MovieChat Forums > Life on Mars (2008) Discussion > US Version is 'probably' better

US Version is 'probably' better

posted 15 years ago by fallom14
94 replies | jump to latest

I have always felt that the original UK version of “Life on Mars” was uninspiring. Don’t get me wrong, they had a superb idea, but due to the meagre funding British television dramas receive, they could not fully exploit the concept. In contrast, budgets for American dramas are comparatively high, and I tend to think that the concept of “Life on Mars” needs a large budget for it to be entirely convincing. I think the limitations of the UK version were that three sets were used to depict the 1970s. There are only so many times you can show the same sets until it starts to become tedious. Also, the culture of Britain in the 1970s was rather dull and lacklustre. I do have some fond memories of 70s UK detective dramas, but I don’t want it regurgitated. I haven’t seen the US version, but can imagine that, culturally, 70s US is, by far, a more interesting period to reference. There is so much to draw upon. Compare The Sweeney to Starsky and Hutch? Which is more culturally significant?

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] fallom14 15 years ago

US culture on the whole connects to more people around the world than UK culture. In my opinion, it is more accessible. The US culture of the 70s has relevance beyond its own domestic market. I have also not seen the US version but I don’t think I need to. The most culturally interesting television comes from America. Put, simply they do it better than anyone else.

[–] sarlau 14 years ago

That's dumb.
It's like saying the most interesting guns come from US because they kill the most people with them.

[–] Feelinbetter 14 years ago

Spoilers included:

I am an American fan of both series. Just this past week I was able to finish watching the US version. At first I was focused on the differences in the characters from the UK version. As the series went on I did grow to enjoy the US version. The main differences to me were the development of the characters. Some for the good some not so much.

Sam- UK version was superior to me but I did like the US Sam. John Simm was magnificent. Our US Sam was a strong character and I found him to be growing with each episode as a character. Advantage UK.

Gene- not even close. The UK Gene arguably carried the show for many fans. He was also extremely popular in Ashes to Ashes. UK Gene was simply amazing. Superb. The US Gene was a little less brash than his UK counterpart but at the same time I think he had a little more soul. Still no comparison. UK Gene was so awesome to me! Advantage UK.

Annie- maybe a push for me with perhaps a slight edge to the US Annie. Although IMHO the US Annie was actually a combination of Annie and Chaz (from Ashes to Ashes). Chaz finally stood up for herself and was promoted. Maybe it's just me but the US Annie was sort a combo of UK Annie/Chaz. That gives a slight edge to the US Annie. Advantage US.

Ray- A lot of difference here. The UK Ray was less ambitious and fiercely loyal to Gene. He was his "Gov" and almost an idol to him. I found the US Ray to be more independent and selfish than his UK counterpart. He also seemed to be less in awe of Gene with more of a respect feel about him than idolizing Hunt. Yet I found the US Ray to be 100% unlikeable. I couldn't stand him. He was a completely negative persona. No redeeming qualities for me. The UK Ray was far superior in my opinion. Advantage UK.

Chris- to me the US Chris was totally irrelevant. There was only one or two episodes in which he played a significant role. I feel he was poorly developed and a total wet noodle. No personality at all. You could have picked any of the other random officers in the office and substituted for him. Even though Chris is a minor character within the mains, the UK version was far superior. His character was very enjoyable. I will concede that he had 5 seasons to develop and much of his character growth is due to Ashes to Ashes. Advantage UK.

As noted with my views of Chris, Gene, Ray and Chris have an advantage of 5 total series (including Ashes to Ashes) in which they grew as a team and developed as characters. Still even if I exclude Ashes to Ashes, all of my opinions/ratings stay the same.

UK Life on Mars - A+

US Life on Mars - B-

Not a bad grade for either! Both very enjoyable.

I didn't have a big problem with the US ending other than it was so abrupt! One minute you are in story and the next Gene hugs Sam and *poof* we are on a spaceship. I can buy the overall ending. However I think it was thrown on the audience and really needed about a full episode to develop- not just a 10 minute rap up of an entire series.

