, really cannot die. But what lifts Sci-Fi from the jibes it usually gets from its critics are not the crash, bang, wallop scenes. It's the quiet, character driven moments that let you know that although this is a world of aliens etc, it is also populated by real people with real emotions. Three scenes, with Jack and his daughter and grandson, Ianto with his sister and family, and Gwen and Clement, were beautifully written and made sure that the show had a sense of soul, and not just spectacle.

Episode Two was a quieter affair, necessarily so as we saw the Torchwood team reeling from the previous days events. Jack is now incarcerated and Ianto and Gwen are on the run. Admittedly, because the audience are privy to what's going on inside Thames House, and indeed what happened in 1965, we are desperate for the characters to catch up. So whilst this was still an enjoyable continuation of the story, it felt like a set up of far more drama to come. And maybe I missed something, but how did Ianto know what cell to crash into with his fork-lift truck to spirit an encased Jack away to safety?

Episode Three picked things up and started providing some answers. The aliens land and they want kids, lots of kids. I couldn't help be reminded of Independence Day with the fire bolt from the sky and the 456 even looked a bit like the other lot. Threats to destroy the world too - but that probably goes hand in hand with alien territory. But this lot are actually here to negotiate, of sorts. And so there were long scenes of Peter Capaldi talking to them, in their glass crate, trying to figure this thing out so everyone can go home happy. Sounds a bit dull, right? Wrong. I've argued for a long time that people just talking in a room, traditionally thought of as big no no in screenwriting, can be extremely dramatic and bloody tense! Just look at Twelve Angry Men, or more recently God On Trial and Endgame. And it was a similar story here. I couldn't take my eyes off it. And then came the sucker punch. It was clear Jack knew about 1965, but I for one did not expect him to have been involved with handing over twelve children to the aliens (in exchange for an anti-virus needed on Earth). It was a great character moment because suddenly, certainties that Gwen and Ianto depended on were whipped out from under them. It propelled us nicely into the penultimate day.

Everything until now has been a pre-amble for the last two episodes. Day Four kicks things up a gear with the decision of Jack and Torchwood to fight back this time, and that 10% of the world's children is too high a price to pay. Again, the most dramatic scenes take place with people talking around the table - this time the cabinet deciding how to choose the children. The tension was palpable and it worked because it was a genuine impossible dilemma. Drama works best in shades of grey. Unless the genre calls for it, characters are more effective if they are not painted with broad strokes. Nuance and subtly is the key. Torchwood was at its best when the characters faced impossible choices. Otherwise good men and women, who genuinely have the country's best interests at heart (even if we disagree with them) have to decide things no one should have to. Yes this was Sci-Fi so it involved aliens. Yes this was TV so it wasn't real. But the concepts undoubtedly have happened before and will happen again. Where it didn't work so well was when it lapsed into cliche. Would it have been more dramatic and gut wrenching if the PM had been a good man, and not a self serving back stabber? Can we finally move on from the Americans = Bad, characterisation shorthand? (Seriously give it up. Bush is gone, they voted for Obama, lets move on.)

In the episode climax, Jack and Ianto bribe their way into Thames House, it all goes pear shaped, and Ianto dies. I. Was. Shocked. Torchwood ended the last series by killing off two main characters, and now boom, another was gone... and it wasn't even the finale. I've criticized some shows for wanting us to buy into life and death scenarios, and then continually bottling it with everyone being alright in the end. This can certainly not be levelled at Torchwood. And it was Jack's fault too! They charged into Thames House with the worse plan ever. They would tell the 456 there was no deal and... that was it. This has taken some stick for being a plot failing, but I actually think it was deliberate. Jack has never been like the more cerebral Doctor. He flies by the seat of his pants and gets by on being flash, brash and ballsy. In other words everything he used to get into Thames House - and then for it to go terribly wrong. It was perfect. Now we were really in trouble. Our usual tactics weren't going to work this time. Ianto is dead. Everyone is devastated. And we have no plan.

And so to the excruciating final episode. Having discovered the previous day that the aliens do not harm the children, but rather feed off them to produce a drug like euphoria, this episode contained the strongest anti-drug message since Zammo just said no! But in yet another heart wrenching and beautifully written (and shot) scene, Peter Capaldi is ordered to hand over his children to show the government isn't playing favourites, but knowing their fate, decides to kill his family before turning the gun on himself. This is prime time BBC1! It's a massive show of support for Russell T and his team and a genuine show of risk taking. But just when I thought the series couldn't get any more heart wrenching comes the devastating realisation that the only way for Jack to save the world (who after failing with his usual methods, is now thinking things through Doctor like) is by sacrificing his own grandson. It was an agonising scene to watch but emotionally powerful throughout. I must admit, and maybe this is just me, but I didn't entirely get how it all worked. It was something to do with frequencies but I'm not actually sure how, or if, the alien race was vanquished? Lying in bed last night (I watched Eps 4 & 5 yesterday) other questions popped into my brain. They're actually pretty much the same ones on Dan's blog so I won't repeat them here. But it's clear that not everything worked or was tied up at the end.

