Quantcast
Tor Forge

Science fiction. Fantasy. The universe. And related subjects.
RSS

Latest Posts

› archive

Latest Comments

› show all

Hot Bookmarks


Blog Archive


posted Saturday October 11, 2008 04:14pm EDT

Life on Mars: A Pleasant, If Familiar Surprise (cautiously)

Pablo Defendini

No, this post isn’t about the MarsPhoenix Rover, which continues to toil away on the surface of the red planet. It’s about the ABC TV adaptation of Life on Mars, the BAFTA and Emmy-winning BBC One hit which ran from 2006 to 2007.

Life on Mars is a police drama about DCI Sam Tyler (played by John Simm), a detective in the Greater Manchester Police Department, who inexplicably finds himself shunted back in time to 1973 as the result of getting hit by a car. Stuck in the Manchester of the 1970s, Tyler finds that he’s got a life there—he’s a new transfer into the Manchester police department of 1973, working under DCI Gene Hunt, semi-affectionately referred to as ‘the guv’ by his co-workers.

As you can imagine, the culture shock for Sam Tyler is substantial: coming from a politically correct, technologically advanced, forensically sophisticated, and very by-the-book police department in 2008, Sam is faced with the exact opposite in ’73: a cadre of boorish, sexist, racist, thuggish detectives, who work more on hunches and on beating information out of suspects than on empirical procedure and the rule of law. This attitude is personified most directly by Gene Hunt, a hard-drinking, hard-smoking, hard-hitting, and hard-living general, er, hardass. His character is a fantastic foil to Simm’s by-the-numbers, ultra-PC Sam Tyler, and as played by Philip Glenister, was an absolute joy to watch. Being ostensibly about time-travel, the show ended after two seasons (or “series”, as they say in Britain), and while the resolution to the show wasn’t as cut-and-dried as it could have been, it was very satisfying and overall, the show had a successful run.

As a big fan of the original show, I cringed at the prospect of yet another diluted American adaptation of a perfectly awesome British TV show. As much as I enjoy the American version of The Office, for example, I hold a special place in my heart for the original BBC show. Initial reports of an awful American Life on Mars pilot eventually made their way onto the internet, and apparently the powers that be at ABC were listening, because they decided to re-cast and re-shoot the pilot, most notably casting Harvey Keitel in the role of Gene Hunt, the much-underused and über-sexy Lisa Bonet (swoon) as Maya, Sam’s girlfriend in 2008, Michael Imperioli as hothead detective Ray Carling, and Gretchen Moll as Annie, the much beleaguered and sexually harassed sole policewoman in the department. They also changed the setting from Los Angeles to New York, which—East Coast/West Coast rivalry aside—makes much sense, since the New York of the 1970’s is infamous as a burnt-out, crime-infested husk of urban blight, in stark contrast to the gentrified, corporate playground it is today.

I sat down to watch the show with trepidation, prepared to be completely underwhelmed by what I saw as a re-treading of Things I’ve Seen Before, and in a way I was. The first episode of the American Life on Mars, which aired on Thursday night at 10PM EST, is very much a re-make of its British counterpart, down to virtually identical key shots (Sam’s car accident, Gene and Sam leaping over a desk and into action, etc.), identical plot, and very, very similar dialogue (making allowances for accents and colloquialisms, of course). If you’ve seen the British version, you’ve pretty much seen this: just substitute smallish European sports cars for big Detroit steel, ‘cigarette’ for ‘fag’, ‘formaldehyde’ for ‘preserving agent’, and ‘boss’ for ‘guv’, of course. Even the soundtrack features pretty much the same period songs (including, naturally, the David Bowie track that gives the show its name).

