> Brits don't insult your intelligence too greatly in their [..] shows

That's a very way to express that idea. I'll be reusing that, if you don't mind.. :-) I've always expressed it more crudely as having the feeling of being forcefully lobotomized by the producers..

As in, British shows don't necessarily explain or show everything? I'm a bit lost here.

Well, looks like British television isn't for you.

As in: those shows don't insult your intelligence by presenting something impossible or untruthful as a fact, and by assuming that the viewer will be too intellectually challenged to question anything spoon fed to him.

You'll know when you see a show or a broadcast that gives you the impression your brain is leaking out of your ears.

That was a brilliant show. Not just because of Gary Oldman. Well-drawn characters throughout.

I've just started season 3 so no spoilers please :)

Gary Oldman was a lot of it.

I had read and enjoyed the first two books. After the first couple of episodes I had to admit I was watching it for Gary Oldman more than anything else. I'd watch just a supercut of him expressing disdain for and disappointment with his subordinates.

If you enjoy Slow Horses, I highly recommend the book series it’s based on. I’m not sure if Mick Herron wrote the books with Gary Oldman in mind, but it’s the perfect Oldman character nonetheless. The show is quite a faithful adaptation of the books, even down to some lines. Excellent review of Oldman in the 3rd season: https://defector.com/gary-oldman-is-gross-and-loving-it?gift...

Sandbaggers is still up there as one of the best, I rewatched it last week.

I am English, and old enough to have seen "Sandbaggers". I don't know how I never heard of this show until I found the complete series on Youtube a few months ago. Now I am enjoying viewing it for the first time.

The latest season got a bit silly at the end, but still entertaining.

>Brits don't insult your intelligence too greatly in their spook shows; the American variety always involves some sort of super-human characters.

This is why I could never get into House of Cards, it's just so over the top compared to something like Borgen which for me to this day is still one of the best political dramas ever made, also sadly went somewhat under the radar especially across the pond.

It wasn't any over the top than the original. It mostly just followed The BBC production almost to the letter, except with US spin.

Until Season 4?. Whenever the re-election campaign started. Joel Kinnaman, while a great actor (loved him in Altered Carbon) was a massive miscast as a plausible candidate for the GOP. Mostly due to youth. And the last season was a Game of Thrones-level utter disaster.

I thought the original was scoped and paced perfectly: no fluff, all action (of the suspensy kind), didn't wait for itself to peter out.

The remake just drags on and on and on. Tons of irrelevant detail and uninteresting sidestories.

> Tons of irrelevant detail and uninteresting sidestories.

That's how I felt about Succession for 3 seasons.

I felt it just dragged and dragged and I couldn't understand what was the fuss.

Then I started watching some YouTube commentary and starting to understand that the irrelevant and uninteresting was actually relevant and interesting.

ATN, the succession, that was all bogus for character development, a setup.

I feel like House of Cards may fall in a similar category there. It's not much about the action but character evolution and dynamics.

Oh I have no doubt that was the aim in the HoC remake. It just wasn't any good, unlike Succession. Not all character development and dynamics are interesting.

The scope and pacing in the original was just perfect. Just because you can layer on more, doesn't mean it's gonna make it better. Much was pure tedium and seemed to serve filling time first and foremost.

except it made more sense Francis Urquhart being Conservative than Frank Underwood being Democrat

This is the first time I see a fellow Altered Carbon fan in the wild.

In the wild? For people who read books, they probably weren't a fan. For people who don't care about source material, the show was amazing. I'm still pissed it was cancelled. It was apparently ridiculous expensive to produce and that's all the more reason they should have kept going with it: to show that we want more of those types of things.

Recasting of the main character didn't help, even if it's explainable in-universe.

I thought it was a great standalone show. What I found unforgivable were the underlying plot changes vs the books.

The Last Envoy? What? That did not even become a plot point (at least in season 1, I bailed pretty early in S2). Also, Envoys are terrorists and not the ultimate-special ops forces?

This is what really threw me. In the book, Kovacs was hired because he had been a highly-trained UN envoy. It made little sense for him to be hired as a known terrorist. I wasn't much of a fan of any of the terrorist cell background, or the other background elements like those with his sister, that they decided to add to the show.

let's make it three then. Read the books, enjoyed the series(s). Want a unicorn backpack to carry around, but don't think I can carry it off (pun intended) the way Joel did.

I stopped in the episode where, for me at least, out of absolutely nowhere, Spacey's character seduces a body guard and him and his wife have a 3some with him. I'm sure many people loved that. For me, I was like WTF? what was completely out of left field, added to punch up ratings or just it insert shock value. I stopped watching. What that in the UK version?

Did you check out the original UK House of Cards? Worth catching if you can find it.

Yeah but "the dogs" in Slow Horses is laughably out of control ridiculous at points...reaches out of your immersion in the interesting story to grab you, shake you, and declare what you're watching is absurd hyperbole. Very disappointed by that aspect and I hope they're done with that excess.

That's a fair statement. My standard for this type of show remains BBC's Tinker Tailor Solider Spy (1979) and the follow up Smiley's People (1982).

Alec Guinness owns Smiley. Just perfect. Absolutely gripping yet low budget [+] it actually demands that you use your intellect to keep up. If you haven't seen those I say whip up ye old torrent client and get some.

Anyways, I did say "too greatly". Someone up there says "no spoilers" so ..

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080297/

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0083480/

agreed: john le carre bbc is great. also loved Luther, slightly off topic.

Back in the late 80s they did a TV production of Deighton's Berlin Game, Mexico Set, London Match. Unfortunately, BBC/GranadaTV do not wish to release it on dvd or streaming even in original quality, assuming the tapes still exist. There is, however, a low quality youtube (probably a copy of home VHS):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezekuICeYlg&list=PLSpG6jj23V...

Watched with my father growing up, may even have some home copies myself.

Eh, maybe? There's got to be _something_ for sociopathic ex-squaddies to do who don't want to go back to civvie street. I found their existence believable, if not the high speed Range Rover driving stuff. It's very clearly not going for full-on realism, obviously a fantasy spy show. So the dogs work in that context - at least for me.

EDIT: someone else mentioned Tinker Tailor (either the '80s BBC miniseries or the Gary Oldman movie - once again he's killing it) which is far more grounded. That might be more up your street? I enjoyed both a lot. Bleak as hell though.

> Bleak as hell though.

It's called Realism.

>is laughably out of control ridiculous at points

I mean this is just American politics in general.

It's a show specifically about MI5 in Britain.