However overall it was a fantastic series, a fantastic experiment almost, and because of the figures it got one likely to be repeated. I for one would definitely tune in. Another aspect that I really love about it is that The Doctor Who universe is so well formed, that the audience already has certain expectations. This can lead to awkward moments like the early explanation that Martha Jones is on her honeymoon (er, she probably woulda cut it short in the face of the apocalypse) to the cool video message Gwen leaves in Episode 5. Although I knew full well that David Tennant would not be appearing, after the cataclysmic events of Day 4, and the seeming no way out situation, I found myself genuinely wondering whether The Doctor would appear. Maybe they had kept that one brilliant secret from us? Of course I knew he wouldn't, but if not him then who? I wonder if this came up in the writing room because low and behold, there was Gwen, pre-empting the audience and wondering exactly the same thing. How clever is that? How brilliant and how well do you know your story world to do something like that.

And then things all got a bit distasteful. Apparently a few people didn't agree with some of the plot decisions of Torchwood: Children of Earth. Shock horror. Apparently an even fewer number of people took this to mean they could abuse writer James Moran on his blog, twitter, email etc. I believe in free speech. What writer doesn't? I've spoken about that before on this blog and only a couple of weeks ago discussed the decorum I try to use when commenting on current TV shows. But I also believe free speech is not a concept to hide behind when all you actually want to do is abuse.

My profile has risen over the last few months. First because of the award and then because this blog was linked to the BBC Writersroom website. People new to screenwriting have emailed me asking for advice, and where I've been able to, I have gladly given it. One such piece of advice is to read blogs by other writers. Screenwriting books are of varied use and quality - and expensive in these tough times. But blogs are free and you get real time, up to date info, tips and advice. One of those blogs would had to have been James'. He is surely the busiest, working blogger in this country. But now, unfortunately, he has decided to take a step back. http://jamesmoran.blogspot.com/2009/07/stepping-back.html

And I don't blame him. James is a bigger man than me cos if it had been me, I would've deleted every single one of the comments that I deemed to be aggressive, insulting, abusive and not interested in any form of constructive criticism or debate. So thank you - those of you who were responsible for this - for removing (in its current form) a valuable resource for up and coming British screenwriters. I would say please stop by here instead. But I'd rather you didn't.

Things we noticed watching tv this week 28 (spoilers)

With everything else going on, I haven't yet mentioned series 3 of either Robin Hood or Primeval in this column. So this seems a bit overdue. But with Robin Hood having only 3 episodes to go, and Primeval now finished, it actually gives me a chance to look back over a substantial body of work. I'm gonna say from the outset that I enjoy both shows. I know many people don't, and that they think either one or both are rubbish. Fair enough. But as pure Saturday evening slot entertainment, I think both are rather enjoyable. However the idea of this column has never been to give a traditional review that you can find from the TV critics in newspapers etc. What I've always tried to do, for myself as much as anyone, is analyse what I think works and doesn't work so I can apply that to my own writing.

And I think it's really interesting that these series 3's have perhaps shown the value of a US style showrunner (or put simply, a lead writer - and usually creator.) Because I think the lack of involvement of Dominic Minghella (and probably reduced involvement of Foz Allan) from Robin Hood, and Adrian Hodges (and possibly Tim Haines too) from Primeval, has really been noticeable.

Let's take Primeval first, as that has concluded. Be honest, as concepts go it's brilliant. Simple but brilliant. That's why it's being made into a Hollywood movie. And the first two season's rocketed along. So when series 3 kicked off, I had no idea Douglas Henshall was leaving. So Cutter's death came as a complete shock, which I thought was fantastic, because as regular readers will know, I'm very big on killing off key characters in a show that asks us to buy into life and death drama. Because if no one ever dies, well, the belief will evaporate and it will just become boring. (I'll come back to this with Robin Hood.) Then two weeks after that, Lucy Brown left the show, albeit escaping death by the skin of her teeth and leaving of her own accord. This set up the precedent now that no one was safe. For two main characters to leave during a series (as opposed to at the end of one and then not return) is very rare. Suddenly there was the real possibility that anyone could get killed off. But I do feel that the series lacked focus and a sense of unity. By that I mean although Jason Flemyng was brought in and led very well as Danny Quinn, Laila Rouass's Sarah was given hardly anything to do. (And she's an excellent actress, as anyone who saw the brilliant Life Isn't All Ha Ha Hee Hee a few years ago will know.) And Captain Becker was even worse. I actually feel a bit sorry for the actor because his part seemed so bland and underwritten.

