US Version is 'probably' better - Life on Mars (2008) Discussion

[–] silentyawn 14 years ago

Thanks for confirming the stereotype that Americans are arrogant! "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?" could you be any more of a wanchor?? how would you know? were you here? The Sweeney may not have had flashy cars and BIG explosions,and Regan did not drive through huge piles of cardboard boxes every week,but it was hard hitting,gritty and bleak,sadly your obsession with budget is partly the reason why the states churns out crap tv shows,one after the other,it does not take a genius to work out that Brits will be more interested in the UK version,whilst Americans naturally will identify with their own culture more,but to suggest this is because British culture is dull just shows you up to be an ignoramus of premier league class,just stick to Friends and Maccy ds,you helmet......NO OFFENCE TO OTHER AMERICANS INTENDED-I KNOW THE MAJORITY OF YOU ARE NOT LIKE THIS TOOL!

He was doing very well last night! Maybe someone around here gave him lessons!

reply

[–] fallom14 14 years ago

Is it too much to ask that you respond intelligently to the points I raised rather than reverting to petty, playground-type insults? The point of my post was to generate debate around the inherent cultural differences that exists between British television and American television.

You talk about the arrogance of Americans? But the truth is that all of the insults I have received have been from the British. What makes it worse is that I am British. My nationality is in fact irrelevant and should have never been an issue, but it is clear that some British people are clearly suffering with some kind of inferiority complex in relation to Americans. It is all quite sad really.

Some of you have made some really interesting points for the varying merits of the British version of Life on Mars. I still believe that on the whole the Americans are better at making interesting television and that might simply be down to a couple of reasons, most notably their enormous resources but I believe essentially its about having good ideas to begin with.

To reignite this debate, I could ask you to compare the original 60s version of Mission Impossible to The Avengers. Is there a comparison to be made and could it be argued that one is better than the other? I know which one I prefer.

reply

[–] silentyawn 14 years ago

Not at all,you know fine well what you are doing,admittedley you are very subtle.....as for my intelligence,well i would never comment on something on here that i have not even seen,and would never insult the culture of a country id never seen,let alone 40 years ago,and i wouldnt use a show such as Starsky and Hutch to prove a point about culture! of course you are entitled to your opinion but i take umbrage at your ludicrous,unfounded statements which i believe were intentionally insulting,albeit subtley...i cannot give an honest opinion on the two shows you mention as to be honest i am a fan of neither and as i said earlier,would not comment on something i have not seen,perhaps thats down to my lack of inteligence? we could however debate on why,if UStv is so much better,are they remaking English shows? is it perhaps because America is sick of dross like Friends? My honest opinion? America produces some fantastic movies,but mediocre tv,with the exception of Band of Brothers which i rate highly...a good example to highlight the cultural differences in taste would be to compare Scrubs(US) to Green Wing(UK),i know which I prefer! again,i reiterate you got a hostile response because of the way you worded your post,NOT because of your opinion but let me assure you,British people have no inferiority complex to a nation that has little history of its own,in fact so little it has to lend Town and City names from..........BRITAIN,so NER NER....now thats childish and petty!

He was doing very well last night! Maybe someone around here gave him lessons!

reply

[–] fallom14 14 years ago

Why not use Starsky and Hutch? It is an American text amongst many that has infiltrated our national consciousness, like Kojak, Hill Street Blues, The A-Team, Knight Rider, etc. What many forget is that American culture is a powerful force that permeates through national boundaries. I guarantee that more people around the world would recognise and identify with Starsky and Hutch than with Carter and Regan from the Sweeney. This is not to say that The Sweeney was a bad programme, just that that it is a different type of programme and has a more regional appeal. I actually do quite like The Sweeney and believe that that period, mid to late 70s, produced some of the best British television. The production company Euston Films that made The Sweeney, was responsible for some of the best London-centric television programmes. The best, IMO, was Minder. It is a testament to what can be achieved with good writing and an exceptional cast. I still watch it today and it is one of the few programmes that has aged surprisingly well. To get back to American television, I think it is too easy to pick a few shows you dislike and hold them up as representing all of American television. There is some exceptionally poor American television out there, but I still stand by the assertion that on the whole they do it better than anyone else. There is nothing in Britain or anywhere else that comes close to the brilliance of 24 (twenty Four). Whether, you like it or not, you can’t ignore the skill of the programme makers. The same could be said of Lost. Again, there is really nothing in Britain that can be compared to any of these programmes, apart from making a loose comparison between Spooks and 24, but that is a bit like comparing Silver to Gold. If you look at the The Wire, one of my favourite television programmes, you start to realise the huge artistic superiority that American programme makers have over their British counterparts. You were comparing Scrubs to the Green Wing; a good comparison. I don’t really like Scrubs so can’t really comment on the programme with any authority. But I did in parts like the Green Wing. I think this is an example of what the British do quite well; slightly quirky, off-beat, dead-pan style comedy. I think you could place the brilliant Peep Show into that category. The Americans can’t make programmes like this*, they just wouldn’t get it, and I think this is partly the reason why British programmes don’t travel as well as American programmes. I think the crucial difference is that the British make programmes for the British whereas the Americans make programmes for the world.

