From: MDuPree@world.std.com (Micky DuPree)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv,rec.arts.tv.uk
Subject: Re: Sandbaggers last episode (spoilers)
Keywords: Sandbaggers, Ian Mackintosh, Ray Lonnen
Date: 15 Apr 92 09:44:22 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

In article <1992Apr13.172559.25146\@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
ceblair\@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Charles Blair) wrote:
>Can anyone explain the last half of the last episode?

Basically, the best way to get the motives of the Soviets to make sense
is to postulate that they were all for the SALT talks until their
negotiators screwed up and let out more info than they had intended.
Then they wanted to bail out.

This allows both Burnside and Wellingham to be correct.  Burnside said
the Soviets were eager to be in the talks because it was an opportunity
to hoodwink the West with phony treaties.  Wellingham said they were
eager to pull out because they had made a gaff.

>I thought Burnside's superiors made him betray the Russian to keep the
>SALT conference going.  But the last half made it look as if the
>Russians wanted to wreck SALT as much as Burnside did. If so, why
>didn't they go public after Burnside contacted them instead of quietly
>approaching Peel?

As near as I can tell, the Soviets considered losing the defector to be
an even worse consequence than continuing the talks.  This has to be the
case, come what may, because this was what made the Brits convinced of
the Soviets' motives.  What Peele and Wellingham failed to take into
account, but Burnside suddenly intuited in a flash of insight near the
end, was that the Sovs could have it both ways: they could keep Filatov
from defecting by approaching Peele to get him back AND they could get
their excuse for pulling out by killing Filatov (who wasn't of much use
to them anymore anyway) and blaming it on the West.

>Even if the assasination plot didn't work exactly as planned at the
>end, it would seem the Russians could say their delegation had been the
>target of a murderous attack (even if unsuccessful) and walk out.

Tricky.  They could, but without a death to back it up, the world would
be much more likely to believe the West's counter-charges that the Sovs
set the whole thing up.

>Didn't understand the exact significance of the departing plane at the
>end either.

Coupled with the unanswered page for Burnside in the airport terminal, I
took it to mean that Caine was near death in an ambulance, all hell was
breaking loose among the delegations, and Burnside was at least several
hours away from even getting the news, much less being able to turn
around, come back, and do anything about it.

>It seemed they were leaving the door open for a sequel.  Was there one?

Too bad there's not a "Dead Brit TV FAQ File" for rec.arts.tv.uk (which,
I believe, is where most of the "Sandbaggers" talk -- when there is any
-- goes on, by the way).  "Is/was there another series to 'Sandbaggers,'
'Blake's 7,' 'Star Cops' ... ?"

In the case of SB, the reports were that another series had been
planned.  Willie Caine was to have survived, but partially
incapacitated.  (According to actor Ray Lonnen, he would have been in a
wheelchair and given the post of D.Ops.)

In article <1992Apr14.030556.14631\@henson.cc.wwu.edu>
lopresti\@henson.cc.wwu.edu (lopresti robert) writes:
>My understanding is that the author of the series died not long after
>it was shown.  Hence no more episodes.

Essentially true, but the timing is off.  Creator Ian Mackintosh went
missing in a light airplane off the coast of Alaska while the last
episode of SB was being filmed in Malta.  No trace of Mackintosh, his
companions, or the plane was ever found.  They brought in a couple other
writers to write three more episodes that were used, basically, as
filler right before the last episode.  The final episode didn't actually
air in Britain until almost a year after Mackintosh's disappearance.

-Micky