That being said, I don’t think this is necessarily a bad thing. I’m a big believer in “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” adaptations, and it goes without saying that the vast majority of American viewers haven’t seen the original British version of the show. Introducing the show as a play-by-play retelling of the original makes much sense, since the original was just so damn good. How it tracks along with its source material, or eventually diverges from it, will be interesting to watch. Since the original show lasted for only two seasons, as is the case with many British TV shows, I’m sure that there will be additional plot points and storylines inserted as the season unfolds, in order to lay groundwork for a longer-running, multi-season series, as has been the case with other American adaptations of British shows (again, most notably, The Office, now in its fifth season from an original two-series run in the UK). The developers of the American version have already said as much, hinting at a more convoluted and drawn-out explanation of why Sam has been transported back in time. Instead of the original show’s three theories (“Am I a time traveller, am I insane, or am I in a coma, and this is all in my head?”), apparently Sam will eventually come up with as many as thirteen different possibilities, which he will proceed to discard as the show progresses.

In all, a not entirely unpleasant—if rather familiar—viewing experience. I’m cautiously optimistic about the American version of Life on Mars, and look forward to how this re-telling will unfold. If the show is successful (and it should be, if they stick to the original), it will be interesting to see where it goes once ABC has milked the source material.

ReddIt Stumble Upon del.icio.us Digg It Send via Mail
BOOKMARK
PRINT

categories: TV
tags: life on mars, american remake of life on mars, sam tyler, gene hunt, harvey keitel, michael imperioli, gretchen moll, lisa bonet, time-travel, time travel, oh and did I mention that Lisa Bonet is a total fox?

13 comments
joelfinkle
1.  joelfinkle
Saturday October 11, 2008 06:49pm EDT
You do know there's a sort-of-third-series to the British LoM, don't you? It's called "Ashes to Ashes", featuring police psychiatrist, who is familiar with Sam's case, and what do you know, ends up in --80's-- London, but Gene and the gang are all there. She's even more convinced than Sam that it's all a hallucination, especially as Gene hasn't aged a day in around 10 years, and there's no sensible reason for the whole department to have picked up and moved from Manchester.

I've only caught two episodes from someone who got it from someone who should've had DRM.
Pablo Defendini
2.  pablodefendini
VIEW ALL BY · Saturday October 11, 2008 08:26pm EDT
Huh, well, what do you know? I was vaguely aware of Ashes to Ashes as a similarly-themed show, but set in the 80s. I wasn't aware that it shared the same characters! I'll definitely check it out. Thanks!
Tara Chang
3.  tlchang
VIEW ALL BY · Saturday October 11, 2008 11:13pm EDT
I'll have to watch for Ashes to Ashes too. I hadn't realized it was related to LoM.

I had the pretty much the same reaction - I was cautiously optimistic going into the premiere. While well done, it was SO similar to the British one which I adored, that I am currently underwhelmed. I'm hoping it grows on me. If they do *nothing* different than the original, I might as well just watch the DVD with John Simm rather than an Americanized retread.

Will give it a bit before writing it off.
Blue Tyson
4.  BlueTyson
VIEW ALL BY · Sunday October 12, 2008 05:00am EDT · amended on Sunday October 12, 2008 07:19pm EDT
Yes, you should definitely go fire up the Quattro, pd. :)
Mitch Wagner
5.  MitchWagner
VIEW ALL BY · Sunday October 12, 2008 03:47pm EDT
One way to look at the Brit LoM was that Sam Tyler wasn't transported to the 70s -- he was transported to the world of 70s cop shows.

I think the world he came from was the world of 21st Century cop shows as well.

This is a perspective that emerged in the second series of the Brit LoM, and I think it contributed to making the second series less satisfying than the first. And the finale was even less satisfying than the rest of the second series. But, still, even in the second series, it was a very enjoyable show.

