Controversial The IMDF Conflict Zone!

[ant-mac]

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.

Oh well, I replied to both.

I also provided further photographs for comparison and consideration.

 

[Mad-Pac]

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.

Aha! The operative words being... several times. I would surely watch a good show I enjoyed watching when I was 12, but I wouldn't want to go back to some show I happened to watch over and over again for some reason. Well, I wouldn't watch something over and over again. Twice, maybe three times in exceptional circumstances, but then time to move on!

 

[Mad-Pac]

Sorry guys. Late here again!

Have I missed anything? And has anyone mentioned that bleak, but brilliant masterpiece, BLAKE'S 7 yet, as a possible nomination?

Oh, gosh, I don't know. At this point so late in the process I find we hardly have the time to consider. And I'm quite wary of how people are going to react to including this show. If I were you, I'd forget all about it.

 

[ant-mac]

Aha! The operative words being... several times. I would surely watch a good show I enjoyed watching when I was 12, but I wouldn't want to go back to some show I happened to watch over and over again for some reason. Well, I wouldn't watch something over and over again. Twice, maybe three times in exceptional circumstances, but then time to move on!

I've watched UFO 2 or 3 times.

I've watch B7 4 or 5 times through in the last forty years.

So I don't think I've overdone it.

Either way, there's always room for one more re-watch.

 

[Mad-Pac]

Oh well, I replied to both.

I also provided further photographs for comparison and consideration.

OK... But you want comparison and consideration with the speed and efficiency of 2006 or 1973? Because, you know, it's not like we're talking about two people from the same time period with just vastly different ages.

 

[ant-mac]

OK... But you want comparison and consideration with the speed and efficiency of 2006 or 1973? Because, you know, it's not like we're talking about two people from the same time period with just vastly different ages.

I think people managed to compare and consider topics in both time periods.

They simply used what tools were available to them.

 

[ant-mac]

Oh, gosh, I don't know. At this point so late in the process I find we hardly have the time to consider. And I'm quite wary of how people are going to react to including this show. If I were you, I'd forget all about it.

Forget about what?

 

[Mad-Pac]

As you can see...

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

Ha! I knew you would go there, so I was prepared to bury this particular issue once and for all. Here's the complete photo shoot where you got your "Liz White" picture from.

I rest my case, your honor.

 

[Mad-Pac]

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

Oh, no I don't think I can agree with that. I think we found other things we agree with. For instance, neither of us wants to watch Life On Mars (US) again.

 

[ant-mac]

Ha! I knew you would go there, so I was prepared to bury this particular issue once and for all. Here's the complete photo shoot where you got your "Liz White" picture from.

I rest my case, your honor.

Could you supply the actual address?

I get a blank page when I click on that.

I need something to copy and paste into the address bar.

 

[ant-mac]

Oh, no I don't think I can agree with that. I think we found other things we agree with. For instance, neither of us wants to watch Life On Mars (US) again.

I might consider it one day.

I don't feel the same about the UK version.

 

[Mad-Pac]

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.

Yep, but you admitted you watched only a few episodes of Ashes to Ashes, so I would expect that you wouldn't have caught all the nuances after just a cursory viewing.

You see, Sam had strong opinions of things that didn't relate himself, just thing he consider to be true in a disinterested way. Alex, advocating for women's rights, on the other hand, had a personal bias in the issue. All in all, the situations she was involved in felt more like contemporary situations, unlike what happened to Sam. I think the writers were trying to attract a younger audience for the spin-off so they made something millennials could identify better with. And as you know, millennials ruined everything. har, har har.

 

[Mad-Pac]

Could you supply the actual address?

I get a blank page when I click on that.

I need something to copy and paste into the address bar.

http://hq-celebrity.com/kelly-brook-in-a-black-bikini/

 

[Mad-Pac]

I might consider it one day.

I don't feel the same about the UK version.

OK, now you're splitting hairs.

