The whole show was one giant cliche, one right after another. It's like they took every cop show cliche they could find and managed to stuff them all into one hour.
Life On Mars: "Out Here In the Fields" 10/9 - Grading & Discussion
- Thread starter Aragorn
- Start date
Wow. That was a vast, vast, vast, VAST improvement over the leaked pilot! 
I still cannot fathom the reasons for a remake, 'cause the original is solid. Period.
But I'm starting to be partial towards Keitel and his Gene Hunt. God, how I miss Glenister...
I liked his "Year of the Fist"
I still cannot fathom the reasons for a remake, 'cause the original is solid. Period.
But I'm starting to be partial towards Keitel and his Gene Hunt. God, how I miss Glenister...
I liked his "Year of the Fist"
Pegg's? You mean Simm's, surely. We do have more than one actor over here y'know!!!!!/feignedoutrage
Simm, Pegg - hell, four letters/initial consonent/pick a vowel/double consonent. What's the diff? Plus they're both little pudge-faces who played villains on "Doctor Who".
Okay, edited it. Thanks.
It doesn't look like we're hiding spoilers. But just in case, there are spoilers below...
It definitely appeared to me that when Sam talked to the kid at the end (as opposed to shooting him), he affected the future. Afterward, he heard Maya on the radio & she was OK -- which implied that Sam's heart-to-heart had a life altering impact on the kid. Obviously, that could have been a coincidence, but it sure wasn't presented that way.
It definitely appeared to me that when Sam talked to the kid at the end (as opposed to shooting him), he affected the future. Afterward, he heard Maya on the radio & she was OK -- which implied that Sam's heart-to-heart had a life altering impact on the kid. Obviously, that could have been a coincidence, but it sure wasn't presented that way.
Is there any doubt about that? Ashes to Ashes pretty much nails it, at least.
Yeah, the only alternative, as I jokingly said, is that Hunt is just daydreaming since he's the common element.
I'm a fan of the original UK version, but I really enjoyed this as well.
One question though: Why, after seeing the WTC in front of his eyes, did Sam seem to think this was all some sort of put-on when he showed up at the office? "This is my precinct!" "Where's my desk??!" I mean, geeze, you'd think that after seeing the WTC, and all the evidence of it being 1973, that he'd clue in to this being more than some trick or whatever. That didn't make much sense to me.
Otherwise, a pretty strong start. I'll be tuning in next week for sure!
One question though: Why, after seeing the WTC in front of his eyes, did Sam seem to think this was all some sort of put-on when he showed up at the office? "This is my precinct!" "Where's my desk??!" I mean, geeze, you'd think that after seeing the WTC, and all the evidence of it being 1973, that he'd clue in to this being more than some trick or whatever. That didn't make much sense to me.
Otherwise, a pretty strong start. I'll be tuning in next week for sure!
It will never be better than the UK Version and I doubt the story can be streched out for 4, 5 or 6 seasons but I enjoyed it overall. Good acting though I do wish Colm Meaney kept his role because he's look and sounds more like Gene Hunt but Harvey did nothing wrong.
Good writing though I felt the humor was lacking and needs to be ruder like the UK version. Since the plot was similar to the UK one I knew alot of it before it happened but I liked how they changed the ending to see him confront the kid.
Above Average.
Why did they change Anne 2nd name ?
Good writing though I felt the humor was lacking and needs to be ruder like the UK version. Since the plot was similar to the UK one I knew alot of it before it happened but I liked how they changed the ending to see him confront the kid.
Above Average.
Why did they change Anne 2nd name ?
Sorry about that. Should have included his original quote:
My view in the original anyway was that while he was in a coma, he did have some impact on the past. And we probably won't get a full explanation of what happened to both Sam and Alex till the end of Ashes to Ashes, if that.
BTW, here some of the interviews the executive producers have given:
Futon Critic
Sci Fi UK
TV Week (flash video interview)
That was the main reason I tuned in as well. I'm a fan of the original and wasn't very impressed by the idea of an American remake. However, several weeks ago I was walking home and, about three blocks from my house, I came to a closed-off street filled with awesome 60's cars, police cars, and even an old ambulance. I took some snaps on my cell for my dad (he's really into classic cars and I thought he'd be thrilled by the ambulance), and realized that this is what they were filming. I mostly watched to see if I could spot my street.
I have to say, I wasn't impressed. Harvey Keitel was good and believable, but, again, Philip Glenister really owned that roll. Mostly, I was very put off by the lead actor. He just didn't seem to have as much going on as John Simm's Sam. Even in the first episode, Simm's Sam was more vulnerable, his rage was more believable -- I don't know, I just found this guy distracting.
In one episode he did bring up the Hillsborough tragedy (well, not by name, but he alluded to it obviously), but as it wouldn't happen for another 16 years he clearly couldn't try to stop it.
Tried to DVR this but the disc got erased instead of finalized.
So, I've missed the first episode. Since serials are so trendy, does missing the first episode screw up watching the series?