* The Americans can however do exceptional satire, and IMO, the best example of this is The Larry Sanders Show and the more recent Curb Your Enthusiasm.

reply

[–] Anyanka2 14 years ago

Hi Fallom; shame that discussions on the IMdB always degenerate into abuse-hurling, regardless of how intelligent they start out.

Have you watched the US version of Life on Mars by now? Only two eps to go on the FX channel, and I find that it cannot hold a candle to the UK version. It started well but began to sag after the first few weeks.

By dropping almost all the references to the coma, and by having Tyler integrate much faster and easier into the 1970s police force, the US series ends up being pretty much a bog-standard cop show with a retro setting. I also think that it's way too respectful, or even admiring of 70s police methods!

Most of all though, as a previous poster noted, Harvey Keitel seems tired and listless, and doesn't have any of Philip Glenister's juicy one-liners to deliver.

I usually feel like you: US for drama, UK for comedy. However, the UK Life on Mars is both dramatic and funny - whereas the US one fails to be either.

reply

[–] Musette 14 years ago

The powerful cultural force of Knight Rider? I admit it is a well known show even outside of America but honestly it was Knight Rider!

Yojimbo and King Kong vs Godzilla came out around the same time and King Kong vs Godzilla would be easier to identify by most people than Yojimbo. No one in their right mind would then turn around and point to King Kong vs. Godzilla as a brilliant piece of cinematography. Arguing that world wide appeal is some sort of standard we should hold art to is just ridiculous.

I would argue that the fact that there is less British content on American stations than there is American content on British stations isn't some sort of grand declaration that Americans are programming for the world (feel free to consider people around the world enjoying Godzilla movies at this point) but rather that there is a sense that the American public, in general, cannot appreciate anything made outside of America. Other countries, like the U.K., are willing to take the risk that their public can watch something set outside their borders. You just need to look at the dearth of foreign films and television and the recurring habit of making U.S. versions of television series, that could be shown as is, to see that. Or better still, look at the number of U.S. movies and televisions series shot in Canada but claiming to be in the States.

A brilliant example being the U.S. version of Queer as Folk. Instead of just airing the original a new American friendly version was made and set in Pittsburgh. It was a U.S. Canadian co-production but the filming was done in Canada. If it was simply a matter of American productions being superior and not ethnocentricity, then why wasn't it just set in Toronto?

In North America the third-largest film production centre is Vancouver but when was the last time you saw a movie set in Vancouver or even Canada? There are countless movies and television shows taken directly from foreign source material or shot outside of the States (even using cast and crew from outside the States) but still wrapped tightly in the red white and blue. I'd hazard a guess that the reason has less to do with wanting to be part of the same proud tradition from which Kojak, Hill Street Blues, The A-Team, Knight Rider, etc. came from and more to do with the narrow mindedness of the U.S. market.

reply

[–] inkheart-1 13 years ago

I tend to agree. Nothing can change the atmosphere of 70ies retro England :)Nothing can change the atmosphere of England at all :)

Stil US version got some pretty cool catches, but never finished the US season till the end.

reply

[–] ibegeorgeus 14 years ago

Well Mr fallom14, you are probably on your own, liking an American version of a Brit Tv show. However I will order the American version just to see if you have a point. My wife and I have been over here from UK for twenty years and detest the TV here, even without the adverts. So do our Brit friends (Cincinnati has a big UK immigrants) Some exceptions are the History Int, Fox news, some PBS and maybe even Biography Ch. Even the BBC have reduced their programmes to the American level
Life on Mars was excellent, as are series like Foyles War, A Touch Frost, House of Cards and Pie in the Sky. American Tv would never get near the quality or the culture of which you speak. Look at the mess Amer. TV made of the office!
Brit programmes are viewed around the world. Stick to rubbish like Leno, Friends etc. You speak of 'Lost' Most of the cast are Brit or Canadian. '24' was mediocre and only went down well here for violence
We watch DVD's from Netflix and 90% of these we pick are Brit or European. Occasionally we get a good American film. We also get DVD's direct from UK (we have a 'region free' player)
You say that you are a Brit? Been over here some time, have you? Educated here, perhaps?

