|
|
Post by legios on Feb 9, 2008 15:52:24 GMT
Having quite enjoyed most of "Life on Mars" I thought I would give the spin-off/sequel a go when it started on Thursday there. Not entirely sure what to make of it so far.
Whilst there was a fair amount of humor in "Life on Mars" I never quite got the sense that it was directed at the series itself, whereas quite a bit of the "Ashes to Ashes" opener felt very like self-parody to me. What with the orchestral/choral themes for Gene Hunt at various moments and the Pierrot as a rather overly self-concious Bowie reference. (I'm not even going to discuss the scene with the speedboat. That was just too ridiculous for words). Certainly I felt that the balance between drama and comedy was much more firmly tipped towards comedy than in "Life on Mars". How far it is intended as a parody of its predecessor show, how much a parody of the eighties and how far a parody of cop shows of the eighties I'm unsure. (I certainly couldn't take our new female lead seriously in her big confrontation with the villian of the piece. Something about the fact that she was standing their waving an automatic at someone in wasteground in the docklands, wearing a hideous white leather jacket outfit just immediately made me think it was meant to be some sort of horrible pastiche of "C.A.T.S.Eyes").
A bit of a shame really, because some of the scenes actually work and I think it is interesting that they have a lead here who has been set up as having something very definite to return to/live for. True it is a cliche, but its a cliche that they can work with. Hopefully it will help them avoid the drift that marred the second season of the predeccessor show.
Undecided as to whether I will stick around for future episodes. Might give it another week to see if it can find its feet. However, they are going to have to do a lot of work to convince me that they can do something different enough to "Life on Mars" to be worthwhile, as well as convincing me that they have anything at all they want to say about the eighties other than just going for easy laughs.
Karl
|
|
|
|
Post by Philip Ayres on Feb 9, 2008 16:27:22 GMT
Fun to Funky ?
|
|
|
|
Post by KnightBeat on Feb 14, 2008 22:06:18 GMT
Gosh, that was boring! Though I enjoyed the aloofness of Alex Drake and the rough-n-ready attitude of Gene Hunt, they were stuck in a storyline that was yawn inducing.
|
|
|
|
Post by legios on Feb 14, 2008 22:40:46 GMT
I do think it lacked some of the sparkle of the first season of "Life on Mars". I think it is because they are really just ringing the changes rather than doing anything particularly different with it (for example where Sam had father issues, Alex has mother issues.). There were little bits of it I liked - the not-quite fourth wall breaking commentary from Alex is amusing in places. Glad they have toned down the self-parody a little but in general this really isn't doing much for me so far.
(As a side-note, watching this made me aware of the fact that I have absolutely no first-hand memory recollection of that particular royal wedding at all. I know about things that people have told me about it, and I remember other things from around that period. But on that particular topic there is just a complete blank in my memory, as if I simply didn't retain anything at all. )
Karl
|
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on Mar 3, 2008 21:33:10 GMT
Got round to watching the first episode this evening. Pretty watchable in its own right and Keeley Hawes is absolutely lovely (and her character is fun) but not sure if it has legs as a series. With Sam Tyler gone, the main thrust of what the show was about (and this is Life on Mars season 3 in all but name) is lost. I'm also not best pleased that the nicely ambiguous ending to Life on Mars was done away with 'he died in real life and in his fantasy life' too. That's just bobbins and felt cold and crap. I really liked the end of that show and it should have been left alone. I'd rather the references to Sam had been kept to Alex having heard his tale of events in the coma and it was still left to the audience to imagine what happened next. It's like if there had been an extra episode of The Prisoner which told you exactly what happened to number 6 at the end of the series.
The other problem is that we know none of this is real straight away whereas Life on Mars kept the audience guessing so all tension is lost. And also that this Gene Hunt isn't the same Gene Hunt we watched in the previous two seasons as he's Alex's hallucination based on Sam's story, not Sam's hallucination of Gene. So it's a different character really, and I'm not feeling any connection there. Glennister is even playing it slightly differently. He's watchable as ever though.
Despite these problems, taken on its own merits, it was a solid enjoyable slice of telly. I'm just not sure why it exists other than to keep the show going after John Simm called it a day.
Will give episode 2 a try though.
-Ralph
|
|
|
|
Post by legios on Mar 3, 2008 22:09:19 GMT
Glennister is indeed quite watchable, and he and Hawes work very well together on screen. However, I like you am struck by the question of "what is it all for". They have tried to ring the chances a bit in this season but I find myself feeling that really it i just variations on a theme.
Very competently done but I'm not sure what it has to say that "Life on Mars" hasn't already said. I stuck last weeks episode on tape and didn't get around to watching it until Sunday lunchtime and I will admit I didn't find my attention wandering.