 

[ant-mac]

http://hq-celebrity.com/kelly-brook-in-a-black-bikini/

Cheers for that. Yes, it certainly looks like someone screwed up with labelling photographs. I wonder if it's possible to inform them of their mistake?

Anyway, that's why I provided a second photograph of Liz White - or perhaps I should say a first one - for comparison and consideration. Either way, both Liz White and Gretchen Mol are both beautiful and sexy females who work in the film and TV industry.

 

[ant-mac]

OK, now you're splitting hairs.

That's okay, I've got plenty to spare.

 

[Mad-Pac]

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.

Again, you just watched a few episodes, and since you weren't enjoying yourself, naturally many details escaped you. I watched everything and paid great attention.

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.

Nah... I remember Sam's priceless reaction when he asks, "when do we get the lab results?" and the other cop replies, "Two weeks." And he goes, astounded, "TWO WEEKS?"

You see, an old cop might be used to doing things the old way, but he doesn't live in a bubble. And he might have kids and relatives who are younger and expose him to the reality he doesn't like. However if you went back to 1973 and talked about DNA evidence they'd look at you as if you were Martian.

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.

Yet, it's the entire reason I started watching the show. Specifically, time travel. I wouldn't watch a TV show about an old detective with old habits and a young partner with modern ideas. That sounds incredibly boring and clichéd.

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.

Oh, I won't argue with you about that. But I don't care. I don't know what police work was like in 1973 in England. To me it felt and sounded realistic and made a good story. I didn't choose the show for a history lesson, but as a piece of entertainment instead.

 

[ant-mac]

Again, you just watched a few episodes, and since you weren't enjoying yourself, naturally many details escaped you. I watched everything and paid great attention.

I watched LIFE ON MARS all the way through - and I paid attention. That's how I came to the conclusions I have and developed the opinions I have of the UK version. You may like it, but I'm not keen on it. Each to their own.

Nah... I remember Sam's priceless reaction when he asks, "when do we get the lab results?" and the other cop replies, "Two weeks." And he goes, astounded, "TWO WEEKS?"

You see, an old cop might be used to doing things the old way, but he doesn't live in a bubble. And he might have kids and relatives who are younger and expose him to the reality he doesn't like. However if you went back to 1973 and talked about DNA evidence they'd look at you as if you were Martian.

Even in this day and age, in fiction and in reality, scientific laboratories can have a backlog of evidence to examine that extends back for days, if not weeks, if not much longer. There are some instances where evidence from more than a decade ago - if not longer - is still waiting to be processed.

He might not live in a bubble, but just because he's exposed to other opinions and perspectives, it doesn't mean he's going to pay any attention to them. If he's got seniority or is fixed in his ways, then he won't change without exceptional circumstances helping to make it happen. Of course, it depends upon the individual.

Yet, it's the entire reason I started watching the show. Specifically, time travel. I wouldn't watch a TV show about an old detective with old habits and a young partner with modern ideas. That sounds incredibly boring and clichéd.

Why not? It's just a variation on a theme.

In some ways, that's basically what LIFE ON MARS is all about. It's just presented in a slightly different way from the rest of the pack.

Oh, I won't argue with you about that. But I don't care. I don't know what police work was like in 1973 in England. To me it felt and sounded realistic and made a good story. I didn't choose the show for a history lesson, but as a piece of entertainment instead.

Exactly. It's just a piece of entertainment.

And some people will be more entertained by it than others.

 

[Gavin]

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

I haven't, at least not fully. I've seen a number of episodes (and read some novelisations), enough for me to know I enjoy it, but have never watched the show in order. And I think the earliest episode I've seen was somewhere in the middle of season one, so I'm yet to see how it all begins.

 

[ant-mac]

I haven't, at least not fully. I've seen a number of episodes (and read some novelisations), enough for me to know I enjoy it, but have never watched the show in order. And I think the earliest episode I've seen was somewhere in the middle of season one, so I'm yet to see how it all begins.

Sounds like the perfect reason to view it from start to finish in the correct order.