Then there was the series arc (again something regulars will know I bang on about a lot) This was where the problems really lay and something a strong showrunner would've helped avoid. What series arc there was centred around an artifact from the future, the eventual end of the world, and Helen Cutter running around in the thick of it. Oh and throw in Christine Johnson to that too. Her character actually typified this lack of focus. Because as well as still not having a clue as to who she worked for or what she was trying to do, one week she was getting a dressing down and seemingly beaten after being trapped by Danny and Lester, and the next she was carrying on, throwing her weight around like nothing had happened. It turned out that the artifact showed where anomalies were (although I think we knew that before the finale) and actually didn't seem to make a difference to anyone. It ended with Abby and Connor trapped in one time period, and Danny stranded in another. So I hope, despite strong rumours that the shows future is in jeopardy, this is not the end. It's kind of a slave to the special effects, which in turn eat up the budget, but it doesn't need to be with good writing. One of the best episodes of the series was James Moran's, which in the main featured one little creature and a spooky house. In three seasons, only once, a medieval knight, has anything other than a creature come through an anomaly. More creative thinking and less big digital dinosaurs can reduce the budget and improve the story telling. And of course a stronger series arc!

Robin Hood has had similar problems. Season 2 ended with the humdinger of Marion being killed by Gisborne. Many fans were outraged, but I thought this was spot on. Not because of Lucy Griffiths, who I thought was rather good. But because once again, if characters lives are in danger each week, and people are running around with swords and shooting arrows, and yet still no one gets killed, we begin to lose interest. And unlike Primeval, who could easily replace its lead, Robin Hood of course cannot. It's the classic James Bond problem. No matter how many times Robin is on the verge of death, you know he'll be okay. So it gets ever more ludicrous. The pinnacle this season was when Gisborne had him completely surrounded, and a volley of arrows or a rush of blades would've seen him off. But no, he thought, a hungry lion would be the way to go instead! It just becomes silly and although there can be comedy in a show like this, the drama has to be played straight otherwise why should we care. It's a delicate balance of tone. But if Robin can't die, the threat has to come to the others. To that end, I think Robin should've killed Gisborne in the Series 3 opener. The fact that Richard Armitage obviously had breaks from filming and has largely played a peripheral role in the series, only adds weight to this. (Although having said that the twist in last week's episode means that the shift in his and Robin's relationship could drive the series to the finish line.) Same with the Sheriff, who has disappeared but those wiggling fingers when he was supposed to be dead, suggests a return is likely. His absence and the appearance of Gisborne's sister and Prince John has been fun though.

But again, the overall series arc has been missing. Season 2 was a while ago now so forgive me if I am off, but I think there was a long running plan, involving black knights and lords and stuff, to eventually kill the King in the Holy Land. Anything, even remotely like that, has been absent. And that is probably why, with 3 episodes to go, we get Robin's long lost thought to be dead father turning up with the news that Robin and Guy share a half brother who they must save from imminent death. Like I said before, a strong showrunner would probably have held greater creative control and unity of vision to balance the series a little better.

I'm trying to give up reading screenwriting books (seriously it's better to save your money and read scripts) but one I keep going back to at the moment is Alex Epstein's Crafty TV Writing. It's completely from a US perspective but it gives a fantastic insight into how shows work over there. And you are left in no doubt that the showrunner comes up with what's called the template, basically how the show functions tonally, story wise, etc, and that s/he is responsible for making sure every script meets that criteria. In the last few years this has become more common in this country. People like Jimmy McGovern and Tony Jordan have taken control of their shows. But there probably isn't a better example than Russell Davies and Doctor Who. By all accounts he ran the show in every sense, rewriting mercilessly scripts that would never ultimately have his name on. But would the relaunch have worked as successfully had it not had this unity of vision? I personally preferred early Shameless to that latter ones, I imagine it's because of the dwindling involvement of Paul Abbott.

Now most of the people reading this, including myself, are a long way off the chance to create our own shows. Correction. We're a long way off getting them made. The creation is up to us. Over a thousand people entered the Red Planet Prize this year with TV pilots. So plenty of people are doing it. So I hope that when these people do get their chance, it is indeed truly their chance, and the shows they create remain their own unique vision. And if indeed it's time to move on to pastors new, like Minghella, Hodges and now Davies, a suitable replacement is brought in. Over to you Mr. Moffat.

Things we noticed watching TV this week 18 (Spoilers)

As I've previously mentioned, the Saturday evening/tea time slot has become one of my favourites since Doctor Who re-galvanized it. Maybe it takes me back to my childhood and youth when I could stay up a bit later and watch The A Team, Robin Hood and ahem, Baywatch. Now, as well as the good Doctor, we have the new Robin Hood, Merlin, Primeval and the latest addition, Demons. With Johnny Capps & Julian Murphy (also Merlin and Hex) seemingly single handedly bringing fantasy back to UK screens, I was extremely excited about this series. And two episodes in, I'm enjoying it.