The UK ending somewhat saddened me because Sam spent all that energy and effort to figure out how to get home and when he finally did- joy! Erm.....not quite. He realized he was more alive in 1973 and so he went back.. That was an emotional roller coaster for sure.

Thanks.

[–] SpiltPersonality 14 years ago

UK Life on Mars - A+

US Life on Mars - B-

Not a bad grade for either! Both very enjoyable.

Interesting thing you've bought up here, and it does remind me of my favourite 'book to movie blunder' (IMHO).

I'm talking of the Running Man.

I hate the movie. Honestly, I loath it. The book is fantastic, but the movie is just 'blah'.

Having said that, I spoke to some people when it came out and they all seemed to love it. 'Typical Arnie romp' they would say. Just enjoyable escapism.

I'm unable to (missing gene perhaps) detach from the book and watch the movie as its own entity, but if I did it might end up something like what you've put in here.

Maybe if I did the Running Man movie would be rated by me a C, where the Running Man novel is a B+ maybe even an A!

What I guess I'm trying to say (a long way around trying to say) is that what you've written above, Feelinbetter, could be a reason many people will not like the American version. In comparison to the British version it's not good. They've 'ruined it'. Had the American's beaten the Brits to the punch and the British version never released, it might be one of those 'great pieces of American television'. Now, however, it will never be anything but a model which is compared to the better British version.

SpiltPersonality

[–] bannor-158-81433 13 years ago

wow! what a naive response. The US PR machine does a better job of jamming sub standard content down our throats than any other country.
Yes, culturally interesting content recycled from other countries and dumbed down for the masses.
Now place your head back in the sand......

[–] peteratyeo1989 12 years ago

I would say that american tv is better then british t.v atm but that has nothing to do with cultural relevance. It has to do with budgets. You might also note that a good number of your hit shows have brit actors as one or more of the main characters despite being funded by and sold back to Americans. How's that for cultural relevance?

[–] krisdl 12 years ago

I never read so a bunch of clap trap, the reason we keep exporting series over to America is because the BBC always does it better, many American TV Companies try to emulate the BBC with sad results. And you kind of defeated your own point as well, culture is world wide, take some time and enjoy the culture of another country ie: where this show is based, it has huge relevance if you open your eyes and ears.

The sad thing is people only want to watch more of the same thing, the poster above me obviously falls into that category. The general census on american TV of most people I have met is that it's cheesy with no lingering after thoughts. It's like giving a camera to a baby, and then laughing because what he did was so cute.

[–] RevisedAndExpanded 15 years ago

Compare The Sweeney to Starsky and Hutch? Which is more culturally significant?

Well, The Sweeney was referenced in Squeeze's "Cool for Cats," so it gets props for that alone.

Aside from that, I agree with your post. For North Americans, the cultural references in the US version resonate far more than the UK version. The UK version is excellent, but can only have so much appeal for US viewers.

[–] CitizenDDT 13 years ago

"Well, The Sweeney was referenced in Squeeze's "Cool for Cats," so it gets props for that alone."

The 'sweeney' is cockney rhyming slang - Sweeney Todd - Flying Squad. Yes the tv series 'The Sweeney' was about the Flying Squad but Squeeze were referencing the actual police unit, not the series.

Sorry to be a pedant, just thought you'd like to know.

Lastly, I don't really have an opinion on whether the UK or US version is best. But what it does show is that the US are short on good writers and big on dollar-watching producers keen to wring dry an already proven, demographically sound idea.

[–] theemaster 15 years ago

I really liked life on mars (uk) season 1.. but season 2 was awful.. it's like all the good ideas went into 1.. and season 2 had nothing.. including a bad ending..

Might give this a watch when I'm bored sometime..

[–] gabrielpm 15 years ago

Bloody american... shut your effing mouth!
Of course the US version will please you better than the UK one... You are stupid!!!