reply

[–] fallom14 14 years ago

The level of xenophobia being displayed here is staggering and quite frankly, frightening. Can you adam-and-eve-it? I am now being asked for my British credentials? What would you like to see to prove I am a bonafide, born here, educated hear, Brit? My passport? My rendition of God Save the Queen? Or my extensive knowledge about the weather and drinking tea? The point actually is not where I am from but the points I am making. I can hear you Brits say: “oh, how dare he criticize British television, and then have the tenacity to claim that those loud, gun-toting, culturally-inferior Americans do it better than us enlightened Brits…” To be fair a lot of the response has been intelligent and measured, but there are those, mostly Brits who seem overtly hostile to my opinions.

Based on the majority of the posts I think I would probably have to concede that the UK version of Life on Mars is probably better than the US version. Now, like I originally stated, I had not seen the US version and still haven’t, but I was basing my point on my experience of mostly good, original and exciting American television in contrast to the generally average, mediocre, and mostly derivative British television. And anyway, the point about Life on Mars was designed to open up a more general discussion about television from our two nations.

The opinions expressed here are mine and it is not my intention to cause offence nor do I expect anyone to agree with them. The only thing I ask is that people take the time to read my posts properly and, if so inclined, respond intelligently to the points I have raised.

If you are a Brit living in the USA then it is extremely difficult to be objective, considering the fact that it is highly likely that you would favour television programmes from your own country. If I was living in the US, then I am certain I would long for British television regardless of how ordinary it is.

I understand that there is no real scientific way to measure whether one country produces better television than the other, so really, in the end; it is simply down to opinion. However, it might be possible to compare the best of each nation and make a side by side comparison? Now, the problem I have with this approach, and I have already mentioned this, it is difficult to find like for like comparisons. Now, if we take Lost, which is part of a new breed of high-budget, high-concept television programmes that looks less like television and more like cinema, you start to realise how difficult a task it is to find a suitable comparison in the UK. Now, I take on board that British production companies simply do not have access to those kinds of resources. But, like I stated in previous posts, I believe the problem is less about budgets and more about ideas. In Britain, there does seem to be a distinct lack of good, creative, and original ideas. This highlights the fact that too often British television companies like to play it safe. Now, there are several reasons for this but the main one is the inherent class system that still plagues this country. Those intuitions, the police, the media and politics are mostly controlled and dictated by a super elite, which tends to be the upper middle-classes, who seem less concerned with creative, ground-breaking endeavours and more interested in maintaining the status quo. The television in Britain is no exception and is partly the reason why there is so much mediocrity. In the US, it is different, not only are they less concerned with class, but there does seem to be a more equal playing field, especially opportunities for those who are less fortunate. And those that have made it to important, decision-making positions have not got there simply because they went to the right school but moreover, it is because they have natural skill and talent.

Now, if we take The Wire, a program that could have easily been made within the narrow parameters of British funding, is an example of a television program that had a relatively meagre budget but nonetheless had access to a huge creative pool of acting and scriptwriting talent. There is currently no British drama that can match the depth and range of character development and the narrative complexity that is inherent within The Wire. It is a program unlike any other, both in terms of its creative vision and its underlying political perspective.

reply

[–] Anyanka2 14 years ago

I don't think the class system is to be blamed for the dearth of original television. In my opinion, the quality of UK tv has deteriorated horribly since the explosion of available channels. It's known as dumbing down, and that is down to the masses, not the middle classes!

Look at the viewing figures for great tv versus pap & crap. The best thing currently on telly (in my opinion, obviously) is the amazing slow-mo highly intelligent "Mad Men" (US made, by the way), watched by myself, my teenage daughter and about five other people in the entire country... Big Brother, Celebrity Get Me Out Of Here etc is watched by millions.

American telly simply has such a huge output that some good stuff - like "Mad Men" survives now and then. A lot of it doesn't. "Firefly" was pure genius, the finest bit of tv ever made. Cancelled before the end of the first season. An absolutely enormous proportion of American tv is unspeakably awful.

