Talk:Life on Mars (American TV series)

message: Could someone restore the old version of the ending? I've tried, but it seems the system doesn't like me.Cyberman TM (talk) 05:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Synopsis vandalism

message: While the series has run to completion in the US I question the wisdom of having spoilers in the character description section and unmarked spoilers in the final section of the article. The ending was superb and a good "April 1st" show ... unwarned spoilers are like giving away the end of a feature film. Please be considerate. 71.115.3.163 (talk) 06:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoilers 

message: I'm not quite sure what the following line in the article means: In accordance with the script changes, the "unsatisfying mythological element" of Sam's story was removed.  The portion that is in quotes does not in fact appear in the source cited.  The source article is quite vague and contradictory, saying both that they removed the ambiguity as well as creating a deeper mystery.  Perhaps the best way to summarize it is simply to state that the "mythology of Sam Tyler" is changed.--Trystan (talk) 21:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In the original series, much of Sam's issues upon waking was of his own making.  Whether or not anybody considers the mythological element of Sam's adventures in a coma is troublesome is up to you, but the sequel of Ashes to Ashes clearly showed that his story had impact in his world.  In the US version, all of the events of his experiences in 1973 can be completely and totally explained given the context of his situation.  The 2035 Sam Tyler gained much more from his VR stimulation package than most of his colleges.  He gained knowledge and wisdom from the past.  200 sexy girls on an island is cake; he got something more well balanced.  He's a better person for it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jclinard (talk • contribs) 09:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Basically, "removing the unsatisfying mythological element" translates as "removing all subtlety in favour of a totally literal interpretation which, while valid in itself, doesn't exactly sparkle with originality". Exactly as usually happens with US versions of UK shows -- Fnlfntsyfn (talk) 19:07, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Unsatisfying mythological element" 

message: My Australian friend told me about the British show, and how one was being done based on it in the U.S.. As I told him, there are 2 big things that are different that couldn't be part of the series. I was curious as to what they would be replaced with, and thought this would make a good idea for expanding the show's article.
1. The Test Card Girl - I, at least, have never seen her in the U.S., I know our test patterns are quite different, so American audiences would be very confused if she was there; I presume Annie Cartwright is the answer to this one, since she's the only one he tells he's from the future, etc.?
2. The biggest (perhaps why ABC demanded a rewrite?) - my friend told me that British police shows were all about mishandled evidence, illegal confessions, and the like - clearly, if he goes back to 1973, it's still the time when you hve the Miranda warnings, even our police dramas were much, much cleaner than the British and the police more competent, and so on. So, will it be, as we discussed, "Starsky and Hutch/Columbo instead of (whatever British show he mentioned)." Because, as my friend said, a lot of what happened seemed to come from British 1970s shows.
As an aside, I wonder if there will be a Very Special TV Moment when Sam Tyler first sees the Twin Towers standing. I told my friend that scene would be something awesome to see, if done right, though I don't watch TV myself anymore; too busy with other stuff. Somebody or his brother (talk) 21:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Apparently not too busy to write 4 paragraphs about a tv show you've never seen.  Crave attention much?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.66.169 (talk) 02:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, Miranda Rights were around in 1973, but the characters on the show seem to have less respect for them (Than people do in the year 2008).  Back then the Police (apparently) did not fear lawsuits and being reprehended as much.  Victim's Rights were not so much in their conscious.  The show explores that issue.Mdriver1981 (talk) 19:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Definitely things which the article should address when we can find sources on them, but so far I haven't heard anything.  I would guess that the Test Card Girl would be replaced with a suitable American 70s iconic figure, or perhaps not, depending on how they've changed the mythology of the show.  I think there is a sufficient tradition of Dirty Harry-like depictions of 70s policing for an American Gene Hunt archetype to resonate, but it will be interesting as you say to see how the style changes.--Trystan (talk) 00:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

text: New York City (NYC) had test patterns (still do, I think on broadcast TV) after broadcast tranmissions terminated but no human figure...it will be interesting. They did play the national anthem as I recall.  As far as police procedures, the early 1970's was a brutal time in NYC as well as Manchester UK. Muggings, rape. Crime was a HUGE issue. Charles Bronson (actor) had a huge hit with his movie "Death Wish" series in 1974. Puerto Ricans and African Americans were the majority minority groups of the time. Dominicans, Arabs, Russians, Mexicans, and Africans, Indians, Pakistanis were not in significant populations at the time And as mentioned above, Dirty Harry, althogh based in San Francisco California, wasn't at all concerned with evidentary rules and Miranda rights.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.119.194.71 (talk) 02:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Haven't seen the British, but it seems like there have bee more than a few allusions to Wizard of Oz in the few American ones - perhaps some characters from that will attempt to "communicate" with him in the American version. Quite logical choice, and it would be on American TV late at night in the early 1970s, so they could "come out of the TV" like the test card girl.209.244.30.221 (talk) 14:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two very British things, and what will replace them? 

