Controversial The IMDF Conflict Zone!

[Mad-Pac]

I tried to do a range in my selections. Some good nominations so far in this thread, quite a few I would be keen to watch.

Of course, you can also nominate Blake's 7 as well, just in case...

 

[ant-mac]

I for one liked Life On Mars but not Ashes to Ashes. The show justified the strangeness the character felt in the 1970s, however the 1980s felt too contemporary for me, because I was already an adult at that time. Switching the protagonist from male to female also didn't work well; eventually it became the dynamics of a strong woman with a more traditional male partner, something we see all the time on TV. On Life On Mars, Sam and Gene having completely opposite views of things provided a better contrast, as both characters were white men and tough cops, so what really told them apart were their values due to the eras in which they lived, and many things seemed completely obvious to Sam, and a total novelty to Gene. In "Ashes," the fact the "fish out of water" was a woman gave the story feminist overtones, and it felt that she had strong opinions not because she was from the 21st century, but because she was a crusader for women's rights.

I dislike it when filmmakers change the gender or race of an already previously established character in a work of fiction, but as ASHES TO ASHES was a sequel to LIFE ON MARS with new characters and stories, I felt that the gender and the race of the new main character were irrelevant.

Also, if we've seen the dynamics of a strong woman with a more traditional male partner before, then we've seen the dynamics of two white men who are tough cops with a different outlook on life ad nauseam! In fact, it's a whorey old cliché by this stage of the proceedings.

And for me, a woman with strong opinions is just a woman with strong opinions - whatever those opinions happen to be about. We hardly ever look twice at a man with strong opinions, so why should a woman be any different?

 

[Brimfin]

Wow. Most of the shows I was thinking of have already been nominated. Here are some others:

Dead Like Me : Story of a girl who dies and returns as an undead. No, not a vampire, but a reaper who takes people’s souls just before they die to spare them pain and then leads them to the afterlife. She has a group of reapers she works with. Quirky and inventive. 2 seasons – 29 episodes (but first one is double-length). Could just watch Season 1, but I actually liked season 2 better. Available on DVD (I have the set) but not anywhere else I can find unfortunately.

The Time Tunnel : Story of two scientists who prematurely use a new time travel device and become lost in time travelling from one historic event to another. Recently celebrated the 50th anniversary of its premiere. A fun, likeable show. I think it's available on YouTube; I have the DVDs as a long-time fan of the show.

That's all I've got, unless I think of something else.

 

[Mad-Pac]

I personally found the US version more logical and sensible. I was able to maintain my suspension of disbelief whilst watching it.

My reasoning is that the Afterlife can be just about anything. I mean, nothing I will learn it actually is going to surprise me. On the other hand, for a space mission in the near future some things make sense are plausible, while others are just ludicrous.

I found both versions to be a mix of both lighter and darker themes. I never encountered any aspect in either that made me feel like I was watching a video game.

I was referring to the fact US Sam was actually enjoying the situation, which is how you'd feel playing a game, watching a movie or visiting Westworld, while UK Sam was more like tolerating it and making the best of hellish circumstances.

Jason O'Mara is a fantastic actor - at a wide range of roles. He's played both good guys and bad guys, ranging from superheroes to serial killers, on both UK and US TV programs.

Sure, good alpha male guys, and bad alpha male guys. Alpha male heroes and alpha male serial killers. He's tall, athletic and good-looking, so I didn't see him as a regular guy involved in a bizarre situation.

For me, the theme song made much more sense to me in the US version, because ultimately, they were the crew of the first manned mission to Mars.

Yep, in a very literal and straightforward way, pretty much like all the treatment those writers gave to the story. I prefer Mars as a metaphor.

They both look like beautiful and sexy movie stars to me...

Wow, both images are impressive, except that you mistook Kelly Brook for Liz White. Anyway, be as it may, Liz White's acting was very impressive, since her demeanor and soft voice made her look cute rather than necessarily sexy, while Gretchen Moll usually plays the blonde bombshell, because that's what she is. I just felt the couple had a much better chemistry in the UK version.