Is "The Wire" being repeated anywhere? I must try that.

reply

[–] fallom14 14 years ago

Hi Anyanka2,

Last year BBC2 showed all 5 seasons of The Wire back to back.

I doubt it will be repeated anywhere.

I did manage to record 90% of the series.

Send me an email.

I agree Mad Men is superb; beautifully shot and some of the best art direction I have seen in a television series, such attention to detail.

reply

[–] g-kemp 14 years ago

just watched the end of life on mars US and all i can say is WTF

reply

[–] annathedub 14 years ago

Yeah, I just watched it too. Very strange ending. But no worse than the BBC ending, which I absolutely hated.

reply

[–] Jake-219 14 years ago

Well...

A few weeks ago I was wandering around on the IMDB and ran across a post which went on forever about how Americans insisted upon "stealing" British shows and ruining them. I finally came back on tonight to throw in my two cents but can't find it...but ran across this one, so I'll throw them in here.

"Life on Mars" (the BBC version) has only started running here on PBS, so I'm about done with the first season. Meanwhile, I only saw one episode of the American one (and no, not the finale, which, from what I understand, would have to be dealt with in and of itself!). Given the episodes I've seen of the one, and the one episode I've seen of the other, I'd have to say that I like the British version more. But...

First, for those who think that all we do is screw up British concepts, let me ask you if you're referring to the same "Life on Mars" that had one FEWER episode in Britain than in its American counterpart? Yeah, I'll grant you that the British version lasted two seasons while the American ran one...but are you really saying that the British version was that much more of a phenomenal success for having run TWO WHOLE SEASONS? Wow.

Calm down, and let's look at the concept a bit more closely. No matter which country it was from, the show could only last so long (and thank goodness!). The more Sam Tyler was stuck in the 70's, the longer he spent getting used to the methods and his surroundings, the closer that show would come to just being another 70's cop show (British or American). The one (late in the season) episode I saw of the American show had become exactly that, and from what some of you have said earlier in this thread and others, the same applies to the British show. It was a concept doomed to short life. I don't know the histories behind either of the shows, I don't know if the producers in either case wanted to go on longer and were prevented by the Powers That Be...but I do think it's probably all for the best that they were both stopped when they were.

Also, it's been mentioned a few times that America produces shows for the world. Be that as it may, the American networks also produce shows that necessitate big advertising revenue, something the BBC doesn't worry too much about. America doesn't, it can't, pursue "niche" shows. The networks need to have mass percentages of the available audience watching. It's a very sad state of affairs, but it's true, regardless. The only way to consistently accomplish that is to cater to the lowest common denominator, trying to find some show that will apply most generally to the broadest demographics. Given that that's the case, I think we do pretty well...and also that our failures are rather understandable.

...and also that American networks are desperate for fresh ideas, even ideas from other countries where they aren't necessarily all that fresh.

So, yeah, we have bought (NOT stolen!) a lot of British concepts over the years. Granted, most of them haven't worked out (but then, most of the original American concepts haven't, either).

"Coupling" lasted a whole four weeks on American TV (but then, I won't even go into the prudishness that still exists over here).

"Steptoe and Son" lasted eight years and 57 episodes. "Sanford and Son" only lasted 6 years. (On the other hand, it lasted 137 episodes; you begin to see how we're comparing apples and oranges?)

The British version of "The Office" lasted two years and 12 episodes; the American version has so far lasted over five years and is approaching (as I write this) 100 episodes. Remind me again sometime how Americans screw things up. (Obviously, which you prefer is a matter of personal opinion, but critics do say very kind things about the American version.)

I guess the most telling thing about comparing British vs. American tv is that British tv has (from what I've seen) the American shows on it. American tv has but a smattering of British shows, usually under the aegis of PBS or BBC America.

And I guess that's my point (and those of a few other posters on here): British tv is made for Britain, American tv goes everywhere. But I'll be the first to admit that it has its lamentable limitations.

reply

[–] fallom14 14 years ago

I have compiled a list of my top 5 favourite television programmes from both the UK and the US. Could others do the same and if possible give reasons why a particular program is included in their list.

