AVS Forum banner

'Life On Mars' on ABC HD

39K views 470 replies 105 participants last post by  vice86 
#1 ·
I was thinking that this should just be a cool throwback show. But thinking that through, I can see where some could find that idea clunky or "old-timey", so I guess that's where the "travel" aspect comes into play (at least in the head of lead character). That's one minor thing I don't care for already. So now I'm wondering if he'll travel back and forth, a la Desmond from Lost. At least those throwback ABC graphics in one of the trailers were cool.


The show may turn out to be very good (its gotten acclaim from previewing critics). Then again, it could backfire as did Daybreak. Anyways, I'll watch, if only for Harvey Keitel alone; he's got some excellent one-liners. The other little quibble I have is about its timeslot; I don't have a reliable DVR right now and 10PM is really past my bedtime. Nevertheless, I'm definitely watchin' the pilot.
 
#27 ·
Thoroughly enjoyed everything to do with this showthe premise, the music, the actors, the locations, etc.



I know nothing about the BBC version and frankly, I am not interestedat least until this version is through with its run.


For me, living in NY, seeing the filmmaker's perception of the city in 1973, a time and place I am extremely familiar withis why this show could be great. I find the nostalgic throw back extremely refreshing and amusing, even with the minor mistakes as pointed outolder police cars, Jeep reference, etc. I look forward to the future
...episodes.
 
#28 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by replayrob /forum/post/14838334


+1

After seeing the first episode last night... I gave it a season pass on the TiVoHD. I was/am a big Journeyman fan and I guess this is about as close as we'll get to that show- so I'm in



One minor gripe... in the beginning when Sam first appeared in 1973 and told the cop he was looking for his Jeep- the cop responded "you have a military vehicle?" I know for a fact that Jeep made the CJ-5 (the "CJ" designation signified Civilian Jeep BTW) back in 1973... cause I had one in 1979 when in High School. Also... the Police Cruisers outside the 125th Precinct seemed much older than circa 1973??

I caught that too .....

My buddy had a (used) Jeep CJ when I was in High School ('74-'78), That comment seemed out-of-place, people Had jeeps ...

but I guess they wanted a couple of " Hey kid, what's with the life Preserver" ... moments .....


I also noticed as well that the cop cars were too old ...

They were pre-1968 cars, & I don't think NYC had many 1967 & older squad cars in '73 ....

These of course are meaningless nitpicks .., I look forward to next week's installment ...
 
#29 ·
I enjoyed this show a great deal as well, despite my concerns arising out of the discussions concerning the BBC original. the 70's were an important period in my life, and I appreciate this oppurtunity to relive/reminisce about that time in retrospect.



____________________________________________________

Palladin


Chance favors the prepared mind
 
#30 ·
I liked the premiere but seeing the whole UK series already my main problems would be Harvey Keitel as Gene. Maybe for those of you that know him and are a fan of his work you can accept him in this role but to me he just doesn't have that dominate vibe the UK Gene was able to portray. I guess I feel he's just getting too old and doesn't have that bad ass tough as nails way about him. Also I feel the overall show was dumbed down a bit which I don't like. For example in the Uk version pilot the audience wasn't spoon feed that Mia and Sam are together. Just goes to show that the producers don't think we can pick up on things like that without outright being told so.
 
#31 ·
I was very impressed with last night's premiere. I was a big fan of the BBC version, and felt that the American version kept the best aspects of the original show. I loved that they continued to use a lot of the same music, and many of the exact same shots as the BBC version. Great cast, great writing; I'm hooked. Haven't had a great police drama since the excellent NYPD Blue; now there is another!
 
#32 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by cstmstyle /forum/post/14839370


... my main problems would be Harvey Keitel as Gene...

Once again, I am not comparing this show to the original, since I never saw it, that said, I think Harvey Keitel is perfect in this part. He is one of those actors who are a product of all of his previous roles. When I see him in a movie, I cannot help from seeing him in his previous characters-- and for me that began ironically in 1973 with Mean Streets.
 
#33 ·
Since no one's mentioned PQ, I thought I'd jump in...


I thought there were a couple scenes that made good use of HD. The smoke filled room with Michael Imperioli was visually interesting. Also, the final not shot with the WTC with windows lit up was pretty good, even if a bit to a meta-narrative ("Look, we're sooo totally in the past!").


Some interesting shots, particularly when the killer was running away at the end. A couple high 3/4 angle shots and even a few low ones. Little more visually aggressive that the standard police procedural.