And you'll find people in the UK who regard David Bowie as just another famous mass-produced pop star too.

A person's opinion about a musician is not dependant upon their nationality.

TheSowIsMine is a huge David Bowie fan - and she's not a UK citizen.

I have no idea who TheSowIsMine is. Of course people are free to like or dislike an artist despite their nationality. But I think that an artist usually reflects the culture of his or her country better. Dan Brown is imminently American, JK Rowlings is British and Paulo Coelho is Brazilian. They might appeal to a large public, but their roots are known. (But OK, OK, I admit I thought George RR Martin was English). From my perspective, musicians like David Bowie, Elton John or Rod Stewart, despite being international celebrities, are very, very, VERY English!

Not an issue for me.

Up to a certain extent, they both felt like reasonable representations of fictional worlds to me - which is precisely what they were.

Oh, come on, doesn't it bother you that John Constantine couldn't smoke on American television? For me that killed the character. I don't know if people in the UK did smoke that much back in the 1970s, or if sexism was so rampant, but it did seem much more authentic than the sanitized family-friendly American version.

I thought NY was perfect for the setting of the US version. It's perfectly capable of being as gritty or as suffocating as the story demands. As for nightmares, I'd get far more from a concrete jungle like NY than from either Liverpool or Manchester.

New York City is the most populous city in the US, with an estimated 2016 population of 8 537 673. It’s the most densely populated city in the United States. Meanwhile, Liverpool is a city in North West England, with an estimated 2016 population of 484 578, while Manchester is a city and metropolitan borough in Greater Manchester, England, with a 2015 population of 530 300. So for me, it's no contest - NY wins hands down for being the stuff that nightmares are made of.

OK, so you just proved my point. That's exactly what I felt. There was a reason the original story took place in Manchester instead of the fashionable and cosmopolitan megalopolis which is London. Manchester is smaller, more claustrophobic and grittier. New York is too big, too imponent, to grandiose. And if there's anything Manchester isn't is glamorous, like New York. I'd love to visit New York. As for Manchester or Liverpool...not so much. (Sorry, Michael!) Well, at least they didn't keep the show in Hollywood as the unaired pilot had it.

By the way, the views we've both expressed concerning the UK and US versions of LIFE ON MARS are mostly subjective, not objective.

So.... That makes them any less valid? And obviously my impression is subjective, but I tried to raise several objective points as well.

As I said earlier, each to their own.

For sure and I would never have it any other way.

 

[Mad-Pac]

as ASHES TO ASHES was a sequel to LIFE ON MARS with new characters and stories, I felt that the gender and the race of the new main character were irrelevant.

Wow! We do have polar opposite perceptions of these stories. I find the character's gender fundamental for that story. Did you even watch all of it?

Also, if we've seen the dynamics of a strong woman with a more traditional male partner before, then we've seen the dynamics of two white men who are tough cops with a different outlook on life ad nauseam! In fact, it's a whorey old cliché by this stage of the proceedings.

Oh, sure the two contrasting male cops is an old cliché. I don't dispute that part. But the twist is that the contrast was due to the fact one was from 2006 and the other from 1973. That was basically what told them apart. If both police officers had lived in the same time period, they'd probably think much more alike. By keeping all other factors the same (gender, ethnicity, rank, experience and general attitude), the writers could play the time travel aspect to its ultimate consequences. In the spin-off, by switching the protagonist's gender, instead of one cop from the present disagreeing with a cop from the past, it felt more like two contemporary cops, except that one is something of a feminist with strong opinions and the other one is something of a misogynist with strong opinions. And it was ten years closer to our time. Because of all of this, the time travel aspect was much more diluted and the show seemed more like a critic to current social behavior, not how ridiculously outdated police work 40 years ago.

And for me, a woman with strong opinions is just a woman with strong opinions - whatever those opinions happen to be about. We hardly ever look twice at a man with strong opinions, so why should a woman be any different?

