Life on Mars

[RainingThrees]

Will anyone be watching besides me?

[EarlJam]

Will anyone be watching besides me?

They found life on Mars?

-EJ

[RainingThrees]

They found life on Mars?

-EJ

Joke or serious question? no they did not find life on mars but the tv show could be good.

[elvis14]

Will anyone be watching besides me?

I watched. Interesting premise. Will be interesting to see where they go with it. The messages from the future via TV and Radio were a bit of a stretch.

[EarlJam]

Joke or serious question? no they did not find life on mars but the tv show could be good.

It was a serious question. Was wondering if NASA was going to go public with feed from the rover. I knew it wasn't "little green men" or anything. Just thought it may be a "look at the snow, ice" thing.

-EJ

[colchar]

Will anyone be watching besides me?

I definitely won't be watching. The original British series was great. Absolutely brilliant. The American version is nothing but a cheap imitation and can't possibly measure up. Plus, I doubt a lot of the references will translate very well. And, from what I understand, they've already screwed with the original enough that it won't be the same.

The British sequel, Ashes to Ashes isn't as good as Life on Mars but is still head and shoulders above what I expect the American remake of Life on Mars will be.

This version could win 100 Emmys and I still wouldn't watch it - I'll take replays of the original on the BBC anytime.

[colchar]

I watched. Interesting premise. Will be interesting to see where they go with it. The messages from the future via TV and Radio were a bit of a stretch.

You have to see the original British version to understand this.

[elvis14]

You have to see the original British version to understand this.

I'll see if I can find it online. You can only tell so much from a pilot since they are trying to introduce you to people/places/etc while still trying to tell a viable story at the same time.

[JasonEvans]

I have not seen the British version but I was pretty disappointed in the US version. The main character did not act in a logical or consistent way when he was in the past. I found the "voices" from the future strange and a bit hokey.

I also really wonder how the show will sustain itself over the long term. Either he is in the past to "do something" or his appearance in the 1970s has no purpose. If it is the former then we are fated to be constantly frustrated viewers as the show cannot have him accomplish his task or the show ends. If he is there for no reason at all then the show becomes nothing but a cop show set in the 1970s-- essentially a remake of Starsky and Hutch. Yawn.

I am quite skeptical that this thing can survive for very long. In some ways, that might be a good thing as they can just resolve it and end it and give us a satisfying conclusion. I think this show might have made a better mini-series than full show. I wish the networks would take a chance with something like that-- a series of 6-part mini-series mystery shows for example -- it could be fun though I understand why they shy away from it.

-Jason "someone give me my own network-- it's be awesome!" Evans

[colchar]

I have not seen the British version but I was pretty disappointed in the US version. The main character did not act in a logical or consistent way when he was in the past. I found the "voices" from the future strange and a bit hokey.

I don't know how the American version will deal with the voices but the British version explains them as the show progresses. The American version has enough changes that I'm not sure how closely they'll follow along with that aspect but, if they remain true to the original, it will all come out in the end.

I also really wonder how the show will sustain itself over the long term. Either he is in the past to "do something"

He isn't there to "do something" (ie. he isn't there to alter the past or anything).

or his appearance in the 1970s has no purpose. If it is the former then we are fated to be constantly frustrated viewers as the show cannot have him accomplish his task or the show ends.

They left a bit of mystery as to why he was there in the British show and tied it up a little bit (sort of) in the sequel Ashes to Ashes.

If he is there for no reason at all then the show becomes nothing but a cop show set in the 1970s-- essentially a remake of Starsky and Hutch. Yawn.

It has nothing to do with being a remake of Starsky and Hutch. It is a remake of a British show that had absolutely nothing to do with Starsky and Hutch. The original has more to do with The Sweeney (loosely) than with Starsky and Hutch.

I am quite skeptical that this thing can survive for very long. In some ways, that might be a good thing as they can just resolve it and end it and give us a satisfying conclusion.

Why must there be a satisfying conclusion? There was some ambiguity left in the British version and that was a large part of its appeal. Not everything needs to be tied up into a nice neat bow.

I think this show might have made a better mini-series than full show. I wish the networks would take a chance with something like that-- a series of 6-part mini-series mystery shows for example -- it could be fun though I understand why they shy away from it.

The original, which ran for two series, totalled 16 episodes.


I should probably add that it seems like any conclusion won't be provided until the end of the sequel. Its first series has finished and it looks like there might be more things resolved in the second series. Then again, if they can convince Philip Glenister to do another sequel they might not resolve everything in the current sequel. If he isn't interested in doing another then they'll likely resolve a lot in the second series of Ashes to Ashes. And, if everything plays out as I expect it to (based on hints dropped in the two shows), it is highly likely that Sam Tyler won't be the important character (he isn't in the sequel) - another character will turn out to be the most important one.