The story was a bit weak. But, there's potential.


I'm not certain the use of color is good or not. Again, leaning toward the technicolor side is a bit "Look how in the past we are!"


If they start using color to imply changes of mood (ala Gattaca) I think the show could turn into one of the more visually impressive shows on TV.
 
#34 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by sneals2000 /forum/post/14835618


The BBC's argument is that whilst some Super 16 can look great in an HD edit - it doesn't survive at all well through the transmission chain - and looks pretty bad in many cases by the time it reaches the screen at home.

Interestingly, the decision was taken very late in the day, with the result that BBC HD launched without half the programs they expected to show. Andy Quested (The BBC's Mr HD) blogs about it (and how to start an HD channel) here . I quote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy Quested /forum/post/0


one of my jobs before we had an HD service was to help production teams deliver their programmes in HD to some of our major co-producers. Very early on, we discovered that no-one would accept Super 16mm film as an HD format. I did a lot of work with post-production facilities to try to come up with a way to make it possible, but there was no compromise: Super 16 was just not HD.

So when our own channel came up, I thought we should have another go. After all, we would be using MPEG4 not MPEG2 (like our US co-producers), we would have a high enough bit rate and we could look at drama as well as documentaries.


I think I spent two solid weeks looking at different trials, transfer routes and transmission simulations before I had to tell Seetha Kumar (Head HDTV) that about 25% of the programmes we thought we could transmit couldn't be called HD. The problem was that the MPEG4 transmission system did a very good job of removing all the grain from the film but after that the picture looked soft and there was no way we could call them high definition. It was a tough time and we are still working on the problem.

It's also worth remembering that Super16 is being compared against 16:9 576psf transmissions.


The upshot from this is, I suspect, that people have moved to using the Arri D20, and Genesis a lot quicker than would have been expected.


Steven
 
#35 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by LL3HD /forum/post/14839114


For me, living in NY, seeing the filmmaker's perception of the city in 1973, a time and place I am extremely familiar withis why this show could be great. I find the nostalgic throw back extremely refreshing and amusing, even with the minor mistakes as pointed outolder police cars, Jeep reference, etc. I look forward to the future
...episodes.

I don't live in New York but I went there a lot in the '70s and '80s. The shot of the then brand new World Trade Center moved me. I like that they didn't dwell on it but just showed us the towers briefly and Sam's reaction to them. It was well done.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LL3HD /forum/post/14839519


I think Harvey Keitel is perfect in this part. He is one of those actors who are a product of all of his previous roles. When I see him in a movie, I cannot help from seeing him in his previous characters-- and for me that began ironically in 1973 with Mean Streets.

Keitel is in his late 60s so, yeah, I guess it's fair to say that he is too old to play an NYPD detective lieutenant. But he convinced me that he could be a high mileage cop in his '50s and I thought his slightly crazed tough guy persona worked.
 
#36 ·
My concern is how long American audiences will support the whole question of how did Sam Tyler get back to 1973. Two seasons on the BBC produced fewer episodes than one season will here in the States. For those who haven't seen the original, the quest to return home played a major role in the second and final series. Getting back to the future was always an underlying theme - like it was last night - but it was especially pivotal the second half of the second series. I know the producers say they have some ways to keep the show going but I have my worries about the resulting quality of it all.


I wish the American networks followed more of the BBC model. My favorite thing about Daybreak a couple of years ago was that it told a story and then went off the air. (I know the ratings sucked and it got canceled but that's not the point.) Most shows drag things out until the ratings go down and affections are lost. I would rather have a one or two season run of a high quality show than five or six seasons of overall mediocrity. Looking at the current primetime landscape, I would use Desperate Housewives as an example of a show that would be highly regarded if it had just quit after its first season and it solved the primary mystery. Too many shows go on and on until the ratings give out instead of until the story is told. I mention all this not to go off topic but because I worry for what the future holds for this show if longevity becomes more important than quality.
 
#37 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by cstmstyle /forum/post/14839370


I liked the premiere but seeing the whole UK series already my main problems would be Harvey Keitel as Gene. Maybe for those of you that know him and are a fan of his work you can accept him in this role but to me he just doesn't have that dominate vibe the UK Gene was able to portray. I guess I feel he's just getting too old and doesn't have that bad ass tough as nails way about him. Also I feel the overall show was dumbed down a bit which I don't like. For example in the Uk version pilot the audience wasn't spoon feed that Mia and Sam are together. Just goes to show that the producers don't think we can pick up on things like that without outright being told so.