For me it points up even more strongly that "Life on Mars" was a show that had a good season and a bit in it, but perhaps not much more.
I'd agree with you that we didn't need an explanation for "where's Sam" - he was done as a character, his character arc was closed off in the correct fashion and didn't really need touching on again.
Karl
(Funny, whilst I am finding "Torchwood" interesting me more and more this year I am driftin further away from "Ashes to Ashes" every week. Not sure I would have predicted this outcome if you had asked me at the beginning of the year).
|
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on Mar 5, 2008 23:06:53 GMT
I've caught up now. Watchable enough. Keeley Hawes is so lovely.
There is a hint that there may be more to this than Alex being in a coma/dream/near-death state as there have been a few scenes she wasn't in. So how could they have happened? Life on Mars was usually pretty tight on ensuring the lead character was in every scene (I only noticed one slip-up in the whole run).
I must say so, any time the Clown Of Doom appears, I laugh. Especially when he 'runs at you' in slow-mo in the title sequence.
-Ralph
|
|
Hero
Fusilateral Quintro Combiner
King of RULES!
Everything Rules
Posts: 7,500
|
Post by Hero on Mar 8, 2008 16:36:24 GMT
Keeley Hawes RULES.
|
|
|
|
Post by Andy Turnbull on Mar 29, 2008 22:18:35 GMT
I caught the last episode and just thought it was a bit pointless. Life on Mars did everything well enough another series was just stretching it too far.
Andy
|
|
|
|
Post by legios on Mar 29, 2008 22:48:36 GMT
Haven't seen the last episode as yet. Shall catch in on Iplayer in the next couple of days. I have seen episodes here and there of the series. It is competently done, with a decent cast but in honesty it just feels like leftover offcuts of "Life on Mars". It doesn't feel like it is doing much other than things its parent could have done if it wanted.
Mind you, given the fact that the second season of "Life on Mars" was a little bit patchy it is not entirely unexpected.
Karl
|
|
|
|
Post by legios on Mar 30, 2008 18:29:44 GMT
Well, I saw the last episode this evening and I have to say it was a fairly unedifying experience. In a lot of respects if felt like a thematic retread of the ending of the first season of "Life on Mars". It even had the "parent with feet of clay" reveal built into it. Felt more like a ringing of the changes than anything genuinely new.
The show has a decent cast, and some directors who are at least trying. What it lacks is a reason to exist. Doing the same sort of things as it's parent show did, just in a different decade, doesn't really do much more than make it look like a pale imitation of its forebear. The ending had a blatant "please renew us for another season" which just felt extremely laboured.
I've struggled to see the point of this shows existing, and this episode didn't really do anything to convince me on that score.
Karl
|
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on Apr 6, 2008 19:52:34 GMT
I agree that, dramatically speaking, there is no reason for this show to exist. Life on Mars indeed covered much of the same ground and did it better, with a very memorable final episode.
Despite this though, I thought Ashes to Ashes was quite enjoyable. I had heard it was being picked up for a second season so wasn't expecting a big-wrap so wasn't disappointed in that regard. Besides, the show must be doing something right. I watch very little TV but happily 'tuned in' via the iPlayer every week.
And Keeley Hawes is lovely.
-Ralph
|
|
|
|
Post by legios on Apr 6, 2008 21:01:22 GMT
Despite this though, I thought Ashes to Ashes was quite enjoyable. I had heard it was being picked up for a second season so wasn't expecting a big-wrap so wasn't disappointed in that regard. Besides, the show must be doing something right. I watch very little TV but happily 'tuned in' via the iPlayer every week. -Ralph I hadn't heard it had been renewed, so I was kind of half expecting them to do something a bit more definite with it than they did. "Ashes to Ashes" didn't really grab me in honesty. I think I saw about half the season on and off. What I saw was reasonably competent but did really engage my interest enough to make a regular viewer out of me. Karl |
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on Apr 10, 2008 9:43:02 GMT
I look forward to the inevitable sequel, Golden Years, in which a geek is hit over the head one too many times by a toy light saber and slips back in time to 1969 in a mission to save all the Doctor Who episodes that were wiped.
-Ralph
|
|
|
|
Post by KnightBeat on May 15, 2008 22:07:52 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on May 16, 2008 7:18:48 GMT
Saw that yesterday. It filled me with rage. Just...no.
-Ralph
|
|
|
|
Post by KnightBeat on Oct 3, 2008 18:56:06 GMT
The original UK show was fantastic, but the American remake has had a turbulent development process. The first series kicks off next week in the US on October 9th and promises to be... interesting. There's a preview of the first episode that introduces the familiar characters in a new setting. Harvey Keitel hasn't quite got the Jean Genie worked out as a character, but there are signs that he could improve. |
|
Stomski
Fusilateral Quintro Combiner
YOU INTERRUPTED MY SPEECH!! But don't worry. It won't happen again.
