Life on Mars

Who Princess

Does anybody watch this show? It's about a police detective who's somehow been transported from the present back to 1973. So now he's working as a homicide detective for NYPD and trying to figure out how he got there and how to get back. I understand the idea was copied from a show in the U.K. because apparently here in the States we only have so many original ideas. :roll:

I've only watched parts of a few episodes because it was on after Lost so I really don't have much sense of whether or not it's very good. When I watch it I can't seem to pay much attention to the stories. I find myself watching just to see how well they portray 1973. That may sound weird but that was the year I graduated from high school so there's a lot I remember about it.

Some of what I've watched has been kind of fun. Some of it isn't terribly accurate but it isn't a big enough deal to care about. It's kind of self-conscious about how it's trying to be so 70s. They use a lot of expressions that weren't around then. But you get the idea.

The music is fun. One night my husband walked in the room when some guy on the show was being thrown in jail and they were playing Humble Pie's 30 Days in the Hole. My hubby was like, Woah! (RIP, Steve Marriott, you should be in the R&RHOF!) Other stuff reminds me how much really crappy music there was back then!

Anyway, tonight's episode is called The Simple Secret of the Note in Us All which is a line from The Who's song Pure and Easy. So Who fan that I am I guess I have to watch this one.

Any fans of this show?

Travelar

I really wanted to watch this show. I think I saw a pilot a year or so ago and it was pretty good. Sadly, it conflicts with something else I watch. I'll be looking forward to S1 DVDs when they come to Netflix.

Fifthelement

I watched the UK versions on BBC Canada a couple of years ago which I absolutely loved. I guess I just didn't want to see a US version. So to answer your question, no, I do not watch it :oops:

igotid88

whoprincess wrote:

Does anybody watch this show? It's about a police detective who's somehow been transported from the present back to 1973. So now he's working as a homicide detective for NYPD and trying to figure out how he got there and how to get back. I understand the idea was copied from a show in the U.K. because apparently here in the States we only have so many original ideas. :roll:

I've only watched parts of a few episodes because it was on after Lost so I really don't have much sense of whether or not it's very good. When I watch it I can't seem to pay much attention to the stories. I find myself watching just to see how well they portray 1973. That may sound weird but that was the year I graduated from high school so there's a lot I remember about it.

Some of what I've watched has been kind of fun. Some of it isn't terribly accurate but it isn't a big enough deal to care about. It's kind of self-conscious about how it's trying to be so 70s. They use a lot of expressions that weren't around then. But you get the idea.

The music is fun. One night my husband walked in the room when some guy on the show was being thrown in jail and they were playing Humble Pie's 30 Days in the Hole. My hubby was like, Woah! (RIP, Steve Marriott, you should be in the R&RHOF!) Other stuff reminds me how much really crappy music there was back then!

Anyway, tonight's episode is called The Simple Secret of the Note in Us All which is a line from The Who's song Pure and Easy. So Who fan that I am I guess I have to watch this one.

Any fans of this show?

I like it. Also like the way the music is used. As for the expressions I wouldn't know. But it looks like it might get canceled. The ratings haven't been good. ABC doesn't treat its shows well.

FinsburyParkCarrots

The original BBC series, on which yours is based, was a televisual masterpiece and perhaps my all-time favourite show. The US version is very pale in comparison (unlike your version of The Office, which was very comparable in quality with the original).

There were only two series of Life on Mars, as the actor who played Sam quit. The BBC have made a sequel, set in 1981 and called Ashes to Ashes (featuring a woman cop, "Alex Drake"), but words fail me in describing how fucking shite this is.

igotid88

FinsburyParkCarrots wrote:

The original BBC series, on which yours is based, was a televisual masterpiece and perhaps my all-time favourite show. The US version is very pale in comparison (unlike your version of The Office, which was very comparable in quality with the original).

There were only two series of Life on Mars, as the actor who played Sam quit. The BBC have made a sequel, set in 1981 and called Ashes to Ashes (featuring a woman cop, "Alex Drake"), but words fail me in describing how fucking shite this is.

I think the creator of the UK version said he liked what he saw in the US version.