[BD80]

He isn't there to "do something" (ie. he isn't there to alter the past or anything).

In the US pilot it appears that he does change the future (the present?) by his actions in 1973. He saves his girlfriend by confronting in 1973 the kid who grows up to be the kidnapper/murderer who abducted her in 2008.

Harvey Keitel and Gretchen Moll are very good in their rolls, but I find the writing too preachy on chauvinism and police brutality. I'll watch because I like Sci Fi and find the portrayal of the 70's to be amusing.

[colchar]

In the US pilot it appears that he does change the future (the present?) by his actions in 1973. He saves his girlfriend by confronting in 1973 the kid who grows up to be the kidnapper/murderer who abducted her in 2008.

I'd forgotten that he does do some things that affect/protect the future. What I meant was that there isn't some goal he has to accomplish and he isn't there to resolve a bunch of minor things like in Quantum Leap.

[brevity]

I think this show might have made a better mini-series than full show. I wish the networks would take a chance with something like that-- a series of 6-part mini-series mystery shows for example -- it could be fun though I understand why they shy away from it.

You and me both. With the rise of the TV on DVD market, and seemingly instant syndication (newish Heroes on Sci-Fi, Desperate Housewives on Lifetime), there's no financial incentive to create a show that has to last 4-5 seasons anymore. It would be great to see a network greenlight a series that is only designed to last 1 or 2 seasons.

Threadjack potential: what's the last TV series you watched that you believed ended its run at exactly the right time? So far I can't think of any -- they all get cut short or overstay their welcome -- but Mad Men might qualify, assuming AMC sticks to the 5-season plan.

[Channing]

You and me both. With the rise of the TV on DVD market, and seemingly instant syndication (newish Heroes on Sci-Fi, Desperate Housewives on Lifetime), there's no financial incentive to create a show that has to last 4-5 seasons anymore. It would be great to see a network greenlight a series that is only designed to last 1 or 2 seasons.

Threadjack potential: what's the last TV series you watched that you believed ended its run at exactly the right time? So far I can't think of any -- they all get cut short or overstay their welcome -- but Mad Men might qualify, assuming AMC sticks to the 5-season plan.

wasnt Damages, on FX, only one season - or was it just canceled? I really enjoyed that show.

[Rich]

Threadjack potential: what's the last TV series you watched that you believed ended its run at exactly the right time? So far I can't think of any -- they all get cut short or overstay their welcome -- but Mad Men might qualify, assuming AMC sticks to the 5-season plan.

One can debate the last show's ending, but I thought as a whole The Sopranos did a good job of ending at the right time.

[brevity]

I'm not a watcher of The Sopranos, but I got the feeling that the long delay between seasons and the slow going in early episodes of the final season suggested to some that the show ran 1 season too long. Others might say that they could watch David Chase at work forever.

But if you were to hold a poll, the winning answer would be "It ended a few minutes too short."

Damages is returning for a second season. Jury's out on whether that show will go on too long, but I suspect it won't. The FX network seems really keen on bringing in new product; they've already announced a second season of Sons of Anarchy, which just started in September, and airing soon is some human guinea pig comedy called Testees (I kid you not). They'll probably keep a stable of 4-6 shows at any time, promoting the new ones as The Shield is in its last season, and Rescue Me and Nip/Tuck are winding down.

Pretty impressive development for the channel once known for Son of the Beach.

[jimsumner]

"The messages from the future via TV and Radio were a bit of a stretch."

As opposed to the core premise that he gets hit by a car in 2008 and wakes up in 1973?

TV execs sure seem to be stuck on time travel these days. I thought the debut was intriguing. But if there wasn't a market for Journeyman, why will there be a market for this?

[colchar]

As opposed to the core premise that he gets hit by a car in 2008 and wakes up in 1973?

But did he wake up in 1973? Or is he dead and this is some sort of purgatory? Or is he in a coma and dreaming? Or...?

You guys aren't nearly far enough along to be making any educated guesses about that yet. I know the answer from the British series and I know that is one of the things they changed for the US version but, even knowing that, I doubt they've tipped their hat as to the true answer yet.

[jimsumner]

I know, I know. He's not in Manhattan, he's on an island somewhere in the South Pacific. Just you wait. We'll see a polar bear next week. Or evil smoke.

[JasonEvans]

TV execs sure seem to be stuck on time travel these days. I thought the debut was intriguing. But if there wasn't a market for Journeyman, why will there be a market for this?

Sigh-- I miss Journeyman. That was a really well-plotted show.

-Jason