Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Film, TV & Theatre >

Life On Mars

Page: 1(2)3 4 5 6 7... 8

miss wonderstarr

18:34 / 04.02.06

That LSD dream: (how did she spike him with it?)

Most of these are dissolves.

the canopy of sunlit leaves
Sam's childhood street, mum calling his name
Ivanhoe
Sunlit leaves
Mum
Leaves
Sam dreaming
Vision of Mum coming through his bedsit door; her face and voice distorting
Sam in 2006 hit by the car
Giant Ivanhoe peering through his bedsit door
Ivanhoe licks lips as Sam cowers
B/w news footage of soldiers shooting in urban environment -- N. Ireland? Iraq?
Basil Brush in front of Hollywood sign backdrop
News footage -- building hit by gunfire
Middle-Eastern men in war-torn city
Joanie's face
Father Christmas on a flat-screen TV, with doors in the background (apparently Sam's bedsit, or his childhood street)
Joanie cuffs Sam; sunlit trees
Joanie topless riding Sam, cuffed
Joanie dancing in The Warren with Sam BIG CONTINUITY ERROR HERE SEE BELOW *
Sam cuffed; Joanie and Sam dancing
Sunlit trees
Silver-buckled shoes walking through grass
Sam cuffed
Test Card Girl in his bedsit
Running through the trees
Sam; Joanie on top
Test Card Girl: "there's nothing to be ashamed of, Sam" -- over Basil Brush shot -- "you can't be lonely all the time."
Woman/girl in red/pink dress running through trees
Joanie: "I'm sorry for all the trouble, Sam"
Test Card Girl
Gene: "It works very nicely thank you"
Mum, repeat of a previous shot of her in the house
Joanie
Gene... "some dill from the suburbs"
Britney Spears on TV
Gene, delivers line direct to camera, "waving his willy around"
Father Christmas on TV
Warren, previous shot of him in the club
Sam
Girl in red coat fleeing through forest
Forest canopy, sunlit
Sam cuffed, wakes up

* CONTINUITY: she is wearing an Ann Summers flight attendant dress, from the 21st century.

miss wonderstarr

18:39 / 04.02.06

Sorry, it's "Joni" but you get the idea.

19:37 / 04.02.06

On first meeting, Gene assured Sam that Nelson was "alright": but it seems a bit of a get-out that none of these retro cops with their 1970s prejudices ever make a racist joke.

Don't shit where you eat.

Also, Nelson admits in the first ep that he puts on an accent when they're around in order to make things easier for himself.

miss wonderstarr

21:44 / 04.02.06

Ah, I thought his accent was quite different when alone with Sam. That's what he meant by his comment along the lines of "they prefer this Nelson", then.

But as Gene blithely referred to Annie, virtually part of his professional team, as "an off-duty slag with glitter in her hair" this episode, he clearly doesn't take too much care about abusing people who are a regular part of his life.

My impression was that Gene wouldn't see his sexism as especially offensive. While I wouldn't expect him, as a character, to make deliberately insulting racist remarks to Nelson, I would have thought that calling a non-white acquaintance (even a friend) Sootie, or Chalky, or some other "jocular" reference to skin colour -- I don't know, jokes about banana boats, or being covered in chocolate -- would have been par for the course in that context, for that sort of character, at that time.

miss wonderstarr

21:46 / 04.02.06

I sound like I'm regretting the loss of that kind of remark. That isn't the case. I think it would provoke a pretty uncomfortable reaction in the viewer, though, to have an otherwise fairly-likeable character make casually racist comments, and I think it'd be "accurate" and "realistic", and I think the programme is avoiding that.

miss wonderstarr

22:51 / 04.02.06

I'm sorry if it is inappropriate to illustrate my point above with this pic.

That's Big Brother's Samantha Heuston, on the left. You can see clearly (from the insignia, if not the design) that Joni is wearing an outfit from Ann Summers' 2005 range (with a bra... which is a bit odd).

I wonder if other viewers have noticed anachronisms, then gone to absurd lengths to find evidence of them?

miss wonderstarr

23:13 / 04.02.06

Oh the inappropriate bra's there because it's part of her go-go outfit, at the start of the club scene. Silly me.