FinsburyParkCarrots

What's that got to do with anything? The creator of any piece of work has no control over the meaning or reception of his or her work. Authorial intention or opinion is only interesting from a biographical or historicist viewpoint. Otherwise, an artist knows fuck all about what they're producing, and even if they profess to know everything about it, they still know little. Language is a shapeshifting, self-spawning and hydra-headed bastard that lives independently and pretty much in spite of its speaker. Artistic merit is in the eyes and ears of the viewer/reader/listener, and not in the viewpoint of the blokes who are selling their wares stateside. If the author likes what became of their work in a US incarnation, so what? Does that discount the contrary opinions of the dissatisfied customer?

catefrances

being a fan of time travel i thought id get into this series, but like all TV series of late(except dexter) its failed to hold my interest. how is his presence explained in 1973? im fairly certain id notice if some fucking stranger popped up in my life out of thin air.

FINS: is it ever explained? ive narrowed it down to hes either in a coma or hes had a complete psychotic break and everythings happening inside his head.

Fifthelement

FinsburyParkCarrots wrote:

The original BBC series, on which yours is based, was a televisual masterpiece and perhaps my all-time favourite show. The US version is very pale in comparison (unlike your version of The Office, which was very comparable in quality with the original).

There were only two series of Life on Mars, as the actor who played Sam quit. The BBC have made a sequel, set in 1981 and called Ashes to Ashes (featuring a woman cop, "Alex Drake"), but words fail me in describing how fucking shite this is.

I wholeheartedly agree with you on both points. Never got past the third episode in Ashes and even that was a struggle :roll:

igotid88

FinsburyParkCarrots wrote:

What's that got to do with anything? The creator of any piece of work has no control over the meaning or reception of his or her work. Authorial intention or opinion is only interesting from a biographical or historicist viewpoint. Otherwise, an artist knows fuck all about what they're producing, and even if they profess to know everything about it, they still know little. Language is a shapeshifting, self-spawning and hydra-headed bastard that lives independently and pretty much in spite of its speaker. Artistic merit is in the eyes and ears of the viewer/reader/listener, and not in the viewpoint of the blokes who are selling their wares stateside. If the author likes what became of their work in a US incarnation, so what? Does that discount the contrary opinions of the dissatisfied customer?

Jeez. I was just saying.

igotid88

catefrances wrote:

being a fan of time travel i thought id get into this series, but like all TV series of late(except dexter) its failed to hold my interest. how is his presence explained in 1973? im fairly certain id notice if some fucking stranger popped up in my life out of thin air.

FINS: is it ever explained? ive narrowed it down to hes either in a coma or hes had a complete psychotic break and everythings happening inside his head.

It was explained in the first episode. He transferred from a different precint upstate.

Who Princess

igotid88 wrote:

I like it. Also like the way the music is used. As for the expressions I wouldn't know. But it looks like it might get canceled. The ratings haven't been good. ABC doesn't treat its shows well.

The language isn't that big of a deal. I'll just notice that people will say something like "you have issues" which is a 21st century expression. In 1973 we had hang ups. :roll:

It isn't quite the same as if you watched a movie or TV show that was actually made in 1973, where they would be less self-conscious about it. The movie Serpico came out about that time and was about the NYPD. Of course a 70s movie or TV show wouldn't incorporate all the cool stuff from the future.

Who Princess

FinsburyParkCarrots wrote:

The original BBC series, on which yours is based, was a televisual masterpiece and perhaps my all-time favourite show. The US version is very pale in comparison (unlike your version of The Office, which was very comparable in quality with the original).

I wondered about this since we typically don't do very well when borrowing series ideas. Considering the size of the population here I don't know why we don't do any better at developing things on our own.

CHANGEinWAVES

Fifthelement wrote:

I watched the UK versions on BBC Canada a couple of years ago which I absolutely loved. I guess I just didn't want to see a US version. So to answer your question, no, I do not watch it :oops:

I watched a few episodes of the US version... I liked it before... but stopped for a bit, now it seems cheesy.
I'm interested in the UK version now, just to see how it is.

Who Princess

FinsburyParkCarrots wrote:

What's that got to do with anything? The creator of any piece of work has no control over the meaning or reception of his or her work. Authorial intention or opinion is only interesting from a biographical or historicist viewpoint. Otherwise, an artist knows fuck all about what they're producing, and even if they profess to know everything about it, they still know little. Language is a shapeshifting, self-spawning and hydra-headed bastard that lives independently and pretty much in spite of its speaker. Artistic merit is in the eyes and ears of the viewer/reader/listener, and not in the viewpoint of the blokes who are selling their wares stateside. If the author likes what became of their work in a US incarnation, so what? Does that discount the contrary opinions of the dissatisfied customer?