I never said that the fact she had strong opinions was a problem. I said that the problem was WHY she had strong opinions about things. In Life On Mars, Sam had strong opinions not because he is a male social justice warrior, but because now it is obvious that you should get the input of a female officer in your task force and you should not make racist jokes when a new policeman who is Black joins the team. And it is obvious you can't smoke if non-smokers are present. (At least in Sam Tyler's ultra clean, aseptic, emotionless version of 2006 those things were obvious). On the other hand, to the cops from that decade, those things were not obvious at all, so they committed all those sins. But they had heart and in a way seemed more alive than Sam when he was alive. Alex Drake, on the other hand, imposed herself as she would nowadays, and all she cared about was getting back to her daughter. The time travel aspect that fascinated me was underplayed. This is why I liked the first show much better.

 

[Mad-Pac]

And as for Liz White and Gretchen Mol...

By the way... That's not Liz White. That's Kelly Brook.

 

[Mad-Pac]

That's all I've got, unless I think of something else.

Excellent choices. What do you think of the whole "watch only the first season of a long show" issue? I'm eager to know your sagely input.

 

[Mad-Pac]

Oh, well, at least I got to discuss Life On Mars after all. I don't even have to re-watch the show anymore...

 

[michaellevenson]

Not wishing to lower the tone, but those ladies Liz and Gretchen sure looked er. OK
It's 1am here in Britain bedtime. I'll lay my head down on the pillow now and think of these beauties.
Who could they possibly be?

 

[Gavin]

Mission: Impossible (1966)

Not a Tom Cruise in sight. It ran for 7 seasons. I've only watched season 1.
The show, should you choose to watch it, is about an elite covert operation unit carrying out highly sensitive missions. Their government will deny all knowledge in the event of failure, capture or death.

You forgot "this comment will self-destruct in 10 seconds"

 

[ant-mac]

My reasoning is that the Afterlife can be just about anything. I mean, nothing I will learn it actually is going to surprise me. On the other hand, for a space mission in the near future some things make sense are plausible, while others are just ludicrous.

I dislike subjects such as magic or the supernatural. I do not believe in an afterlife.

However, I do think it's entirely possible the Human species could send its first manned mission to Mars sometime within the next 15 to 20 years, if it chooses to do so. Therefore, I find the US version to be more believable and relevant. The UK version is simply nonsense to me.

I was referring to the fact US Sam was actually enjoying the situation, which is how you'd feel playing a game, watching a movie or visiting Westworld, while UK Sam was more like tolerating it and making the best of hellish circumstances.

I felt there were times in both versions were Sam was enjoying and not enjoying himself.

That's why I stated that I found both versions to be a mix of both lighter and darker themes.

Sure, good alpha male guys, and bad alpha male guys. Alpha male heroes and alpha male serial killers. He's tall, athletic and good-looking, so I didn't see him as a regular guy involved in a bizarre situation.

He has not always played such characters.

In fact, I didn't really find him to be such a character in LIFE ON MARS. Or at least, he wasn't my idea of an alpha male.

He just seemed like a nice guy.

Yep, in a very literal and straightforward way, pretty much like all the treatment those writers gave to the story. I prefer Mars as a metaphor.

There's nothing wrong with straight forward story-telling - whether it's literal or not. In fact, I sometimes wonder if it's becoming a lost art. Hopefully not.

Metaphors are all very well, but I prefer clarity, conciseness, consistency and continuity.

Wow, both images are impressive, except that you mistook Kelly Brook for Liz White. Anyway, be as it may, Liz White's acting was very impressive, since her demeanor and soft voice made her look cute rather than necessarily sexy, while Gretchen Moll usually plays the blonde bombshell, because that's what she is. I just felt the couple had a much better chemistry in the UK version.

I made no such mistake. The photograph is listed under Liz White and is labelled as such. I checked under Kelly Brook and found no such image. However, there were images of Kelly Brook in a bikini, but she seems to have a different body type to Liz white. So, I'm not sure what's going on there.