Posts: 6,121
|
Post by Stomski on Oct 3, 2008 22:21:57 GMT
Jesus... could that preview the series any worse? The commentary is just terrible.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on Oct 5, 2008 13:19:46 GMT
It can't be any worse than the original junked pilot for US Life on Mars. That was dreadful.
-Ralph
|
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on Oct 10, 2008 11:49:53 GMT
US pilot version 2 aired last night on the states. Downloading now...
-Ralph
|
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on Oct 15, 2008 19:53:44 GMT
Watched it now. Well it's certainly an improvement over the aborted 2007 US pilot, being much pacier and better shot. Better cast too. Surprisingly faithful to the UK pilot (using big chunks of the original script and a few homage shots) but lacking a certain something. It was watchable though, I'll give it another episode.
-Ralph
|
|
Hero
Fusilateral Quintro Combiner
King of RULES!
Everything Rules
Posts: 7,500
|
Post by Hero on Oct 23, 2008 19:42:10 GMT
Gonna get me this. Keitel as Gene Hunt. Very interesting!
===KEN
|
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on Nov 9, 2008 20:53:19 GMT
Wow.
Just, wow.
The US version completely jumps off a cliff in episode 2. I mean, really. Jings. The tone varies wildly from scene to scene and the actors seem confused. Nice cinematography though.
Well I already have the next few episodes downloaded so I'll give them a go. Otherwise, I wouldn't have bothered.
-Ralph
|
|
|
|
Post by legios on Nov 9, 2008 23:07:09 GMT
So what was wrong with the British version of Life on Mars? Nothing - except that it was really a half-season too long, if it could have been trimmed down a bit in the second UK season so it didn't tread quite as much water it would have been great. In this case I think it makes a lot of sense - the US experience of the period is very different to that of the UK. The cultural referents and trends are not really the same, so an American audience isn't going to engage with the original show in the same way that a UK audience did. To get the same effect you really need to localise it in line with the experience and cultural history of the audience. Otherwise, instead of watching someone from their modern culture dropped into that cultures history they are watching someone from one foreign culture dropped into another. Not really the same experience. At least, thats the way I see it. Karl |
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on Nov 9, 2008 23:53:33 GMT
Also, the running time (60 mins) and short season lengths (8 episodes) for the UK version isn't compatible with commercial US TV (other than the likes of HBO).
So far, the US version is very faithful to the concept and general ideas of the UK version, re-using big chunks of the original scripts. It just seems confused as to the tone and point of it, two episodes in.
-Ralph
|
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on Nov 10, 2008 18:35:59 GMT
Hmmm, episode 3 showed a few signs of life. Rather over laboured but at least trying to do something with the time and place it's set. Still rather flat but enough of an improvement to give it one more episode. The chap playing Sam Tyler is decent enough, despite not being given much to get his teeth into.
-Ralph
|
|
Hero
Fusilateral Quintro Combiner
King of RULES!
Everything Rules
Posts: 7,500
|
Post by Hero on Nov 30, 2008 12:55:52 GMT
I am up to episode 7 of the US remake. It is now on a mid-season break which means US season 1 is likely 13-14 episodes (like most shows) rather than 8 with the UK version.
===KEN
|
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on Nov 30, 2008 13:26:55 GMT
A run of under 20 episodes is more common for cable networks in the US. Network shows usually run around 20-ish episodes for a full season, with breaks (shows with shorter runs sometmes premiere mid-season). Last year was unusual with regards to season lengths due to the US writers strike.
Life on Mars (US) airs on the ABC network and was initially given a partial order of 12 episodes. It's done well enough to have a further 4 episodes ordered. This is common practice if a network is havering their bets on a show as it means scripts, etc are ready to go if they order further episodes. It's more cost effective.
It will need to perform well after the hiatus (in a new time-slot/day) for the standard full-season length of 22 episodes to be given the go-ahead.
It has been speculated that shows this season which would usually be chopped due to ratings have been given longer runs than would otherwise be the case as the networks have less potential mid-season shows to launch to replace failing shows due to the writers strike (when fewer shows could be developed for potential broadcast).
This has been an anal post about US telly. I now return you to your regularly scheduled thread!
-Ralph
|
|
Hero
Fusilateral Quintro Combiner
King of RULES!
Everything Rules
Posts: 7,500
|
Post by Hero on Nov 30, 2008 14:13:51 GMT
I feel enlightened. Ta Ralph.
Has anyone noticed there is a lot less Gene Hunt in this incarnation of the show?
|
|
|
|
Post by KnightBeat on Nov 30, 2008 16:31:40 GMT
Has anyone noticed there is a lot less Gene Hunt in this incarnation of the show? Well, Harvey Keitel is much shorter than Philip Glenister. |
|
