Ashes to Ashes; BBCAmerica

[edhopper]

Starts tonight at 9:00. Looking forward to it (especially with ABC's Life on Mars, which I like, going away).
Can we keep this thread for us Yanks who haven't seen the series yet and not roll it into a general "Ashes to Ashes" thread?

[mjhayman]

Ashes to Ashes began airing up here a couple of months ago on the Showcase channel, Sundays at noon (!). Showcase has the usual habit of using up the vast swaths of unpaid commercial time to advertise it's own programs, but never once - and still not once to this day - has Ashes to Ashes been mentioned. I stumbled upon it by accident when looking at their website program grid. So, naturally, I missed the first episode. I then watched the second and third episodes but gave up. Apart from being not unlike walking in on a game (pick your sport) well after it started, it just doesn't do much for me. I liked Keeley Hawes very much in Spooks/MI-5 but can't warm to her here. Possibly it's that ugly, ugly hooker hairstyle, which may have been big in central London in 1980 (though I'm doubting it), but over here everything was feathered, frizzed, or permed (she's somewhere between frizzed and permed, as well as dyed, but it wasn't a typical North American look, thus hard to get used to).

Glennister is still okay, the lads a little less so. The fact that you seem to like the ABC version of Life on Mars indicates that our tastes are slightly at odds (I'm not a fan, whereas the original British version is one of my favourite shows) means that you may well adore Ashes to Ashes, and I hope that you do, but it ain't my cuppa. Perhaps if I'd seen it from minute one I'd lean more favourably, but not holding my breath when it repeats.

Dunno if a third series is planned and haven't bothered to find out, but I'm thinking that it'd have to be post-Let's Dance and, really, what has Bowie done since then that's even vaguely iconic? Maybe they'll switch to a Nirvana theme :rolleyes:

[edhopper]

Thanks for the thoughtful response. I have to TIVO it tonight, so I'll comment here when I get around to watching.

[mjhayman]

Thanks for the thoughtful response. I have to TIVO it tonight, so I'll comment here when I get around to watching.Well, get on with it! :wink:

If your TIVO is like most, we could be waiting a good, long time for you to wade through your backlog, which is why I usually recommend to people that they stop having a whaddayacallit... life, and watch a lot more teevee. In the meantime, as fate would have it, the series rebooted as of yesterday. I happened to be in the same room as the idiot box when the clock struck eleven, or noon thanks to those damned farmers, and as the show was on my mind thanks to this thread I turned it on and was rewarded, more or less, with the first episode.

It was better than I figured it would be, but not great. Certainly not sufficiently entertaining or enlightening to snare me into keeping that hour per week open for the next couple of months. Keeley Hawes is the real problem, I think; or, rather, the Alex Drake character. She's not a bad actor, but the material she's been handed is pretty thin. Her constant (and I mean "constant") references to Sam Tyler serves as a sad reminder how provocative that character could be. Another actor might have better handled it but I'm not so certain of that. Gene Hunt continues to make the series enjoyable on a basic level, though either the character or Glenister's portrayel, or both, have lost a good deal of their edge since Life on Mars. The two lads serve as little more than window dressing, which is to say moreso (or less so, as the case may be).

Again, though, this is just my position and as with many things I can see why others would find it entertaining. I mean, I know at least one person who's opinion I tend to respect who's a fan of Trailer Park Boys, which is something that gets a boot tossed at the telly if it's accidentally on 'round here. On the extremely plus side, new episode of House, tonight. Cheers.

[mr.brighteyes]

thought it and the brit life on mars were crap to be honest, Why are all your shows so gritty and real looking?

[mjhayman]

thought it and the brit life on mars were crap to be honest, Why are all your shows so gritty and real looking?I'm taking this with a half a grain of salt, mr. brighteyes. Loved your performance in The Second Coming, incidentally; very courageous. Would've preferred David Thewlis to have been The Doctor, but what can you do?

So, they're not "my" shows, per sé. I often think and talk like them what be from over there, largely as a result of the Queen staring at me from so much of my money (she's on all the coins, which should be indicative of my socio-economic status).

There are two things that draw me to British televisual drama rather than the Hollywood variety. The first is the writing. As most series, certainly all of the non-soap dramatic ones, have a fixed beginning and end usually contained in six to eight episodes, the standards need to be higher and tighter, and they tend to benefit from a more personal creative vision rather than drifting off into the weeds (see Hill Street Blues for a thoroughly swamped example). Part of the writing is, of course, dialogue, a thing that I prize and for which I have an ear. When we were having the go 'round about DS-9 in the other thread, one thing I failed to mention was the dramatically reduced quality of the scripted dialogue as the show petered out. It was embarrassing to watch and painful to hear, as each central character had one or two standard lines and used them constantly, as well as one or two defining traits always on display. No subtlety, no growth, no fun.

The other thing concerns production values, which segues neatly into your gritty/realistic comment. It's frankly amazing what the various independent production companies, like kudos (Spooks, Life on Mars, etc.), are able to achieve on budgets that would barely fill out the craft services table in L.A. Being clever and canny helps, of course, such as getting Manchester to look like it's 1973 again mostly by sticking to locations that simply haven't changed much, and finding vehicles, props, wardrobe, etc. on the cheap. (This actually reminds me of something amusing concerning automobiles. It's my understanding that most cars/trucks are rented from the usual commercial avenues for current television shows and films, while certain companies - how many, or even if there are more than just one - stockpile vintage cars/trucks for period settings. So there are certain model years that are used over and over, which is why films are always set in the same basic years. I used to know a bunch of them, not that there are that many, but 1946, 1957, and 1963 come to mind. So if a film is set in, say, 1960, you'll see a lot of '57 models, perhaps one or two '60 models if they're in stock, and a handful of anachronistic '63's. Just one of those funny things. Apparently Gene Hunt's Audi Quattro didn't exist in 1981, either - not in a righthand drive model, but the producers put it in because it was cool.)