I am glad to see that I am not the only one who thinks Harvey Keitle is wrong for this role. For whatever reason, Keitel replaced Colm Meaney after the pilot was shot. I, personally, think Keitel has too much intensity for the role.
 
#38 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marty Milton /forum/post/14840134


I am glad to see that I am not the only one who thinks Harvey Keitle is wrong for this role. For whatever reason, Keitel replaced Colm Meaney after the pilot was shot. I, personally, think Keitel has too much intensity for the role.

Same here, Keitel is a fantastic actor, but he doesn't(so far) even come close to Philip Glenister's portrayal. His Gene Hunt in the original was an extremely dominant character commanding your attention in every scene he was in from the minute he was introduced. Were the original put up for Emmy contention, Glenister would have been a strong contender. Keitel, so far, is just another character among many in this version. The character of Chris in the ABC version is dull facsimile of the original, the original being a likable, unexperienced goof. Gretchen Mol is doing a fair job so far as Annie, but again, the original was an instantly likable character from the minute you met her, this one, not so much.


Also agree with ABCTV99 that the city scenes were overly done, far too "busy" looking. In the original, the stark, empty look of Manchester, where you rarely saw many people and even fewer cars, kept the focus on the main character and his "where am I" confusion and sense of helplessness and loneliness. The ABC version has been "Americanized", where we tend to do everything to excess, and IMO, to the detriment of the story itself.


I knew I would have trouble with the ABC version as I felt the original was about as perfect as TV could get. I'll watch a few more episodes, but frankly, I don't see this version coming close to matching the original. I can see the storyline getting very diluted when you consider ABC is looking to run this show 20-22 eps per season whereas the original was only 16 eps and even then it was about 2 episodes too long.
 
#39 ·
Again .. This show is, so far , on my "watch list" ...

I agree that a few of the outdoor scenes were too "busy" or "loaded" with stuff ...

Walking near his apartment almost looked like he was walking thru a 70's San Gennaro street Festival, they tried to cram in every possible old car, hippie, storefront & 70's stereotype in that one scene ...

I only saw a couple of the BBC episodes, but wasn't the Keitel character there more of an "equal, or Partner" type cop, vs Keitel seeming to be the "squad boss" ....?
 
#40 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by MeatChicken /forum/post/14840952


Again .. This show is, so far , on my "watch list" ...

I agree that a few of the outdoor scenes were too "busy" or "loaded" with stuff ...

Walking near his apartment almost looked like he was walking thru a 70's San Gennaro street Festival, they tried to cram in every possible old car, hippie, storefront & 70's stereotype in that one scene ...

I only saw a couple of the BBC episodes, but wasn't the Keitel character there more of an "equal, or Partner" type cop, vs Keitel seeming to be the "squad boss" ....?

No, in Tyler's "real life" he was a DCI(deputy chief inspector) - an equal to Hunt's rank in the past. In Tyler's "past" he's just a DI(deputy inspector), the rank below Hunt. So equal in the future, but a subordinate in the past. I don't recall the rankings they used in the show last night, Keitel would be the captain and Tyler would be a top grade detective(however it is they rank them).
 
#41 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Digger16309 /forum/post/14838085


I was disappointed. I accidentally read about the ending of the UK version and then the producer said that may not be the ending for the US version and that they were keeping their options open.


Well, there were some very large hints about what was happening so I don't know that there are any open options at this point. It would seem like the mystery of the change in time would be part of the pull each week but now it's not.


So now it simply becomes a cop show set in 1973.

Easy, now....I haven't seen the BBC version. That the lead character is in a coma seems to be obvious at this point. But I'm hoping that perhaps they'll take us in a whole different direction away from that. And for some reason, the actor portraying the lead character reminds me a bit of a young Mel Gibson.


Also, Imperioli's character made an effective use of cigarette smoke, though I never saw him take one drag. It was hilarious when he leaned over onto the cadaver with a lit one in hand. Just seeing the smoke-filled precinct made me want to cough.





Quote:
Originally Posted by gwsat /forum/post/0


The show's main appeal to me is the premise that Sam finds himself in 1973 New York, 35 years in his past, but at his present age. Worse, He doesn't know if he is really there or simply suffering a particularly convincing hallucination. The very idea is so odd, and yet possibly plausible, it leaves room for the writers to do things they could never get by with in a routine police procedural and wouldn't seem very fresh in a straight up sci-fi show. Good stuff!