I get the feeling not everyone is, but equally, I really feel that if ITV keeps its nerve, and allows this series to bed in, it could be very good. It actually reminds me of Sanctuary, which I liked at first but got a bit bored with and gave up when work and other shows were causing a pile up. I think one of the reasons I lost interest was because of the unconnected nature of the show. Built around story of the day for the dip in whenever audience, there was not much keeping my interest week after week. I think this is fine for cop and doc shows, but fantasy creates a kind of mythology (and an ardent, loyal fanbase) and for me it benefits when there are more continuing elements. Demons has, admittedly, started more as a 'new demon' each week thing, but I am hoping that like Apparitions, this is just to lead people into the series and the next four or so will have a more continuing plot. But the actual show is working well, with a couple of reservations. Much has been made of Philip Glenister's American accent. I've read all sorts, like this will make it easier to sell the show to the Americans (er, right) to everyone not wanting Rupert to be too much like a certain Gene Hunt. Well, my answer to that would be, why the hell not? Glenister himself apparently said the following:

"Rupert was written as a Texan originally and I thought b****cks to that - I'm not playing a Texan. They said I could play him as English, but I wanted to have the challenge of playing an American... It was quite funny because they sent some of the rushes to Sony in New York and this email came back from them saying: 'Philip Glenister's accent is acceptable.'"

Well yes, acceptable is the word I'd use too. But why bother? I'm not one to question an actors job, but trying an American accent seems a superficial challenge. Dare I say he seems a bit self conscious of getting that right in the show above anything else. Better surely to create a memorable character like Gene (Ashley Pharoah and Matthew Graham acknowledge that it was only after seeing footage from the first couple of episodes that they realised what a great job Glenister was doing and the character became far more central to the overall series.) Like Hunt, Rupert Galvin is the mentor figure for a younger man, has most of the sharp lines and could be the real star of the show. My other question mark at the moment concerns the tone and the young protagonist, Luke Van Helsing. In the fantasy genre, you usually get one of two types of protagonists. Either, they embrace their 'special' status (like Merlin or even the Doctor) or they fight against it and are reluctant heroes (like Luke Skywalker or early Buffy I think.) They just want to be normal. Luke Van Helsing seems neither one nor the other. In the first couple of episodes he's been really passive, doing what he is told most of the time. But not really rebelling against the 'rules' or training or his status, but not really relishing it either. It's made it a bit difficult to get a handle on him as a character. It's been rather nonchalant that all of a sudden there are demons everywhere (where have they been up until now) and he has to kill them. His girlfriend, Ruby, also seems to be taking it very much in her stride. Why is no one freaking out at this rather odd turn of events? It's a problem I had with early Apparition episodes but that faded over the series. So I hope it will here too.

A whole other ball game was BBC's latest adaptation of The Diary Of Anne Frank. If you type in those five words to IMDB, you'll see how many versions of this there have been over the years. As I was critical of the BBC for doing yet another adaptation of The 39 Steps over Christmas, it would be hypocritical of me not to raise a similar point here. However it is true that this subject matter is one that needs constant reinforcement, especially when Holocaust deniers are invited to speak at leading colleges throughout the world and give television Christmas messages. (Although having said that there are of course, sadly, many other narratives from that period and it may still be preferable to do something new and not so familiar. Compare the recently released Defiance that I have yet to see but certainly intend to.) But this adaptation was definitely written well enough, by the supremely talented Deborah Moggach, who had this to say:

"Like many people, I read the diary when I was young. Now, on rereading it, I'm struck by how contemporary Anne is - stroppy, obsessed with boys, with her looks, beady and rebellious, highly critical of her mother. In other words, a thoroughly modern teenager. In past adaptations, she has been somewhat sanctified - a bit cheeky and talkative maybe, but also over-sweet. I want to be true to the real girl. Sure, she got on people's nerves; but she was also full of life, her own sternest critic and, above all, she made people laugh."

In that respect, Moggach certainly achieved her goal. The character of Anne was rawer but truer than any I have seen before. And stupidly, like all good adaptations of true stories, I was still willing that THIS time, this time, it would end differently. This time they would not get caught.

The other thing that was fascinating about this adaptation was the decision to make it as five 30 minute episodes over one week. I wouldn't be as crass as to suggest that it was trying to soap-ify it (say like Bleak House or Little Dorrit) but if it made it more accessible or found a new audience, then I think it was a very smart and innovative decision indeed.

Finally, whilst not in any way wanting to seem flippant, it's worth thinking about how the drama works. Obviously we know the story, and it is true and heartbreaking. But now that it is so familiar, it's easy to forget that one girl writing about a handful of people confined to one little flat for two years, regardless of circumstance and the outside world that we never see, does not immediately suggest good television, i.e. visual, drama. But it is gripping, because of the threat of being caught, yes. But also because of the well drawn characters and the interactions and conflicts even in this confined space. The whole thing is a dozen actors and one set. Not the biggest of budgets I imagine. So without wanting to cheapen it in any way, it's worth thinking about whether we have any other stories, powerful, sad, entertaining or happy, that we can tell under these conditions.