[–] fallom14 15 years ago

Erm, moron, I am not actually American, I am from the UK. You should spend more time reading my post properly and attempt to respond intellegently to some of the points I raised.

[–] bowtie-3 15 years ago

You need to read the post, gabby, before attacking us. You've got issues.

[–] amparisi 15 years ago

If by cancelled you mean they made and aired all the episodes that were planned? Yes, It was written for and ran it's course in one season.

Not sure how remarks about people having no desire to see it fit in. Anyone, American or otherwise, who didn't see the show doesn't have a credible opinion of the show.

Thanks for playing, your dismissed.

[–] libra_ryu 15 years ago

All the episodes made were aired, and unlike most shows it was given the opprotunity to wrap up, but the makers of the American version have said that they wanted more time to give more clues about the ending and lead people more in that direction. The people behind the show had no intentions of it being a one season show. The American version of Life on Mars was canceled, but because network execs liked it they gave the show the rare chance to have a conclusion.

[–] geode 15 years ago

I am an American who saw the entire set of British episodes before encountering the US knock-off. I was also an adult by the time 1973 rolled around and remember the era pretty well.The British series was far more engaging for me, and the culture of the times showed in a more interesting manner. I encountered British culture first hand in the early 80's when I started working abroad, and that gave me somewhat of a reference point as some things were similar.

In my opinion the UK shows are superior in every regard. One doesn't need a huge budget to portray "gritty" backgrounds. The writing and acting is in general much better in the BBC show. I was really interested in the mystery behind what is happening to Sam, and whether or not he can "get back"....I really came to care for him. This was not the case in the American series. The use of period songs is in general lame in the US series, but I was taken on a nostalgia trip by the songs in the UK shows. Then there is the difference in endings. The British ending was thought-provoking whereas the last show of the American series is basically a hodge-podge of trite ideas and is a mess. I actually predicted the turn-around line that references "The Empire Strikes Back" and groaned when it was delivered.

Only one thing about the American series ever came close to matching the UK version. At times Gretchen Mol almost is able to make something of her character. She still is not as good as Liz White, but came across as the best one in the cast.

Oh Lord, you gave them eyes but they cannot see...

[–] KilGrey 15 years ago

I agree, 100%. I watched both series and the UK version was far superior. I don't know why the OP thinks it needs a bigger budget, it's not a show that requires one. It's about the characters, dialog and acting, all of which was done much better in the UK version. Harvy Keitel's Gene Hunt can't even begin to hold a candle to Phillip Glenister's Gene Hunt and John Simms made you completely feel what his character was going through.

[–] graphic_opal 15 years ago

US version still finished up its series, and it was battling in a severely competitive market. American T.V. is a tough business. If you're not another CSI or Law and Order spin-off (or a reality show) then it's difficult to convince the networks to keep you on even with good rating for a first season, non-CSI/L&O show. U.S. networks don't give many chances.

And to the other bit there... So that just shows that your friends are completely biased and refuse to try new things.

[–] damjrok 15 years ago

The flaw of US television is the obsession with long running series. If Life on Mars US had truly intended to run 17 episodes, the storytelling would have been much more meaningful. But since everyone has ideas of having 8 seasons, syndication, and blah blah blah, storylines get stretched out and watered down with many filler episodes. Even though the finale for this show was horrible, I guess it gets better treatment than most cancelled shows.

[–] StormShadow420 15 years ago

Anyone that even hints that American TV is better than British TV should be skinned and fed to wolves.

American TV is full of degeneracy and perverted garbage. It's fueled by greed and the obsession of having big budgeted series that go nowhere. Aside from a few series, US television has nothing to offer at all.

--
R.I.P. America, 1776 - 2008
Bring back Scott & Charlene to Neighbours

[–] cool_splash1 14 years ago

Well you have to remember that we have ad based tv and the brits well bbc has a tax for having tv.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]