UK

1. This Life – Quality drama wrapped in a Cinéma Vérité aesthetic
2. Hustle - Very slick production values, executed beautifully
3. The Inbetweeners - Destined to be a classic
4. Peep Show - High concept television at its very best
5. The Office – Skilfully and cleverly deconstructs comedy

US

1. The Wire - Multi layered stories told with skill and authenticity
2. The Shield - Expertly crafted drama
3. Lost - Visionary, original, mould-breaking television
4. The Larry Sanders Show – Redefining satire
5. Mission Impossible – A beautiful marriage combining intelligent writing with a fantastic cast

reply

[–] annathedub 14 years ago

The British version of "The Office" lasted two years and 12 episodes; the American version has so far lasted over five years and is approaching (as I write this) 100 episodes. Remind me again sometime how Americans screw things up. (Obviously, which you prefer is a matter of personal opinion, but critics do say very kind things about the American version.)

----------------------------------------------------------------

The original British version of 'The Office', was pretty good. The American remake, however, is absolutely superb. It is really much, much funnier. I know which one I would choose.

reply

[–] Jaarus 14 years ago

Very interesting read!

Ok as the fingers like to point and the accusations fly, I will announce myself...
I am English
I have seen Life on Mars UK
I have not seen Life on Mars US

So I am writing, not particularly in reference to the differences between these two series, but more the differences in UK/US televisual styles - as the OP has mentioned several times he intended this thread to be about.

TV studios in the UK arent, in my opinion, lacking in ideas which hinder their development of 'groundbreaking' TV series (eg LOST/The Wire/24 etc) as has been suggested within this thread. It is, in my opinion, due to creative studios knowing fully well that to deliver certain ideas well takes significant funding. Funding the UK studios just do not have access to.
Limited funds, no matter how good the idea for the next potenitally big thing, will often mean that it fails to deliver as was intended.

So they try and fail to do the "WOW" series, this will then further hinder the enthuasism for future 'big budget' (UK big budget not US!) development.

So what does the UK do brilliantly?
Dry gritty humour
Gritty dramas
Period dramas

US studios have funding but as its run primarily as a business if the ratings drop even slightly then your favourite series is just dropped - not finished early, just over.

But the main difference in styles is the audience.
UK TV caters for UK audiences and US TV caters for US audiences. There are exceptions of course that bridge the gap but for the most part thats the difference.
Yes thats it.
You may personally prefer the US style of telly - fair do's
You may personally hate the US style of telly - fair do's

I love telly.
I want to be watching some telly right now.
(I do I must say find it a bit irritating that the US remakes everything for the US market rather than showing the original that obviously attracted them enough to buy the rights but hey - I am not a TV producer!)

reply

[–] fallom14 14 years ago

Thanks Jaarus for your post.

A great example of someone taking their time to read my posts properly.

Discussions about whether one series is better than another have an extremely limited foundation for intelligent debate. That is why I wanted to open up the discussion and make it more about the different approaches to television production from our two nations. It does seem there are those of you out there still wanting to contribute your two cents (or two pence) worth to a discussion long moved on from its original premise.

reply

[–] smurfhater 14 years ago

As a general rule I find that the majority of English comedy is far superior to that of America, who I find rely alot less on intelligent comedy and more on cheesy jokes or slapstick.

A few great British comedies spring to mind such as, Black Books, The IT Crowd, Father Ted and Only Fools and Horses. Nothing that's come out of America that i've seen has ever been able to rival even one of these shows.

However.

As a general rule I also find that American's tend to do the more serious tone series better than us Brits, that being said though having seen both the orginal and the US Remake, I can't find a single thing about the remake that comes close to matching the greatness of the original.

reply

[–] geniusloci 14 years ago

Well, yes and no. One thing that is very important to remember here is that Life On Mars is unique in one very important way: unless it is restaged in every culture where it is shown, a significant amount of the impact will be lost.
It's the fact that Sam Tyler is seeing HIS OWN CULTURE, thirty years removed, and finds it alien that is important. With an American watching the British series, the impact is severely lessened, because 70s Manchester is only slightly more alien than 2000s Manchester. The American version also had the benefit of one legendary and one nearly legendary performer in main roles (Keitel and Imperoli, respectively)
And the really funny thing is that many of the same songs were used in both series, including the one that provided the series titles. So if any more remakes are made in other countries, they may even need to change the series name to a song that was popular in that time. But the format and general story can be recreated in every culture and have the same impact that the original did.