Things we noticed watching holiday TV (Spoilers)

Okay so finally, I know breath has been baited, but am all caught up on my Christmas TV watching. There was Affinity, another Andrew Davies adaptation of a Sarah Waters novel, the Gavin & Stacey Christmas Special and of course Doctor Who. I couldn't help feel that the premise, that David Morrissey was in fact a future doctor, was cooler than how the reality turned out. I mean it was good, and I enjoyed it, and Morrissey was fantastic, but the grander, wider mythology seemed to be missing. Maybe it was because The Doctor had no assistant and there was no real follow on from how we saw him last. I'm not sure. I can't quite put my finger on it. But it was still great fun. But the two shows I want to talk about at greater length are The 39 Steps (BBC) and Caught in a Trap (ITV).

I have to say I personally find the decision by the BBC to adapt John Buchan's novel a bit perplexing. This was the fourth version of this story, with another one being planned by the great Robert Towne (although this is apparently on the back burner.) Remakes of Hitchcock films on the whole always seem a bit odd, as you are pretty much setting yourself up for a fall before you even start. Another thing that stood out was the fact that although the phrase period piece is usually the death nail, both this and Affinity fall under that category. So were there no other exciting, original scripts knocking about at BBC HQ that could've seen our license fee money invested more interestingly? But oh well. To the show. It was OK. Exciting at times, a little ludicrous in others. I know everyone does it, but nothing annoys me more than when people are chasing someone and instead of waiting until they have them in their sights, call out to them to stay where they are! In this case, German assassins were pursuing our protagonist, who was waving down their car thinking it was someone else. He had no idea. They could've driven up as close as they wanted and shot him. But no. Instead one of them leans out the window, tells him to stay where he is, and takes a pot shot from fifty yards, giving him a chance to escape. I mean come on people! This was not the only time this sort of thing happened either. It's so infuriating.

The other major problem was the voice over. A lot of scriptwriting books are anti voice over full stop, but I don't agree. Quality use of voice over can be excellent. I read a script recently that was a masterclass in this, with the voice over by a young girl telling us something completely different to what was actually occurring on screen. It made it funny and all the more poignant. However, in The 39 Steps the voice over by Rupert Penry-Jones told us exactly what we could see and knew. Stuff like "I had to get out of London" whilst we're watching him at the train station, er, trying to get out of London, or "I have to find Captain Kell before they find me." Well, yes. That is indeed what you have to do. It reminded me of The Long Firm, a few years ago, a mini series I enjoyed, but one that did exactly the same thing. It betrays a lack of confidence in either the writing, the story, the actors ability to deliver a performance, or all three. The 39 Steps was adapted by Lizzie Mickery, who wrote The State Within a couple of years ago, a thriller so convoluted that it could've done with a voice over! But it wasn't needed here and annoyed rather than informed.

Far better fare came from Caught in a Trap. It was inspired by the true story of a woman who stole hundreds of thousands of pounds from parking meter fees to fund an obsession with Elvis. Written by 26 year old James Graham, this was his first screenplay after winning awards writing for the stage. So first and foremost, plaudits must go to Greenlit and ITV for believing in this script by a relative newcomer and backing it all the way to screen. Read an interview with James here to find out more. What attracted me to this comedy drama was the fact that it featured a protagonist who committed massive theft and fraud, who gets caught, loses everything, goes to jail, but all the time you never lose sympathy with her, actually want her to succeed, and also managed to pull off a feel good ending of sorts. That's extremely smart writing and follows in the footsteps of Can't Buy Me Love (Tony Jordan), The Secretary Who Stole Four Million (Lucy Floyd) and The Storyteller (Jez Freedman. hehe just kidding)

How did he do this? Firstly, Gemma (played by Connie Fisher) was shy, downtrodden, teased by her co-workers and loved her dad whilst having a strained relationship with her step-mom. There was also something suitably weird, yet at the same time familiar, about her obsession and how she chose to spend her ill gotten gains. If she'd blown it all on bling, clothes and the usual material crap, we might have lost sympathy. But the fact that it all went on this weird sub-culture of Elvis memorabilia was quirky, funny and touching. Can I honestly say that if I had two hundred thousand quid to spend, I wouldn't blow the lot on Star Wars or Arsenal memorabilia? Well I probably wouldn't, cos my wife would kill me, but if I was Gemma, and living in a fantasy, I might well.