One of the things that made Gene Hunt such an interesting character was that he was, in the end, motivated by a desire to do good, to prevent crime and protect the citizens of Manchester. The show's point of view rightly condemned his methods, while respecting his dedication and motivation. That's one of the reasons I disliked the series finale -- Sam was, essentially, endorsing Gene Hunt's methods.
joelfinkle
6.  Jack Yan
Sunday October 12, 2008 06:17pm EDT
The above is the best and smartest review I have read on the US première. Incidentally, Manchester cops typically referred to their superiors as ‘Boss’, and the original Chris and Ray do so on numerous occasions. I was interested in the changes about the word ‘mobile’ (‘You need to sell what?’). The World Trade Center’s appearance was one thing that trumped the original: the world’s (then-) tallest buildings are more imposing than a billboard for an unbuilt section of motorway.
   We do know that episodes 2, 5 and 6 are remakes of British ones (though 5 is a remake of 10 or series 2, episode 1) so there will be more for us fans to compare. The season finalé is likely to be an adaptation of episode 8, given what Sam saw in the première as he “travelled” back to 1973.
Bruce Cohen
7.  SpeakerToManagers
VIEW ALL BY · Monday October 13, 2008 10:22am EDT
I also am mildly optimistic that the American version can be made with the kind of quality that the British version gave us. There are 2 potential obstacles I see to that: Keitel's occasional tendency to chew the scenery*, and a certain surface gloss that seemed to have been applied to the sets, costumes, and locations. Maybe it's just a difference in the budget, but the British version was a lot grittier, with more back alleys and empty lots, and fewer shots of iconic landmarks (not that I'd recognize an iconic Manchester landmark if I saw it).

* and with his place in the Hollywood firmament, there are very few directors who can rein him in when he does.
Samantha Brandt
8.  Talia
VIEW ALL BY · Monday October 13, 2008 11:25am EDT
Never seen an episode of the UK version, though I've heard of it...

Enjoyed it myself. Loved Keitel's performance.. I donno, I suppose I'm a fan of scenery chewing. I'll be sticking with it, methinks.
joelfinkle
9.  macdonst
Monday October 13, 2008 12:01pm EDT
As a huge fan of the original BBC series I tuned in with much trepidation only to be pleasantly surprised by the show. I'm happy to see there will be more adventures of Sam Tyler and crew. Particularly I hope the ABC version explores Sam's relationship with his father in more detail. I feel that sub plot being discarded was a glaring mistake in the BBC's second series.
Melissa Singer
10.  masinger
VIEW ALL BY · Monday October 13, 2008 04:43pm EDT
I found it boring and, "time travel" subplot aside, not all that different from any other hard-bitten cop show, like NYPD Blue (which I adored).

I'll watch another episode, but having lived through the 1970s in NYC, I don't really need the reminder of how nasty the city was and what the war between the sexes was like in those days.

One of my friends from high school became a transit cop and another drove a subway train, and they both took a lot of shit from a lot of people. And I got in trouble at my first job for refusing to get coffee for the big boss. BTDT.
Mitch Wagner
11.  MitchWagner
VIEW ALL BY · Monday October 13, 2008 08:56pm EDT
My uncle was a New York cop during the period described -- I wonder if he's watching the show and what he thinks of it?

He was a precinct captain by then, I'm pretty sure -- or maybe he had already been made inspector? Either way, he would have been equivalent rank to Gene Hunt's boss, or his boss's boss.

(If you think I'm bragging on my uncle here, well, you're right.)
joelfinkle
12.  FluffyPanda
Tuesday October 14, 2008 09:43am EDT
I must admit, I'm not exactly a fan of the way that American shows run 26 episodes, finish on a cliff hanger and then hope that they don't get cancelled. I've seen too many shows that were cut off without a real ending (Space: Above and Beyond, American Gothic), mutilated (Babylon 5) or just didn't have a decent idea of where to go with their second season (Heroes was like that, though Desperate Housewives is one of the most glaring examples).

Give me a series where the creators have a good story and a known number of episodes to fit it into and I'm happy. Trying to squeeze "just one more series" out of a story usually ends up damaging the original concept.

Of course, more episodes means more money and that's why you'll end up with 100 episodes of a potentially great show that never really seems to go anywhere. The artistic integrity to stop and work on something else must be a lot easier to find in British shows where one or two people are predominantly responsible for creating the story/characters.
Mitch Wagner
13.  MitchWagner
VIEW ALL BY · Tuesday October 14, 2008 01:12pm EDT
I've been hearing for a year now how dreadful the second season of "Heroes" was. Well, we're late to the series, so we're still watching on DVD -- we're about three-quarters of the way through the second season. And we're loving it. I think it's better than the first season, and the first season was great.

Does this make me a bad person?
POST A COMMENT Name: Email Address: Comment (bbCode allowed):