message: What's the premise of the show?  Unless I missed it, I don't see anywhere in the article where it describes what the show's about. Can someone add a summary of the premise? Kman543210 (talk) 10:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Problem is we don't know 100% yet. We know the story is well-based in that of the UK series, but some things are going to change. This will probably be filled in quickly after tonight's premiere. I'd suggest just reading the original's article and go into it expecting "something like that". Lambertman (talk) 15:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Premise? 

message: Since this show has now aired, at least on the east coast of America. trecord (talk) 04:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed "upcoming TV series" tag 

message: Too trivial for article on its current merits but may be important later in the show's "mystery". —MJBurrage(T•C) 07:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Badge details

message: Both the Production and Casting sections confusingly begin with what is now completely out-dated information. Please clean up the article using current facts, with the pre-screening history relegated to a less prominent placement. CapnZapp (talk) 16:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Update" template 

message: The column stating connection between plot elements of individual episodes with the British series is based purely on original research and viewer perception. There are no sources provided that there has been any critical or otherwise comparison between any two episodes. LeaveSleaves talk 17:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, at least by you posting that it tells me that that, which is WHAT I CAME HERE TO FIND, can be found in the history. (sigh) Typical 'pedia. Two episodes use the same scene verbatim, and it's "OR" to say so. Good thing you were here to step up to the plate, oh great LeaveSleaves.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.172.73.218 (talk) 03:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

text: I have to agree with 71.121.73.218.  Removing information that is of genuine interest to researchers (formal or informal) is not a good policy.  If it is info of a different type than the rest of the article, label it as such.  Otherwise what you are engaging in here is an exercise in applied formalism, which is free advertising for a commercial entity (ABC) and satisfying for a cadre of finicky editors, but worthless to users due to enforced ignorance.  "Typical 'pedia", indeed.  Asat (talk) 07:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Providing sources is as much about being able to check mistakes, as anything. Future researchers would get more benefit from series comparisons that were sourced to a specific authority, than to just take an anonymous editor's word that one episode is "equivalent to" or "has elements from" another. (Yes, fan opinions are of genuine interest to researchers, but that doesn't mean that Wikipedia is the place for them; there are plenty of Life on Mars fan sites and wikis out there.) --McGeddon (talk) 09:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed - but until we can find a specific authority, the common sense fact that it is very obvious which episodes nod to which means that there is unambiguous info we're leaving out for no good reason. Put the info in, as it isn't exactly something that can be reasonably disputed, and source it as soon as we can. Leaving out clear, noncontroversial info while we wait for someone to state the obvious is foolish.  --John Kenneth Fisher (talk) 04:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The case might be obvious for someone who has watched episodes of both US and UK series, but for someone who has watched only the US episode, the information being presented is based on original research by editors who added it. Plus there is no need to mention equivalency for each episode. Being adapted from a particular series, it is normal that at least in its initial stages it would present significant elements of the original series. That doesn't mean this would continue in the future. The first season of The Office in US used majority of plot elements for its UK counterpart, but that was pretty much the end of it. If there is a significant commonality in plots and this has been commented on by critics or media in general, then it is okay to mention this in the article. Even in that case, I'd say this should be done in the form of prose rather than a column in its ratings table. LeaveSleaves talk 04:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Equivalency to British series 

message: I’ve already seen what they are going to use. It’s an Indian wearing North American Indian clothes, and a large feather head dress. I’m guess it’s a play on the test pattern I’ve seen that has a bullseye with an Indian head in the middle. An example can be seen here .  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.146.111.1 (talk) 08:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Test Card Girl 

message: I guess it was just another pun on the show's title, that bot pretty much looked like a Mars rover. --Marc van Woerkom (talk) 13:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Prophetic.  Jclinard (talk) 07:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Robot from Episode 2 

message: One question that sets apart from us is this: didn't the US version of Life on Mars show overseas? If so, why isn't there a list of the channels that show this TV show, like in the article of the UK version of this show? 
No, seriously. Joe9320 of the Wikipedia Party | Contact Assembly of Jimbo Wales 09:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's mentioned that it's aired in Canada, it's not shown anywhere else as far as I'm aware so what's missing? ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 09:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's going to show soon in Australia on Channel Ten, about February 6. Just make a list, for everyone's sake! Joe9320 of the Wikipedia Party | Contact Assembly of Jimbo Wales 06:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Chill out! If it's not yet showing on Channel 10 then the article is still accurate is it not? Do you have a source that we can use as a citation for Channel Ten? ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 08:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Check tvguide. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 11:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Didn't this US version show overseas? 