The tricky thing with Caught in a Trap was always going to be the ending. Gemma had to get caught, and like her real life counterpart, was sent to jail (albeit two years instead of three.) But unlike in real life, where the council was left hugely out of pocket, in this drama, we were told that Gemma's acquisitions were actually appreciating in value and that their eventual sale would in fact turn the council a profit. You were left with the feeling that oh well, lessons were learnt, she was naughty, but all's well that ends well. And it's clever writing and a smart example of where changing the facts will benefit fiction. By the end, Gemma had also connected to another (living) human being in the shape of Joe Absolom, and the final scene, of him visiting her in jail, gave the impression that he would be there when she got out.

I think this post has gone on long enough so I will finish there. But I was really pleased that like Fiona's Story, written by newcomer Kate Gabriel in September, James Graham developed this script and was given the chance to helm the project all the way to transmission.

Things we noticed watching tv this week 16 (spoilers)

Where have all the new shows gone? Maybe this is the lull before the Christmas special storm. But never mind. Gives me a chance to check back in with a couple of shows already featured in this column. They both finished this week and I have to say they are two of my favourites this year - Spooks and Merlin.

If this is why we pay out TV licence - fair do. But a certain amount of bar setting means that more of the same would also be nice!

First to Spooks. It is slick story telling personified. Everything is done so fast and so smoothly that even when occasional plot holes are thrown up, they are more often than not missed by the viewer (another trait this show has in common with 24.) Which is how it should be really. But Spooks has always managed a couple of other things really well too. In this thriller plot heavy genre, the characters can often seem functional, there to serve the action and nothing much else. But Spooks has always been clever enough to make us care about the characters. We get to know them through what they do, not through needless diversion into banal personal lives. This season Lucas ably stepped into the Adam vacated void but it was Ros who was really the star. She is surely the hardest female ever on British TV, but we also got to see her vulnerable and emotionally wounded, when she slept with the man who wished to bring Britain's economy to its knees, to gain his trust. (A side point, these episodes must be filmed some way in advance but that episode was particular eerie with the current global melt down.) Then there is the boss, Harry Pearce. He didn't hesitate in shooting Adam's murderer in cold blood early in the series, was later tortured when suspected of being a Russian spy, only then to discover it was in actual fact his oldest friend in Section D. Finally, he gets kidnapped in the season finale!

I caused controversy over at Twelvepoint.com for a stand out moment that unfortunately didn't quite work for me. (Although seemingly only from Lucy - bless her!) It was from James Moran's penultimate episode. And no, it wasn't about the SAS smashing through the window in large numbers to arrest Harry (as seems to have been an issue over on his blog.) This made perfect sense to me. Harry was suspected of working for the FSB. Firstly, he may not have been alone. Secondly, the guy has been a spy for goodness knows how long. It's safe to assume he's armed and dangerous. Would you and a mate turn up by yourselves to arrest a sixty something James Bond or Jack Bauer? I'd err on the side of caution. No, the moment that didn't do it for me was when Connie, the real mole, slits Ben's throat. I won't go into detail of the scene but what it hinged on was character motivation. Ben could've left the scene, had the opportunity and all the motivation in the world to do so, but didn't. Why? Cos he needed to be killed off in a shocking twist. The discussion on twelvepoint.com became one of narrative logic versus believability. I think I've said before that I will believe anything. My wife often watches TV with me picking out all sorts of silliness in whatever show is on, and I usually defend it, because I have already suspended disbelief and am too engrossed to care. Believability is in the eye of the beholder. Anything is believable if you make it make sense. But when it betrays character motivation, and therefore narrative logic, it sticks out like a sore thumb, and what follows feels contrived. I don't know James, (I hope he doesn't kill me if we do meet) and I admire his work (the guy literally writes for all my favourite shows, Dr Who, Torchwood, Primeval, in fact, why not Merlin - have a word with your agent James!) but this scene didn't work for me. It did however highlight the other thing that Spooks has never shirked away from - killing off it's main characters AND keeping that a secret beforehand. (No small matter when you consider the tactics the soaps employ in leaking explosive storylines.)

It's a lesson that could be learnt in Merlin. My main gripe with Heroes since season one has been the reluctance to kill off main characters. In a show about good and evil, heroes and villains, with threats to the very existence of civilisation, people need to die to establish the danger and stakes. The season finale of Merlin climaxed with the near death of three characters... but all survived. Fair enough that Merlin and Arthur were going to make it. We'll be needing them for season two. And true also that Merlin destroyed Nimueh, which was pretty cool. But she was a baddie and had only appeared in three episodes. The fact is, either Merlin's mother or Gaius, could and should have been sacrificed, probably Gaius as he is a main player (nothing against the character himself or Richard Wilson who did a very good job.) But as Merlin's mentor, it would've been a sacrifice and wound for Merlin. Season two would then see him on his own, without that guidance. But at the same time Merlin could rise to court physician and play an even more significant role. It remains to be seen how characters evolve for the next series, but what's more, what is there left for Gaius to do? His farewell letter to Merlin was a fitting and emotionally satisfying end. The way it did eventually end - everybody won and nothing was lost. Maybe this is feel good and necessary for the time slot, (however Dr Who and Robin Hood don't seem to shirk this) but it came at the expense of the stakes and the drama.