23:18 / 04.02.06

kovacs: That LSD dream: (how did she spike him with it?)

I had thought it was in the wine -didn't he leave her to open it and pour it? Then again, it would probably have kicked in before it did if that had been the case.

miss wonderstarr

23:20 / 04.02.06

Just watched the pilot where Tyler is first hit by the car, and I don't think we've seen any shots of the sunlit forest that weren't originally shown just when he opens his eyes after the impact. There's probably only about half a dozen: sunlit canopy, buckled shoes, hand on branch, girl runs through trees, a couple of other whip-panning blurry shots.

But on this first glimpse, we also hear the whisper of a child -- perhaps 1973 boy-Sam -- asking "where are you? where are you?"

As you can see, I'm kind of begging for this show to be dissected and speculated about within a massive multiplayer thread -- but instead, it seems, most people prefer to picking apart the teases and bluffs of soapy disappointment LOST.

miss wonderstarr

23:24 / 04.02.06

Re the LSD. I haven't experienced this drug, but was that remotely realistic as a portrayal of how it affects the mind?

Given that Tyler has had visions since episode 1, without any drugs, it didn't really seem to shape his perceptions in any significantly different way to normal, and it only really prompted the same old run of dreams and visitations, which lifted when he woke up in the morning.

09:41 / 05.02.06

As you can see, I'm kind of begging for this show to be dissected and speculated about within a massive multiplayer thread -- but instead, it seems, most people prefer to picking apart the teases and bluffs of soapy disappointment LOST.

No, it's just that so far I've not seen anything to suggest that the show is intended to be dissected in that way, that these *are* clues or hints of something else going on beneath the surface. If that happens, then great, I'll play along, but right at this moment it's a fun cop show about a guy who's travelled back in time due to having been put into a coma, that occasionally makes some slightly obvious comments about the difference between policing and society then and their equivalents today - the visions don't have to be anything deeper than simple atmosphere-enhancers.

miss wonderstarr

09:43 / 05.02.06

Great to be back on the "LoM" community with fellow "LoMmers" discussing our fave show!

I could barely sleep for turning over the mysteries of LoM last night. (Sure many of you felt the same! Can't wait for ep #5!) A couple more thoughts occurred to me.

1. Is there any mystery about whether it's a coma or time travel? Tyler's experiences in 1973 are shaped by events in 2006.

(i) his catheter malfunction prompted him smelling urine in 1973, and then experiencing the hospital ward closing down, as his 2006-self was in danger.
(ii) the change in his medication in 2006 prompted his LSD experience.

Experience (ii) could have been actually motivated by Joni spiking him in 1973, but (i) had no rationale or explanation in 1973 -- the hospital ward wasn't actually shutting down.

So it does seem fairly clear that his 1973 world is moulded by what happens to him, in hospital, in 2006.

In which case it isn't actually a "time-travel show".

---------

2. It seems increasingly implausible, especially after he's lived for some time in 1973, that Tyler is still exclaiming about the "future" in front of Gene and Annie. This is a rigid, controlled, self-contained guy -- wouldn't he be careful enough and self-aware enough to not wander around the textile factory exclaiming "this was my kitchen"? And wouldn't someone who builds his life around rules and control, right and wrong, resisting temptation, taking the hard route rather than the easy one, also know it was unwise, however tempting, to interfere in Marc Bolan's life and death? (Yes, this would mean we lose a joke, but it was a pretty cheesy joke.)

3. Minor point. Why was Annie having a night out in the Warren? Was she just there socialising -- without any obvious friends, with the male CID team who treat her with contempt, at a crime-baron's club surrounded by go-go girls?

miss wonderstarr

09:46 / 05.02.06

I've not seen anything to suggest that the show is intended to be dissected in that way, that these *are* clues or hints of something else going on beneath the surface - the visions don't have to be anything deeper than simple atmosphere-enhancers.

I'm surprised you think that. The question of whether he's in a coma or really back in time, and that he has to find out why he's in 1973 so he can get back "home" -- suggesting some hidden reason and enigma to uncover -- is restated in the opening, title-credits voiceover every episode.