message: Swapped titles for episodes 112 and 113 in the Episodes section. It appears the episodes were correctly titled under "ratings".
episode list
67.244.253.185 (talk) 03:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Episode Order 

message: Could someone with the spare time please integrate this article's "Ratings" section into the grid at List of Life on Mars (U.S. TV series) episodes?  It'd make much more sense to add the ratings info to the episodes' entries on that page rather than have two episode lists floating around. Rob T Firefly (talk) 03:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ratings info -> Episode list 

message: The article states, "[Rose Tyler] is surprised that the strangely protective detective has the same name as her nearly four-year-old son."  However, in episode 16, Rose sees Sam and addresses him as Detective Skywalker, the name he gave her the first time they met.  I'm not sure how to fix this, other than deleting the entire line.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vrmlguy (talk • contribs) 05:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rose Tyler 

message: I disagree.  The BBC one ended in Sam Tyler back in the life that he chose, and completely happy.  The test audience, strangely enough, applauded during his suicide scene and fake ending.  This series ends with Sam in a particularly uncertain note, not sure whether he can get together with Norris, and more than a little bit imbalanced.  With permission, I'd like to change this part of the article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.197.180.67 (talk) 01:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The US and the UK are two countries which suffer from a common language.  The UK might have loved their ending, and while the US might be divided on the ending, it at least was a valid ending.  I loved the ending.  The US has a more definitive ending.  Even the voiceover at the beginning where Sam Tyler states it was like waking up on a different planet is an in-joke.  Jclinard (talk) 09:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't a place to discuss the TV show.  The above-mentioned analysis is no longer part of the plot summary. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 11:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

text: It had a definitive ending because it was cancelled. Forever. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 11:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Oh yeah cause the US ending was so great. I mean let's take the title literally and make it actually about life on mars. I bet it took a billion geniuses a million years to come up with something so clever. gah.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.190.34.219 (talk) 20:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  It was sort of the point that the original had no definitive ending, because we don't know if he's actually back in time or just crazy. Also, the sequel/spin-off Ashes to Ashes is airing, and the finale, which is due to air on Friday, is going to clear stuff up about that  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.151.82 (talk) 15:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  This series ended on a "happy note", while the BBC one didn't 

message: This should be noted. One episode a reference is made to Denny Crane. A suspect is Tony Crane. Sam Tyler has a vision about him. Several Times after that,  Sam simply exclaims "Tony Crane!".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.238.249.10 (talk) 09:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boston Legal Reference 

message: "2008-1973" is a date range. To indicate transportation between two specific years, the correct form is "from 2008 to 1973." When writing a date range, the form should be consistent: either "from"/"to," or just the hyphen with no "from." 76.23.157.102 (talk) 07:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Basic English 

message: The yanks ruin everything,just like they did with the office which just wasnt funny.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.43.29.130 (talk) 01:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Primitive in that US television has more money to throw at series than the UK. In other words, you can't see past the flashy production and good-looking actors to see the quality of imagination and script-writing that US TV series rarely achieve. Compare the ending of each counterpart (in the UK - Ashes to Ashes) - and you say the US version was "sophisticated"?!--Tuzapicabit (talk) 02:15, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rubbish 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Life on Mars (U.S. TV series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080915083733/http://abc.go.com:80/fallpreview/lifeonmars/index?pn=index to http://abc.go.com/fallpreview/lifeonmars/index?pn=index
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:11, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Life on Mars (U.S. TV series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090306215210/http://tvseriesfinale.com/articles/life-on-mars-abc-cancels-tv-show-no-season-two/ to http://tvseriesfinale.com/articles/life-on-mars-abc-cancels-tv-show-no-season-two/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:43, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Life on Mars (U.S. TV series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080605070016/http://www.dose.ca/tv/story.html?id=d260c02b-27c1-490b-b420-699c9f9731e5 to http://www.dose.ca/tv/story.html?id=d260c02b-27c1-490b-b420-699c9f9731e5
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:36, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirects :US life on mars and :Life on Mars USA. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 17#US life on mars until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  TheAwesomeHwyh 23:10, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "US life on mars" redirects listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]