Having said all that, I thought the first season was excellent and just so enjoyable. Along with the other two shows in this Saturday evening slot, it has become a solid addition to BBC output.

Things we noticed watching tv this week 10 (spoilers)

You can all breathe a sigh of relief. I'm back. And although the DVR let me down with Imagine's Love Story episode (did anyone catch this - what was it like?) I've caught up on a few other shows. And because it's been a couple of weeks since I did this column, here is a round up of what's been on:

Sunshine was a three part comedy drama on BBC1 starring Steve Coogan as 'Bing' Crosby. He played a good guy who loved his partner and his son, but with the catch being that he was a compulsive gambler. I mentioned last time that it was refreshing to see a character who was, because of his addiction, potentially unlikeable, but had charm, wit and it was interesting to see what he was going to do next. The overall tone was a bit wonky, with moments of extreme pathos and moving scenes set to dramatic music, offset by the sugary child voiceover. There was also a crucial mistake at the end of the first episode. Crosby loses the family savings by betting, having promised his partner he wouldn't. It was then revealed to us, but not him, that he was the victim of a scam. This was a clumsy attempt to make us sympathise with him but it missed the point. In fact, when he discovers the truth and tells Bernadette, she says "so what? You gambled when you promised you wouldn't." Well exactly. Interestingly, Episode Two concentrated more on the drama, and not comedy, but what was important was that this actually helped the show. Without going for the laugh, it made the lighter moments funnier and they really did act as relief for the pathos. It's a fine balancing act and good writing. At the close of Episode 2 we are led to believe that Crosby has stolen his sons savings to gamble, only to reveal that he couldn't go through with it. He had finally recognised he needed help. The problem with this was that he attends a Gamblers Anonymous meeting within the first five minutes of Episode three and ta da, he's cured. He doesn't bet again. Doesn't even come close. So the drama, as it was set up to be, was over. It therefore needed to shift focus and became more about the grandfather's illness and death, and of course whether Crosby would be reunited with his family, which he was. But for all this, I actually enjoyed the series. It was well written and the performances were excellent. It had real heart and emotion. I wondered last time out why it was only going to be three parts? But in hindsight, with the character arc set up as it was, a 90-120 min one off might have served the story better.

Another show I'm enjoying is Sanctuary on ITV4. I checked this out because it's rare to get an original series on this channel (can they bring back the superb Friday Night Lights please!) and it's become a bit of a guilty pleasure. A cross between Torchwood and Primeval, it deals with a secret group finding and providing sanctuary for 'alien' like beings that take all different forms, whilst fighting off the attentions of darker forces. The high concept factor is that a lot of it is shot using blue screen technology. I know, I know, it sounds awful. But it's not bad. I think I'm a sucker for this sort of thing, but I like the ambition of the show and it's another one for the 'not every show has to be cops, docs or any other precinct for that matter' movement.

Speaking of which, Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles, is back for a second season on Virgin. Goodness knows what else this channel actually provides, but its worth it just for this brilliant show. The first season was awesome, and because of the disaster that was Terminator 3, it's easy to forget that the first two movies were fantastic. This series enhances the mythology and scope of the whole Terminator story, and it's breathtakingly written, shot and performed. It's a great example of the boldness and execution of American TV at its finest.

Finally, a special mention must go to Desperate Housewives. Like everyone else I enjoyed the first season, and stuck around for the second. But it became dull and I gave the third a miss. But for some reason I got back into it during the fourth and it had notable picked up. But the reason for the special mention has to be for the decision to whizz five years on for the beginning of season five which has just started. What a brilliant idea! Can you imagine a British TV series doing this? Whatever the motivation behind the decision, it immediately eliminates the danger of the show becoming monotonous again, allows for big changes in characters and provides interesting back stories to explore that we know nothing about. Very, very smart.

So what to take away from all that? Well, I think Sunshine showed the importance of tone and although 'comedy-drama' can mean all things to all men, it's not an excuse to chuck in an uneven mix of both. Picking the right format (one off, series etc) can also impact on the story telling. But it's the three US shows that again show that a certain boldness in creative choices can go along way. I think to be fair we have indeed come a long way since Russell T. Davies resurrected Dr Who, without which we wouldn't have the likes of Torchwood, Primeval, Merlin etc. But the success of these shows, and the US imports that I've mentioned, together with Lost and Heroes, prove there is an appetite for ambitious, original shows.

The big TV news this week is the return of Spooks. But I realise that all I've been talking about in this slot is TV. So whilst I'll certainly be tuning in to one of my favourite British shows, I think it's time to catch up on some movie watching. So come back next week to find out what I've been watching.

Things we noticed from watching tv this week 7 (spoilers)

Two shows that we've previously looked at in this column ended this week. The Cup and Lost in Austen were both largely successful but their finales brought up a couple of points worth examining.