Of course, I'm only doing this dissection cause it's fun for me, but I would be pretty disappointed if those flashes are just a bit of superficial, meaningless mystery.

10:14 / 05.02.06

I'm surprised you think that. The idea of whether he's in a coma or really back in time, and that he has to find out why he's in 1973 so he can get back "home", is restated in the opening, title-credits voiceover every episode.

True, but shows like The Fugitive and The Invaders did much the same thing. In those cases, the intro blurb was just a foundation that they used as an excuse to have their main character in a bunch of different situations each week. I don't think anybody ever actually expected the one-armed man to be found, or government agencies to accept that aliens were planning to take the planet over. Similarly, I don't expect Sam to ever return to his own time.

It's a formula. Each week something different, only with the same twist of perspective and the odd nod to the overarching plot.

miss wonderstarr

10:44 / 05.02.06

Fair point, but wasn't The Fugitive (I don't know the other) a far longer-running show? Life on Mars is 8 episodes, and I was expecting some sense of closure at the end of that arc, even if they have to twist the situation again to get a second series.

And The Prisoner, of a similar style and period to your examples, did reach a conclusion.

12:22 / 05.02.06

Well, after a fashion.

The problem is that we're second-guessing the Beeb's intentions for this. Personally, I don't see them being willing to leave something that they see as having potential as a one series, eight episodes thing - they'll be wanting to recommission it until the only members of the original cast who are left are being propped up on sticksand worked by wires - which is why I don't think that this is a journey with a final destination. And that, in turn, makes me think that the vision stuff and the bits that you've picked out as logical inconsistencies don't have any great underlying significance.

Think Annie was in the club in the last episode simply because the writers needed her there in order to cement the jealousy/disappointment thing later on.

12:41 / 05.02.06

E. Randius: Personally, I don't see them being willing to leave something that they see as having potential as a one series, eight episodes thing - they'll be wanting to recommission it until the only members of the original cast who are left are being propped up on sticksand worked by wires

I was hoping that (if that was the case) there would be some other twist in the plot in the next series such as was talked about upthread -I am rather hoping that we get to see some sort of resolution, whilst it is a joy as a fun cop show I'm not sure I would like another series of Sam having chats with the creepy creepy creepy test card girl for (what would by then appear to be) no apparent reason.

Also, I had thought that there were only going to be six episodes to this series, so the news that there are eight makes me particularly happy.

miss wonderstarr

12:57 / 05.02.06

makes me think that the vision stuff and the bits that you've picked out as logical inconsistencies don't have any great underlying significance.

OK... I will be surprised and disappointed if this is the case, though. There is a general sense of progression "home" (Sam's 2006 flat in episode 3, his mother's house, cat, street in episode 4) so it would make sense to me if we were moving closer to the core of some repressed childhood memory, and the key reason why he was brought back to this precise date in the past.

I would see him as ending up in the forest (as an adult cop) by episode 7, and starting to realise its significance -- but perhaps you're right and I'm giving it too much credit/reading too much into it.

Nevertheless, if it gives me some fanboy pleasure, all harmless.

miss wonderstarr

20:21 / 06.02.06

Hi LoMmer gang

guess you were disappointed in this week's ep too?

Maybe it's just because I have little interest in the football focus, but character relationships remained pretty much stable, the mixture of maudlin emotional drama and Back to the Future-style injokes started to get a tiny bit stale, and the aspect I'm most grabbed by, the overarching "why is Sam here and what's it got to do with that woman screaming in the forest", wasn't developed at all.

The Test Card Girl was almost feeling like a familiar, regular guest-star -- like the Cheshire Cat in Alice, making cryptic announcements then vanishing -- and the only possible advance on the central mystery was that it could have some link to Sam's dad letting him down.

Perhaps Mr Tyler Sr broke the law, and Sam witnessed it. Like my mate who told his teacher at school "Miss, when I grow up I want to be a policeman and follow in my father's footsteps." Oh, he's a policeman is he? "No Miss, he's a robber."