In addition to that problem, the repeated ads with Harvey Keitel kicking in a door and barking "That's your warrant..." really gives an almost ineradicable impression the series is really about indulging in delightful backwardness while pretending not to.
I haven't seen the BBC series, so invidious comparisons (the main thrust of the thread) aren't much help.
So, I've missed the first episode. Since serials are so trendy, does missing the first episode screw up watching the series?
In addition to that problem, the repeated ads with Harvey Keitel kicking in a door and barking "That's your warrant..." really gives an almost ineradicable impression the series is really about indulging in delightful backwardness while pretending not to.
I haven't seen the BBC series, so invidious comparisons (the main thrust of the thread) aren't much help.
^Have the comparisons been particularly invidious? I thought everyone was being pretty genial.
As per your question, you'll be fine starting in on episode two, so long as you get you know the main idea of the show -- though I'm sure you could find a way to watch the first one. As per your concern, it's valid. In the original series there was a lot of "indulging in delightful backwardness," as you so aptly put it, but by making the characters complex and interesting, and by primarily bringing up the "backwardness" only as it applied to the plots, the writers really avoided the kind of hokey finger-pointing that could have gone on. In other words, there wasn't too much nostalgia for nostalgia's sake -- it was always justified as part of the character development and story. Hopefully the American series will keep that aspect of the original.
As per your question, you'll be fine starting in on episode two, so long as you get you know the main idea of the show -- though I'm sure you could find a way to watch the first one. As per your concern, it's valid. In the original series there was a lot of "indulging in delightful backwardness," as you so aptly put it, but by making the characters complex and interesting, and by primarily bringing up the "backwardness" only as it applied to the plots, the writers really avoided the kind of hokey finger-pointing that could have gone on. In other words, there wasn't too much nostalgia for nostalgia's sake -- it was always justified as part of the character development and story. Hopefully the American series will keep that aspect of the original.
I'm a fan of the original UK version, but I really enjoyed this as well.
One question though: Why, after seeing the WTC in front of his eyes, did Sam seem to think this was all some sort of put-on when he showed up at the office? "This is my precinct!" "Where's my desk??!" I mean, geeze, you'd think that after seeing the WTC, and all the evidence of it being 1973, that he'd clue in to this being more than some trick or whatever. That didn't make much sense to me.
Otherwise, a pretty strong start. I'll be tuning in next week for sure!
That's an artifact from the original. They went for the WTC shot, which is fine, but you're right. It makes no sense for him to go apeshit at the police station after seeing the WTC unless he's just having a tantrum.
Of course, my problem with the shot is that the first thing I'd do is drive to the WTC to make sure it was real.
Wasn't the WTC still being built in 73? I thought I read that it took from 70-77 to complete.
Looks like the main towers were completed in 73, if Wikipedia is to believed.
Thanks for the answer---I'll try again next week.
As to "invidious"---well, it did seem as though the idea that the English do it better was prevalent. Of course, if the BBC version really is that superior then it wouldn't be pro-English favoritism, would it?
I liked this show okay. Not great, but certainly good enough to keep me around for a while to give it a good chance. They did a pretty good job with the period stuff, and the WTC was a nice touch.
I love Michael Imperioli, and I've kinda missed him since The Sopranos. It was good to see him on this show - hopefully he'd get more to do in the future. Harvey Keitel is nice addition too.
I love Michael Imperioli, and I've kinda missed him since The Sopranos. It was good to see him on this show - hopefully he'd get more to do in the future. Harvey Keitel is nice addition too.
I'm a fan of the original UK version, but I really enjoyed this as well.
One question though: Why, after seeing the WTC in front of his eyes, did Sam seem to think this was all some sort of put-on when he showed up at the office? "This is my precinct!" "Where's my desk??!" I mean, geeze, you'd think that after seeing the WTC, and all the evidence of it being 1973, that he'd clue in to this being more than some trick or whatever. That didn't make much sense to me.
Otherwise, a pretty strong start. I'll be tuning in next week for sure!
That's an artifact from the original. They went for the WTC shot, which is fine, but you're right. It makes no sense for him to go apeshit at the police station after seeing the WTC unless he's just having a tantrum.
Certainly it does; it is consistent with the storytelling approach to the character throughout. He continues throughout the story to try to process what's happened to him, where he is and whether any of it is "real." Unable to believe in the unbelievable, he rejects the evidence of his senses over and over, as if at any moment expecting to find himself somehow back in his own world. As outside observers of the fiction we can accept the ground rules and apply calm logic to them, but the character within the story thrashes and struggles against what his senses are telling him because it's just not possible within his entire lifetime's frame of reference.
For example, twenty minutes or so later in the episode he decides to "keep walking" until he figures his subconscious will run out of details - in story time it's quite a bit later, and he still isn't willing to accept what he sees and hears and otherwise senses (this appears to be a scene duplicated from the BBC pilot).
A guy who would look at the Towers and then accept that he's in 1973 and adjust all of his expectations accordingly - and, from our POV perhaps entirely sanely - is not a guy to whom the entire rest of the story and probably series can happen as it does.
Similar threads