Sorry, what were we talking about? Selah.

[thehod]

Why are all your shows so gritty and real looking?

You'd prefer bright and false I presume?

Life on Mars was directly referencing a British 70s cop show called The Sweeney, hence the look.

Try Hustle if you want something a little more light hearted.

[mr.brighteyes]

You'd prefer bright and false I presume?

Life on Mars was directly referencing a British 70s cop show called The Sweeney, hence the look.

Try Hustle if you want something a little more light hearted.

Let me make this clear. I don't have a problem with the tone of the story telling. My problem is with the look, the gritty film quality. It's like old school ink jet printers verses new school laser printers I'd rather look at new comics than old ones. Like I said I love the American version of Life On Mars but I watched the finale of the Brit version and it just didn't seem as good in comparison. Plus all of the characters were fuggly in comparison.

[thehod]

Let me make this clear. I don't have a problem with the tone of the story telling. My problem is with the look, the gritty film quality. It's like old school ink jet printers verses new school laser printers I'd rather look at new comics than old ones. Like I said I love the American version of Life On Mars but I watched the finale of the Brit version and it just didn't seem as good in comparison. Plus all of the characters were fuggly in comparison.

Almost like a 70s tv show, you might say?

And fuggly? Not everyone on telly has to be a friggin model, y'know, and I always thought that Liz White was rather sweet looking....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/drama/content/images/2007/05/08/liz_white_396x222.jpg

[mr.brighteyes]

Almost like a 70s tv show, you might say?

And fuggly? Not everyone on telly has to be a friggin model, y'know, and I always thought that Liz White was rather sweet looking....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/drama/content/images/2007/05/08/liz_white_396x222.jpg

well she looks cute there but she looked awful in the show in my opinion. I prefer Gretchen Mol

http://evilbeetgossip.film.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/gretchen_mol.jpg

Btw I was including the male actors in that description. Keitel is way a way better Gene Hunt and Imperioli does a better job as Ray


http://jasonnahrung.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/lifeonmars-uk.jpg
http://l.yimg.com/l/tv/us/img/site/15/09/0000051509_20080826170249.jpg

[noh-varr]

So wait a sec, you have only seen the final episode of the original Life on Mars? And from that you are dismissing it as the lesser? Just trying to be clear here. Liz White is gorgeous, the blond from the US version is just meh to me. Looks overtly bleached out hair and doesn't seem to have a personality on the show. Glenister IS Gene Hunt as far as I'm concerned, plus it's great that Hunt can beat the sh*t out of Sam at any point if it ever came to blows. Keitel is a bad ass, and a great actor but Sam Tyler towers over him, it doesn't have the same kind of context. Hunt uses force when all else fails, against anyone who disagrees when needed, so it really fits the dynamic between the two.

And I liked the grittiness of the UK version, it felt more like a show from the 70s with someone from now thrown in. Plus the amazing episodes and stories they pulled off on such a low budget is amazing, I cared about every single regular cast member. The US version I can't even care about anyone outside of Hunt, and that's all on Harvey Keitel's shoulders there.

Anyways this is an Ashes to Ashes thread isn't it? I really wish they hadn't of repeated the great "mystery" of the traveling to the past. Would have been much happier with Hunt and the lads just being cops, but with a bit of Sam Tyler's techniques in hand. Glenister as Hunt is the only reason I ever watch the show, I typically fast forward through all the trippy dream stuff this time around, I don't care Keely Haws as Alex Drake does nothing for me honestly. And knowing the truth about the first series really diminishes any caring about her dilemma personally.

[Deathstroke]

I watched the first episode and I have to say that it was kind of a mess.

[edhopper]

Well I watched it and...I liked it. I think the choice to have Drake know what's going on is a good one. We (the audience) went along for the ride with Sam. Watching another cop go through it, with the audience knowing the mystery, would have been really boring. Instead we have a more fun and over-the-top Hunt and a watchable ( if not up to Simm's great performance) lead.
And we still don't know if Drake can get back.

[Deathstroke]

I think part of the problem I had with the first episode was that everything seems artificially heightened to a very high level of silliness.

Gene Hunt didn't seem like Gene Hunt but rather a parody of Gene Hunt.

I'm going to stick with the series, but it seemed to me that they were trying far too hard and failing in this premiere.

[Alan Lynch]

If I'm remembering right, the silliness in the first episode was quite jarring. Especially the end with the speedboat and machine guns, where nobody - IIRC - gets killed. But it's The A-Team; didn't Chris even say that at one point?

It gets better though. At least I thought so.

[Pól Rua]

I've seen all of Ashes to Ashes so far and I've been really underwhelmed. The lead actress does nothing for me, and the rest of the characters have just become terribly cartoony.
I just hung on hoping the end of season would justify the existence of the rest of it.
No such luck.

[edhopper]

Yes, they amped up the silliness. But we know, as Drake knows, that this is all a construct of some sort. So we are seeing a very 80's A-Team/Miami Vice sort of place.
As I said, I like that they are not just trying to repeat the Sam Tyler shows and seem to be going for a different feel.