20:28 / 06.02.06

the overarching "why is Sam here and what's it got to do with that woman screaming in the forest", wasn't developed at all.

I think you want this show to be something it's not, kovacs. Try to remember that there were a fair few "pot-boilery" episodes in Twin Peaks, which weren't all about the crazy weird shit but really about establishing characters and relationships. A lot of the Sopranos isn't about the dream sequences, but how people talk to each other. Some times, Six Feet Under is about the living people, not the dead.

I thought it was a very good episode - again, very solid, laughs were less forced (notably, chicken in a basket) - and I rather liked the way Sam made his point about Hillsborough. Sure, it was always going to be the nice guy who did it, but it's not all about the detection; it's about the characters, too. I think this show will tidy up a bit tidier than you're expecting. But stop wanting it to be Lost, or something!

miss wonderstarr

20:41 / 06.02.06

I think you want this show to be something it's not, kovacs

I'm thinking you're right, but I feel a bit let down that they were leading me on. I mean, showing the same intriguing, enigmatic flashback shots in every single episode... there has to be some payoff.

I think I'm starting to parody my own approach just in case, though. Anyone up for writing a bit of Sam/Gene slash?

miss wonderstarr

20:48 / 06.02.06

(There is, again, some difference between this and the shows you offer as examples, because they're considerably longer and so can be expected to have filler episodes. If there's only eight installments, it's less unreasonable for someone to approach each episode expecting the major narrative arc to progress satisfyingly every time.)

20:57 / 06.02.06

Paleface: very solid, laughs were less forced

I thought that the dialogue in this episode was better than it's been in the last few, actually -whilst last week's brought the bigger plot forwards more (or at least allowed for a shot by shot analysis) the Sam / Gene interactions* seemed much better in this one.

*a phrase it would be so much easier to use if slash hadn't been brought into the last post...

22:23 / 06.02.06

If there's only eight installments, it's less unreasonable for someone to approach each episode expecting the major narrative arc to progress satisfyingly every time.

That's *if* it's the major plot arc at all, and not just a some sort of, I dunno, foundational MacGuffin. To put it in the terms of Paleface's example, "why is Sam there" and "how does he get back" are this show's "who killed Laura Palmer".

Maybe not, though. I actually noticed the glade/red coat thing this time around (only because you'd mentioned it previously, mind), so that's certainly leading us up to some sort of resolution. I'd be shocked if it's *the* resolution, though - Vincenes and others are on the money, I think, with the suggestion that whatever happens there'll be a twist that ensures that we'll still be here, same bat-time, same bat-channel for series 2.

Coming at it from completely the opposite direction that you are, obviously. I'd feel short-changed if it did turn into a time-travel show, or one of those "see, now you've got to watch it from the start again and look for the clues we planted - aren't we clever?" things. Every time the test card girl comes on (or similar - that fucking glove puppet last ep) I cringe at that small bit of clumsiness in amongst so much that's class.

And I don't really think you need to like football to be able to appreciate this week's point or the relative subtlety with which it was handled.

01:08 / 07.02.06

Was it handled all that subtly though, the point of this week's episode? Insofar as it seemed to be something to do with the relationship between father and son as mapped onto 'the beautiful game' (this'll presumably have be relevant later in the series, if that 'Twelve Monkeys' moment at the end of the show is anything to go by,) as well as prescient social commentary wrt Hillsborough etc, it's hard to imagine how any of this could have been more baldly stated. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that - a primetime show on BBC1 these days seems unlikely to be something that's going to prioritise subtlety as a virtue, exactly, but, on the other hand, if you're asking your drama series to be taken seriously, as the writers in this case appear to be doing, shouldn't there be a bit more than 'Cracker' Meets 'Quantum Leap' life lessons on offer? Chuck in a couple of (admittedly quite invigorating - you couldn't drive that way nowadays, that's for sure,) car chases per episode, plus the odd 'Vanilla Sky'-type explicational hint as to what may or may not be going on, though, and that, I fear, is about your lot with this.