Last week I expressed concern that the lead in The Cup, Terry McConnell, bordered on being so unlikeable, that it was actually affecting the comedy and making it hard to buy into the show. So I was delighted to see three beats, three brief moments, in the final episode that addressed this very point. Early on in the episode, Terry argues with his rival, Steve. Steve makes some derogatory remark about Terry's short lived career and his son, but Terry reacts passionately, telling him that his son is a better player than either of them ever were. And he means it too. He puts his son in front of himself. Later, after Terry and his wife have rowed, and she has made him choose between her and football (the choice every man dreads), and after he has initially chosen football, he turns down the chance to manage the team to watch the game in the stands next to his wife instead. It may sound a small thing when written on the page here, but in context of the show it was a massive moment and choice. Finally, after his son misses a last minute penalty, costing his side the cup, Terry consoles him with genuine, selfless, tenderness. Three brief moments which for me rounded out this character so much that it was then no problem laughing at the usual crap he pulled during the rest of the episode. The finale was then the strongest one of the lot and I hope it returns for a second series.

Amanda Price made it back to present day in Lost in Austen, but only briefly as it turned out. When I first looked at this show I confessed that I loved it, but wondered how long it could last, as this new take on Pride & Prejudice seemed to have a built in limited shelf life. What I didn't realise at the time was that its run was only going to be four episodes! Two shorter than the standard series run in the UK. And with apparently very little avenue available for a second run. Big shame. Not sure whether it was a lack of confidence in the show, a budget issue, or what, but there was surely more scope and fun to be had reworking the famous story of Elizabeth and Darcy. Oh well. As it happened, the final episode was completely bonkers. Amanda found a door back into contemporary London, followed by Darcy, who then found Elizabeth working as a nanny, using all the latest mod cons, but still talking like she was two hundred years old. Then, they all made it back through the key hole, as it were. There was some fast talking to be done, and playing hard and loose with restoring Jane to Bingley because she had married Collins instead. But never mind all that. What everyone wanted to know was who was going to end up with Darcy. My wife, an ardent Pride & Prejudice fan, promptly declared that after loving the series, if Amanda didn't end up with Darcy instead of Elizabeth, she would hate it. And there in lay the challenge. There was a lot of talk of destiny and fate, and Elizabeth seemed resigned to hers with Darcy, even though she clearly preferred 21st Century living. But really, there was only one logical conclusion. Elizabeth would follow her dream, and Amanda would live hers. The series closed as Amanda and Darcy kissed and embraced for the first proper time. It was hard to argue with that... and it made the missus happy too. But the standout moment of the episode, in fact probably the whole series, was when Amanda made Darcy come out of the lake, shirt all wet, and as she put it, "having a very post modern moment." It mimicked Andrew Davies' adaptation and the infamous Colin Firth scene, which of course was never even in the original novel. It was hilarious. And it perfectly summed up what Lost in Austen was all about.

Finally we come to our first look at Merlin. When I heard about this series and how it was going to fill what is now known as the Doctor Who slot, I thought what a great idea. Kind of like Robin Hood with magic. Interestingly, in a forum over at TwelvePoint.com three separate people revealed they also had Merlin projects in various stages of development, now effectively up in smoke. All no doubt had different takes on a classic story. The BBC have, naturally, gone for family friendly, PG, Merlin and Arthur as teenagers. The pilot showed a lot of promise and I really liked it. The young leads meet, clash, and hate each other, unaware that their destiny's lie together. And there was a lot at stake too. In Camelot magic is banned, but an evil sorceress tries to kill young Arthur. Merlin saves him and a mutual respect, if not quite friendship yet, is born. The acting was okay and the special effects not bad (the dragon has come in for a bit of stick but I thought it was fine.) The set seemed a bit monty python to me but they just about got away with it. But for me, and I guess for most of us, story telling is everything. Sometimes a pilot, strangely, is the weakest episode in the show. But when you think about it that's not so surprising. Everything is new, everything has to be established. And they did that well. But the second episode is where I expected things to kick on. But early signs are there will be a heavy story of the week format and very little serial element. Personally I think this is a shame. The second episode had a knight tournament as its main, and only story really. When one considers that Arthur is hardly likely to be killed off in episode two, what was really at stake? Why should we have cared who won or not? Both Doctor Who and Robin Hood were built around a different main story each week, but with distinct series elements. Merlin now needs to introduce something that is going to keep us coming back each week. There needs to be an overarching story, a hook, something at stake for the whole of Camelot or at least the main characters. But I will certainly tune in next week to see more. One thing though. Merlin was deemed to be special in the first episode because he had never studied magic, had been born with the gift, and just had to look at stuff to do it (jedi style.) In the second episode he was uttering spells left, right and centre?? Any old teenage wizard can do that!

This time next week - Heroes is back!!!!