fellicity
Slabface
Thanks ants. Thants.
Posts: 4
|
Post by fellicity on Apr 11, 2007 9:26:57 GMT
I think I'm more disappointed that they would want to rehash the brilliant premise of LoM. Only in the '80s! With a sexy, female sidekick!
Loves me some Gene Hunt, but... meh.
|
|
|
Post by Rad on Apr 11, 2007 10:32:40 GMT
Ashes to Ashes should just be a straight-up cop show in the 80s, with none of this time travel business.
One of the reviews I read said there was a great ending and then it was followed by an ending for idiots who didn't get the ending (ie, the jumping bit, then the retro bit). I kind of agree, although they couldn't have ended it without an ensemble bit, I suppose.
Poor Sam's mum, though. As if she hasn't gone through enough trauma.
And the whole 'you have a different identity' bit was just... odd.
|
|
|
Post by James & The Jaunty Nyasu Vibes on Apr 11, 2007 11:17:08 GMT
I hadn't watched any other episode than the first one before watching this last night, so I don't know if I missed anything important that makes my conclusions completely rubbish but...
I didn't think he woke up in the "real" world. What with the empowering mother bit, and the fact that when he cut himself it didn't hurt at all, I thought that the 2007 bits were just another layer of his confusion, his mind struggling to give him what he wants. Hence the 70s part of his brain trying desperately to keep him by having the other characters be in the worst situation possible, one he can help prevent, just as he has the choice to leave. Which makes his ability to return to it more plausible too.
Of course, if it is just "in a a coma, wake up, life is shit so I'll just go jump off a building now, bye!" then I guess the cut-not-hurting is just supposed to be him being depressed in the Real World.
|
|
|
Post by Ceeb on Apr 11, 2007 11:18:48 GMT
And the whole 'you have a different identity' bit was just... odd. Yes, that bit was strange. It was if they had to justify why Sam had been getting all those phonecalls and the hints that he was there for a greater purpose. Turns out it was all one big red herring. As an episode itself, last nights was probably one of the weakest they've done until the last 15 minutes, since the whole "Sam Williams" identity turned out to be irrelevant. Also - why does Ashes to Ashes have to have another time travel story? Why can't it just be a woman who "knows herself" (Copyright Ashleyne) who is from the 80s? I suppose then they wouldn't have the chance for her to reference ipods, chavs and David Cameron!
|
|
|
Post by Ceeb on Apr 11, 2007 11:33:58 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Steven on Apr 11, 2007 11:53:54 GMT
The prospect of The Gene Hunt Show (OK, Ashes To Ashes)sounded great, until I read the following this morning: Oh God, I know. Now it sounds more like rip-off than spin-off. I don't see the point of making the premise of the new show almost exactly the same as the old one, with a few minor tweaks. I mean, on previous form I'm going to give it the benefit of the doubt, but I suddenly have a rather sinking feeling about this.
|
|
|
Post by lowculture.co.uk on Apr 11, 2007 13:34:17 GMT
The prospect of The Gene Hunt Show (OK, Ashes To Ashes)sounded great, until I read the following this morning: Oh God, I know. Now it sounds more like rip-off than spin-off. I don't see the point of making the premise of the new show almost exactly the same as the old one, with a few minor tweaks. I mean, on previous form I'm going to give it the benefit of the doubt, but I suddenly have a rather sinking feeling about this. I'm sure it'll be fine, it's not like they haven't shown they can introduce vaguely ridiculous concepts in a thoroughly entertaining way. The only thing we should be worried about is the prospect of a further series set in the 1990s named after a Tin Machine song.
|
|
|
Post by Ugly Netty on Apr 11, 2007 13:48:12 GMT
I suppose it's the only way they can do it really, as Gene et al were all figments of Sam's imagination. The link Ceeb posted makes things a bit clearer and explains why this woman detective would also come across the same imaginary characters. If they keep Gene true to his character it should be fab.
|
|
|
Post by David on Apr 11, 2007 13:49:47 GMT
Oh God, I know. Now it sounds more like rip-off than spin-off. I don't see the point of making the premise of the new show almost exactly the same as the old one, with a few minor tweaks. I mean, on previous form I'm going to give it the benefit of the doubt, but I suddenly have a rather sinking feeling about this. I'm sure it'll be fine, it's not like they haven't shown they can introduce vaguely ridiculous concepts in a thoroughly entertaining way. The only thing we should be worried about is the prospect of a further series set in the 1990s named after a Tin Machine song. Smart arse. I hope they are going to offer some intriguing theories as to why Gene Hunt attracts time-travelling sidekicks. I also hope they offer a GOOD explanation as to where Sam and Annie are, if they're not going to appear in the sequel. And then, courtesy of the Manchester Evening News: This had better be bloody brilliant.