The creator of the series also stands to make more money I'm sure if the adaptation is successful so I would expect him to like it.

catefrances

igotid88 wrote:

catefrances wrote:

being a fan of time travel i thought id get into this series, but like all TV series of late(except dexter) its failed to hold my interest. how is his presence explained in 1973? im fairly certain id notice if some fucking stranger popped up in my life out of thin air.

FINS: is it ever explained? ive narrowed it down to hes either in a coma or hes had a complete psychotic break and everythings happening inside his head.

It was explained in the first episode. He transferred from a different precint upstate.

well that explains it, i didnt see all of the first ep. so thats his story. im gonna stick to my theories for now.

Jennytree

I looooved the UK version. It's definitely in my list of fave's ever made. Dunno if I could watch the US one though. Gene Hunt's character just cracked me up.

igotid88

catefrances wrote:

igotid88 wrote:

catefrances wrote:

being a fan of time travel i thought id get into this series, but like all TV series of late(except dexter) its failed to hold my interest. how is his presence explained in 1973? im fairly certain id notice if some fucking stranger popped up in my life out of thin air.

FINS: is it ever explained? ive narrowed it down to hes either in a coma or hes had a complete psychotic break and everythings happening inside his head.

It was explained in the first episode. He transferred from a different precint upstate.

well that explains it, i didnt see all of the first ep. so thats his story. im gonna stick to my theories for now.

It wasn't his story per se. It's what he was told when he got to the precint.

catefrances

igotid88 wrote:

It wasn't his story per se. It's what he was told when he got to the precint.

hmm. so now my question is, if they were expecting a transfer and sam rocked up, where is the other guy?? or is this like a quantum leap thing and we see him as sam and they see him as another guy coincidently called sam??? WOW!!! interestingly enough the charcter in quantum leap was also called sam.
OOOOOO SPOOKY!!!! :mrgreen

who told him he was a transfer??

FinsburyParkCarrots

I'm not telling anyone what happens.

catefrances

FinsburyParkCarrots wrote:

I'm not telling anyone what happens.

you wont even whisper it in my ear???

FinsburyParkCarrots

Let's just say, in the UK version, things are never quite cleared up.

FinsburyParkCarrots

Jennytree wrote:

I looooved the UK version. It's definitely in my list of fave's ever made. Dunno if I could watch the US one though. Gene Hunt's character just cracked me up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tC62WgREj6E

Who Princess

I watched the other night's episode but I was kind of disappointed. Maybe I just need to see more of the show.

By the end of the episode, Sam arrested somebody for murder that he knew was going to murder someone else in the future. So the assumption was that he prevented that murder (and others) from taking place and he'd done a good thing.

I guess that would be true but it always seems to me in shows about time travel that one of the rules to be observed is that history shouldn't be tampered with. Unless that's why he's been sent back in time? I dunno, the story wasn't quite interesting enough to work it out.

FinsburyParkCarrots

Or is he sent back in time? Life on Mars isn't straightforward sci-fi.

Who Princess

FinsburyParkCarrots wrote:

Or is he sent back in time? Life on Mars isn't straightforward sci-fi.

True. As I said I probably need to watch more.

FinsburyParkCarrots

I would recommend that people find a way to get hold of the BBC series. Okay, so some of the references and dialect might be a bit different, but it is superior, particularly in the treatment of the subtle nuances of the relationship between Sam and Annie.

igotid88

whoprincess wrote:

FinsburyParkCarrots wrote:

Or is he sent back in time? Life on Mars isn't straightforward sci-fi.

True. As I said I probably need to watch more.

Don't get too attached as the ratings are not good. It's a good show. But it's hard for good shows to get good ratings.

xavier mcdaniel

igotid88 wrote:

whoprincess wrote:

FinsburyParkCarrots wrote:

Or is he sent back in time? Life on Mars isn't straightforward sci-fi.

True. As I said I probably need to watch more.

Don't get too attached as the ratings are not good. It's a good show. But it's hard for good shows to get good ratings.

where does it rate? I've seen every episode so far and can't say that I've seen every episode of a new TV show on over the air networks in years.

South of Seattle

After seeing this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FaP3ICS3pS8 I decided to never watch this show.

igotid88

xavier mcdaniel wrote:

Don't get too attached as the ratings are not good. It's a good show. But it's hard for good shows to get good ratings.

where does it rate? I've seen every episode so far and can't say that I've seen every episode of a new TV show on over the air networks in years.[/quote]

according to tvbythenumbers.com it had 5.55 millions viewers the last episode. And in the coveted 18-49 rating it got a 2.0.