Also, the American version had the benefit of hindsight, so the series felt more like a second-draft. You can take or leave the ending; I loved it, especially because of the odd dream-like logic of the simulation, where we see the real things that were being magnified and distorted in Sam's memories. The last shot is either ambiguous or symbolic, take your pick.
I do find it funny, considering the stereotype of British TV being more subtle than its American counterpart, that what took a leap from a roof in the British series was accomplished with the slam of a phone receiver in the American one. :)

reply

[–] youfailed 14 years ago

I just finished watching both versions. I have to say you are absolutely out of your mind. The UK version was far better. It has become one of my all-time favorites. The US version was almost unwatchable. A shoddy, poorly-acted facsimile of the UK version.

reply

[–] g-kemp 14 years ago

I got to agree on this one the American Gene Hunt was very bad i love Harvey K in his movies pulp fiction he was fantastic but as Gene Hunt it was hard to imagine this 70 year old being a tough cop

I do love American TV Stargate and Star Trek and Starsky and Hutch and the all time Favorite the Saprano's

im Britsih and i love some Britsih shows we have had Life On Mars that ended but Gene Hunt lives on in Ashes to Ashes which is just going into series 3

The only thing about American tv that winds me up is that they pull great shows like Journeyman without a thought for the loyal watcher

reply

[–] gallifreyrises 14 years ago

Watch the absolutely apalling ending of the US version.

This song is ending but the story never ends.

reply

[–] DavidTL 14 years ago

Just to let you people know, even though this show was cancelled it didn't need a second series anyway because there was already a conclusion and an end. It would be like making a sequel to The Sixth Sense, Moulin Rouge, Chicago or The Others

Bourne + Bond = Best Action Film Award

reply

[–] Prismark10 14 years ago

The US series only concluded because it was cancelled and therefore they wrapped it up.

The UK series was far superior and Harvey was miscast.

Its that man again!!

reply

[–] TheDepressionist 14 years ago

The US version was pure *beep*

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] juzzyb 14 years ago

Ah Americans, so far up their own arse...

reply

[–] fallom14 14 years ago

Have you spent any time reading the previous posts or are you more concerned with posting ill-informed comments. Is this the level of your contribution? Why waste your time posting if you have nothing of interest to contribute to the debate?

reply

[–] jetashltd 14 years ago

Having seen both versions, I would have to say despite the inferior budget, the british version is sharper, funnier, darker and by its very definition, more original. The US version doesn't even attempt its own storyline with very few deviations from the original screenplay. Lazy.

If britain remade 24 i would not bother watching, so why does america not hold the same values? in a word, money! they saw a successful forign franchise possibility, and rather than give the american public enough credit to appreciate the original they repackaged for the middle america audience.

reply

[–] catspajamas55 14 years ago

Well, fallom14, it's been a long time since your original post. I was wondering if you'd gotten around to watching the "probably better" USLoM? If you haven't, then I'd say you're a pathetic no-nothing poster who should learn to comment on what you've actually seen. I'm an American who wasted her time watching the US (per)version (Oh, God, that Windy character!) before discovering the far superior Brit original. Who needed a big budget when you had John Simm convincing you of the hell Sam was going through during all 16 episodes? And the rest of the cast delivered as well. And for those ignorant arses who thought UKLoM was canceled after two seasons/series, you are wrong. Simm wanted to leave for a few reasons: 1) He no longer wanted to spend 6 months away from his family during filming and another six months doing promotions; 2) being in every single scene was physically draining; and 3) Simm doesn't act for the paycheck; he takes on roles that are challenges. He no longer felt playing Sam was a challenge.

Ashes to Ashes is seen as a continuation of Life on Mars, so you could say it lasted 5 seasons/series.

And I know there was someone on this board who felt the conclusion of the UK Life on Mars was awful. I think I have to disrespectfully disagree on that. The first and last episodes of UKLoM are two of the best hours of TV ever, on either side of the Atlantic.

reply

[–] fallom14 14 years ago

Hello catspajamas55, I hope you're well. Could you explain this quote:

“If you haven't, then I'd say you're a pathetic no-nothing poster who should learn to comment on what you've actually seen.”

What is a “poster”?

reply

[–] jetashltd 14 years ago

i imagine a 'poster' in this context is 'one who posts'. perfectly acceptable and prefrable to some made up words i've seen on imdb.

reply

[–] fallom14 14 years ago

Thanks jetashltd, silly me, “a pathetic no-nothing post-er” it all makes sense now. However, the sentence would have been more effective if “post-er” had been replaced with: idiot, dumb-ass, loser or maybe even imbecile.

reply