Both Liz White and Gretchen Mol were perfectly fine in their respective roles.

I wouldn't necessarily describe either actress as a sexy bombshell. I also found the chemistry between the respective "on-screen" couples to be basically equivalent to one another.

I have no idea who TheSowIsMine is. Of course people are free to like or dislike an artist despite their nationality. But I think that an artist usually reflects the culture of his or her country better. Dan Brown is imminently American, JK Rowlings is British and Paulo Coelho is Brazilian. They might appeal to a large public, but their roots are known. (But OK, OK, I admit I thought George RR Martin was English). From my perspective, musicians like David Bowie, Elton John or Rod Stewart, despite being international celebrities, are very, very, VERY English!

TheSowIsMine is the moderator on this website. She became the moderator at about the same time you became a contributor.

I think that an artist sometimes reflects the culture of his or her own country and sometimes they don't. It really depends upon the individual.

To me personally, JK Rowling does come across as British, but Dan Brown, David Bowie, Elton John or Rod Stewart are just international celebrities to me. I have no real opinions concerning Paulo Coelho or George RR Martin.

Oh, come on, doesn't it bother you that John Constantine couldn't smoke on American television? For me that killed the character. I don't know if people in the UK did smoke that much back in the 1970s, or if sexism was so rampant, but it did seem much more authentic than the sanitized family-friendly American version.

I have no opinion on the subject of John Constantine or whether he smokes or not. If he wasn't for the fact of who he is, I'd say that smoking would actually be more likely to kill him than any other factor.

James Bond had a long history of smoking - in both his written and filmed adventures. Now he doesn't smoke. I'm aware of - and somewhat sympathetic to - the point you're making, but ultimately, times change.

OK, so you just proved my point. That's exactly what I felt. There was a reason the original story took place in Manchester instead of the fashionable and cosmopolitan megalopolis which is London. Manchester is smaller, more claustrophobic and grittier. New York is too big, too imponent, to grandiose. And if there's anything Manchester isn't is glamorous, like New York. I'd love to visit New York. As for Manchester or Liverpool...not so much. (Sorry, Michael!) Well, at least they didn't keep the show in Hollywood as the unaired pilot had it.

If you think I proved your point, then I can only assume that you missed my point.

Simply because Liverpool and Manchester have vastly lower populations than NY, they are in no way claustrophobic. However, many areas of NY do feel exceedingly claustrophobic due to the huge number of people that inhabit the concrete jungle. As for grittiness, I expect all three population centres are quite capable of feeling thus.

Los Angles is too big, or too vast, or too overwhelming. NY is much less so.

So.... That makes them any less valid? And obviously my impression is subjective, but I tried to raise several objective points as well.

I never mentioned validity. I simply made a comment regarding the objectiveness versus the subjectiveness of your previous post.

And speaking strictly for myself, I never read any objective points in your previous post, just subjective opinions.

For sure and I would never have it any other way.

Well, at least we agree on one thing.

That seems like a good way to end a post.

 

[ant-mac]

Wow! We do have polar opposite perceptions of these stories. I find the character's gender fundamental for that story. Did you even watch all of it?

Yes, we certainly seem to have different perspectives on numerous issues. However, as I said earlier, each to their own.

I didn't find the character's gender fundamental, because to me, it was just an alternative method of ensuring that there'd be a constant source of inter-personal conflict and tension between the various main characters going forward through the TV series. It was still the same basic inter-personal set-up as LIFE ON MARS.

Oh, sure the two contrasting male cops is an old cliché. I don't dispute that part. But the twist is that the contrast was due to the fact one was from 2006 and the other from 1973. That was basically what told them apart. If both police officers had lived in the same time period, they'd probably think much more alike. By keeping all other factors the same (gender, ethnicity, rank, experience and general attitude), the writers could play the time travel aspect to its ultimate consequences. In the spin-off, by switching the protagonist's gender, instead of one cop from the present disagreeing with a cop from the past, it felt more like two contemporary cops, except that one is something of a feminist with strong opinions and the other one is something of a misogynist with strong opinions. And it was ten years closer to our time. Because of all of this, the time travel aspect was much more diluted and the show seemed more like a critic to current social behavior, not how ridiculously outdated police work 40 years ago.