Exactly. I'm really hoping the scenario is not what it seems to be. I saw a somewhat similar premise on an episode of the newer Twilight Zone. Anyways, dude was actually gonna snuff the kid (criminal) until the seeming "radio" came on. That was kinda creepy in a Dexter sort of way.
 
#42 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by keenan /forum/post/14840542


Same here, Keitel is a fantastic actor, but he doesn't(so far) even come close to Philip Glenister's portrayal. His Gene Hunt in the original was an extremely dominant character commanding your attention in every scene he was in from the minute he was introduced. Were the original put up for Emmy contention, Glenister would have been a strong contender. Keitel, so far, is just another character among many in this version. The character of Chris in the ABC version is dull facsimile of the original, the original being a likable, unexperienced goof. Gretchen Mol is doing a fair job so far as Annie, but again, the original was an instantly likable character from the minute you met her, this one, not so much.


Also agree with ABCTV99 that the city scenes were overly done, far too "busy" looking. In the original, the stark, empty look of Manchester, where you rarely saw many people and even fewer cars, kept the focus on the main character and his "where am I" confusion and sense of helplessness and loneliness. The ABC version has been "Americanized", where we tend to do everything to excess, and IMO, to the detriment of the story itself.


I knew I would have trouble with the ABC version as I felt the original was about as perfect as TV could get. I'll watch a few more episodes, but frankly, I don't see this version coming close to matching the original. I can see the storyline getting very diluted when you consider ABC is looking to run this show 20-22 eps per season whereas the original was only 16 eps and even then it was about 2 episodes too long.


I agree with everything you have said here and It would have been really nice to have the original Gene brought over to reprise his role. But if not I think someone like John Voight would have been better suited. I understand the appeal with Harvey if you look at it from all his prior roles but with someone like me that hasn't seen much of his work and only knows him from things like national treasure I feel he doesn't dominate the scenes as the role of Gene should. For those that have seen the UK version I think you would understand what I mean.
 
#43 ·
When you compare the casting I think you need to remember that there's a huge physical difference between the UK Sam Tyler and the US Sam.


In the UK version he's a small, thinker type, and he's physically cowed by the Gene Hunt character.


While Harvey Keitel is intense, and has played a ton of tough guys, he's not physically imposing standing next to Jason O'Mara.
 
#44 ·
It reminded me too much of Journeyman...for that reason alone, I don't think I can watch it...I can't get absorbed in another pseduo-sci-fi premise just to get it ripped out from under me with no ending...I just can't handle it again...


Decent stuff though...entertaining...
 
#45 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by lax01 /forum/post/14841886


It reminded me too much of Journeyman...for that reason alone, I don't think I can watch it...I can't get absorbed in another pseduo-sci-fi premise just to get it ripped out from under me with no ending...I just can't handle it again...


Decent stuff though...entertaining...

Is there any sci-fi angle to this a la 'Journeyman'? I thought it was basically just another fish-out-of-water cop procedural which never explained whether he was time-traveling or just dreaming.
 
#46 ·

Quote:
Is there any sci-fi angle to this a la 'Journeyman'? I thought it was basically just another fish-out-of-water cop procedural which never explained whether he was time-traveling or just dreaming.

You are correct in regards to the British original except that that they answered it at the end and there are no saucer men from Mars behind it. I think most fans hope the same applies to the ABC version.
 
#48 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by lax01 /forum/post/14841886


...I can't get absorbed in another pseduo-sci-fi premise just to get it ripped out from under me with no ending...I just can't handle it again....

Hmmm. Well if that's the standard to be observed, guess you won't be posting in the LOST thread any longer either.



___________________________________________________

Palladin


Chance favors the prepared mind
 
#50 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Palladin /forum/post/14842481


Hmmm. Well if that's the standard to be observed, guess you won't be posting in the LOST thread any longer either.



___________________________________________________

Palladin


Chance favors the prepared mind

They've announced an end-date for it...plus its just so riveting...Damon and Carlton can do NO WRONG
 
#51 ·
I liked it but...


...as others have noticed it had some elements of Daybreak, the mini-series that ABC filled the Lost timeslot with a few years ago and took one of the fastest drops in ratings history and was yanked off the air without even a DVD release. It was such a ratings disaster ABC couldn't even keep the mini-series on the air.


I loved Daybreak, especially the final episodes that were only available at ABC.com and I'm concerned this one is going to tank for similar reasons. At least it's less confusing with a more linear time line rand far fewer characters.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top