|
|
|
Post by David on Apr 11, 2007 13:52:06 GMT
Gene et al were all figments of Sam's imagination. OR WERE THEY? etc, etc (no need to add to this, Nick).
|
|
|
Post by Nurse Dunkley on Apr 11, 2007 14:33:30 GMT
The only thing we should be worried about is the prospect of a further series set in the 1990s named after a Tin Machine song. This concept actually worked earlier, in my head, but that's because it was named "Say You'll Be There" and featured Geri Halliwell toppling off her platforms at the Brits, only to travel back to 1991 to fight crime. I regret not watching Life On Mars. UK Gold or DVDs beckon.
|
|
|
Post by Nick on Apr 11, 2007 14:54:36 GMT
OR WERE THEY? etc, etc (no need to add to this, Nick). OR IS THERE?
|
|
|
Post by raspberry on Apr 11, 2007 22:09:48 GMT
So do all police officers dream of Gene Hunt?
|
|
|
Post by Ceeb on Apr 11, 2007 23:20:21 GMT
My dad is in the police and he is a great role model to him and his office apparently
(he also joined the police in around 1973 and said that a lot of it is very accurate - apart from he wasn't a nutter who invented a whole world in his head...I think)
|
|
|
Post by groopie on Apr 12, 2007 12:38:45 GMT
Ok, having had time to calm down from all the squeeing, crushing disappointment, confusion and more squeeing, I can now safely say that I am none the wiser about how I feel about any of this. It doesn't feel very satisfactory, but it kind of does and I have no idea whether I want a spin off or not. I think I'm just going to have to let time heal this one...
|
|
|
Post by smellslikesomeghost on Apr 12, 2007 20:58:07 GMT
Ceeb thanks for that brilliant link, I feel so much better knowing what the writer's intentions were. I thought that it should have ended with his leap off the building, that'd be suitably bleak and despairing and poignant. I kept being all analytical and going "Hmmm, but if he dies then he won't be in a coma and therefore won't have any of the coma life...that's too big a risk, doesn't make sense." and so on. A rational person wouldn't assume they could plunge back into their weird made up 70's world and get the girl and ride around in a Cortina. It still doesn't quite sit well with me (the kiss was such a cop out, ha ha) but there ya go. Re: the 80's follow up, I adore Philip Glenister (loved him in Clocking Off too) and I will undoubtedly watch, my reservation is that Sam was played with so much serious gravitas and bewilderment, it lent a hard edge to the comedic cops and would be difficult to set up again.
|
|
|
Post by Steven on Apr 13, 2007 11:36:47 GMT
Apparently Gene Hunt is going to cause a rise in homophobic bullying in schools.
I note with interest that apparently it's fine for him to be as sexist, racist or xenophobic as he likes, but the minute he starts dissing the gays, he's gone too far.
|
|
|
Post by David on Apr 13, 2007 11:44:40 GMT
Apparently Gene Hunt is going to cause a rise in homophobic bullying in schools. I note with interest that apparently it's fine for him to be as sexist, racist or xenophobic as he likes, but the minute he starts dissing the gays, he's gone too far. He's going to? Any timeframe on this? I'd like to think that the irony in Gene's comments is obvious to all of the audience, but I do have a tendency to overestimate people's commonsense.
|
|
|
Post by Steven on Apr 13, 2007 11:54:41 GMT
He's going to? Any timeframe on this? It was all rather vague. Apparently Chris Keates, general secretary of "a teacher's trade union, thinks that "this programme could have had a detrimental impact on young people's behaviour." Could. Because it's not like there are any programmes specifically targeted at younger audiences where people throw around homophobic slurs without the faintest trace of irony, or anything. I just find it hard to believe that anyone's going to watch Life on Mars and take away from the glorious political incorrectness of Gene Hunt that the most defining aspect of his character was that he hates the gays. But then perhaps like David I also overestimate people's common sense.
|
|
|
Post by David on Apr 13, 2007 12:21:46 GMT
Yes, I agree, because no one else in popular culture has ever made detrimental remarks about gay people before.
The practise of certain media "personalities" using the word 'gay' to describe someone or something in a negative aspect is much more dangerous.
At least you know where you stand with Gene Hunt.
|
|
|
Post by Ugly Netty on Apr 16, 2007 12:01:59 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Rad on Jul 20, 2008 12:35:21 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Ugly Netty on Jul 20, 2008 13:58:08 GMT
The initial pilot for it was fucking awful, but they've decided on a lot of changes since they made it. I can sort of see the point of them changing the story, after all, the UK version has been shown over there, so most people watching will know he's in a coma right from the start. I did think the remake was completely pointless while watching the pilot, it was the exact same story as the first UK episode but the characters weren't as appealing.
|
|