That same twist could've been achieved by have two cops of vastly different ages working together. One could have joined the police force in around 1973, while the other joined in around 2006. They could both still have vastly difference perspectives and methods of operating.

The time travel aspect of the TV series was just a plot point. A means to an end. As I previously mentioned, there were other ways to achieve the same interpersonal dynamics between the main characters.

In any case, according to individuals who were serving police officers during the era depicted in the UK version of LIFE ON MARS, the TV series did a very poor job of representing the police force of the early 1970s. Apparently, it was full of falsehoods and inaccuracies.

I never said that the fact she had strong opinions was a problem. I said that the problem was WHY she had strong opinions about things. In Life On Mars, Sam had strong opinions not because he is a male social justice warrior, but because now it is obvious that you should get the input of a female officer in your task force and you should not make racist jokes when a new policeman who is Black joins the team. And it is obvious you can't smoke if non-smokers are present. (At least in Sam Tyler's ultra clean, aseptic, emotionless version of 2006 those things were obvious). On the other hand, to the cops from that decade, those things were not obvious at all, so they committed all those sins. But they had heart and in a way seemed more alive than Sam when he was alive. Alex Drake, on the other hand, imposed herself as she would nowadays, and all she cared about was getting back to her daughter. The time travel aspect that fascinated me was underplayed. This is why I liked the first show much better.

Sam had strong opinions and Alex had strong opinions. They both came from a different era and had different expectations about how things should be done. It simply didn't make any difference for me. Six of one, half-a-dozen of another.

I can't say I'm overly fond of either TV series. I certainly don't intend to watch either of them ever again.

 

[ant-mac]

By the way... That's not Liz White. That's Kelly Brook.

Yes, this is the second time you've mentioned this.

However, as I explained last time, the photograph is listed under Liz White and is labelled as such. I checked under Kelly Brook and found no such image. However, there were images of Kelly Brook in a bikini, but she seems to have a different body type to Liz White.

As you can see...

Kelly Brook appears to have a different body type to Liz White.

And here's another picture of Liz White...

 

[ant-mac]

Oh, well, at least I got to discuss Life On Mars after all. I don't even have to re-watch the show anymore...

Yes, I think we've covered the subject fairly comprehensively.

However, I think the only real thing we can agree on is that we disagree.

 

[ant-mac]

Of course, you can also nominate Blake's 7 as well, just in case...

In which case, I'll get right on it.

I'm sure there must be someone I can convince to nominate B7 again - just to make sure that others appreciate its true genius.

 

[ant-mac]

Not wishing to lower the tone, but those ladies Liz and Gretchen sure looked er. OK
It's 1am here in Britain bedtime. I'll lay my head down on the pillow now and think of these beauties.
Who could they possibly be?

Considering my avatar, I'll take the brunette please.

Mind you, I'd choose her regardless of my avatar.

 

[ant-mac]

You forgot "this comment will self-destruct in 10 seconds"

9... 8... 7... 6... 5... 4... 3... 2... 1...

Hang on! I forgot what the message said...

Oh shit!

 

[Mad-Pac]

In which case, I'll get right on it.

I'm sure there must be someone I can convince to nominate B7 again - just to make sure that others appreciate its true genius.

LOL! OK, I'm curious about a little thing. Haven't you guys already seen this show? And I mean... literally... several times already?

 

[ant-mac]

LOL! OK, I'm curious about a little thing. Haven't you guys already seen this show? And I mean... literally... several times already?

That's no reason not to share its genius with the rest of the world...

I've also seen UFO and SPACE 1999, but that's no reason not to watch them again, one day.

 

[Mad-Pac]

Yes, this is the second time you've mentioned this.

Actually, that was the first time. Then I went to my original post and corrected it as well in case somebody else read only that comment so it would make sense.