It's a great idea, but so far anyway, it seems under-developed.

miss wonderstarr

06:30 / 07.02.06

I didn't think it was handled subtly, but you're right E.Randius, I thought it was quite powerful despite my lack of interest in football. I could understand that whoever wrote that speech really cared about the issue -- and it wasn't about (as has previously almost been the case) Sam clumsily struggling with "what you gonna say in, erm, the past, I mean, the future, when they're dragging you out of Hillsborough... ah, never mind lad, you'll find out".

Thinking back, there has been an overall theme about the importance of community and belonging in 1973 Britain -- something that's been lost by 2006. The sense of being part of a fandom that means you're mates if you wear the same colour scarf -- part of a workforce that means you'd go to prison if it meant your colleagues could earn their pay. These motivations are surprising to Sam, from his contemporary perspective.

The whole turning off your life-support dilemma is unfortunately also the central focus in Just Like Heaven, sunny SF romcom on current release, so its impact and originality were dulled for me.

yawn - thing's buddy

07:36 / 07.02.06

i thought the sequence where simms could hear the life support machine bleeping was very powerful.

the sense of another layer of reality sitting on top of his 'experience' was successfully communicated I reckon.

And it was really quite scary.

Regrettable Juvenilia

08:33 / 07.02.06

I thought the disappointing thing about this episode was that the plot of the case was handled so heavy... handedly. Detective shows in which you're that many steps ahead of the main character are always annoying. Particularly when said main character also fails to make any progress with a potential love interest as appealing as Annie (there are moments when it's not clear that Sam actually has any interest in her - which would bother me less if he'd showed any sign of remembering his 2005 girlfriend after the first episode).

Also a bit clunky was the 'moral' to a certain extent - not Sam's final speech, but a lot of the "he's one of them!" "but he's your friend!" stuff.

What was great this week was Gene: shaving in his office, punching the guy who was about to recognise him, faking and then actually being drunk... It's interesting that his character is where the show rarely puts a foot wrong.

Regrettable Juvenilia

08:37 / 07.02.06

Oh, should add that I am completely open to the idea that the reason the Sam/Annie relationship is not developing further is that the real love story in this show is Sam/Gene.

miss wonderstarr

09:30 / 07.02.06

I don't want to sound pedantic but I thought the whole central crime was implausible, too.

You've got a bunch of mates who support the same team. To prompt a fight against the opposing team, you follow one of your mates out of your local, call his name so he stops and turns, and then lay into him, because if everyone finds him beaten up a bit, they'll blame the rival supporters.

Am I being fick or wouldn't the victim of the beating know full well who had hit him, and be likely to tell everyone who was responsible?

Tryphena Absent

13:26 / 07.02.06

That would be why he deliberately hit him hard enough to knock him out (to kill him actually) from behind.

miss wonderstarr

14:49 / 07.02.06

OK, but there were two people involved in the attack. One of them actually called his name, so he'd at least assume it was someone who knew him. Were they both coming up behind him? Was the first blow always intended to knock him out cold, so he wouldn't see the rest? If it was meant to look like a rival kicking, why didn't they actually cause some obvious damage, rather than leaving that mysterious single wound? Did they know he was dead right from the first punch to the head?
Does any of this matter? No, of course. I'm sorry.

16:04 / 07.02.06

There's plot holes all over the place - another reason why I'd hope the big time travel thingummy isn't the big big thingummy. You've got to be dead careful with that sort of idea that you don't set yourself up for a fall by peppering the episodes with inconsistencies and, well, they've not exactly managed to pull that off so far.

Re: subtlety. It was more the talking to that Sam gave the crim at the end that I was thinking of there, having already forgotten the details of what'd come before. The "once a red" sections of it were a bit stompingly obvious, but the sentiment felt honest. The key word was 'relatively'.

Turning off life support = next episode, foo'!

Tryphena Absent

16:08 / 07.02.06

One of them actually called his name, so he'd at least assume it was someone who knew him.

Are you suggesting that no Man City supporters would know his name?

I take your point about the one mysterious wound though.

miss wonderstarr

16:25 / 07.02.06

I think it's possible to like a show so much that you ruin it for yourself by asking it to do things it was never planning on doing.

Page: 1(2)3 4 5 6 7... 8