Talk:Life on Mars (American TV series)

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Television: Life on Mars Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Life on Mars task force (assessed as Top-importance). Science Fiction Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Spoiler

I understand what the problem is, but if I recall Wiki doesn't like removing spoilers from articles, so I would expect they will return not to mention that show is over.--76.199.136.9 (talk) 19:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: I have made no effort to remove said spoiling information ... I only appeal to the masses. And after reading the link provided I can see where it would be appropriate to describe the characters as they existed for the bulk of the season and leave the ending for an appropriate section of the article. 71.115.3.163 (talk) 22:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Here in Australia, the series hasn't ended, so I had to skip the spoilers, when I realised they were giving away info that I didn't yet want to hear!

Please be considerate.DaveDodgy (talk) 00:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

A minor flaw: The Malia-Obama-is-President joke is entertaining, but impossible. She would have to be elected in 2032, and take office in January of 2033. In reality, she will only be 34 years old at that time (The US President must be 35.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SeanRJohnson (talk • contribs) 18:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I've got a bad feeling about this. Still, can't be as bad as the first US pilot - or can it? I'm more interested in series 2 of Ashes to Ashes.71.205.222.97 (talk) 03:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The original show had a juvenile ending. It is as though the creators couldn't think of any way to end it and so gave it a pseudo-mystical ending typical of British television. Gingermint (talk) 22:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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, "

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Please remember,

Who said it was a forum? Arrest them now! Jesus, lighten up mate! Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 16:09, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Since this show has now aired, at least on the east coast of America. trecord (talk) 04:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

• | Rank: Det. | Name: Sam Tyler | Shield No.: 8847 | Expires December, 1974 | Tax Registry: 746574 |

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.

Needs ep guide too -edit —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.116.192.14 (talk) 12:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [1]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.146.111.1 (talk) 08:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No such thing appeared in the show. Gingermint (talk) 22:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Prophetic. Jclinard (talk) 07:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another U.S. remake that looks like it's going wrong. -

/signed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.127.154 (talk) 15:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Me too! The casting is all wrong for starters. The American Gene Hunt looks far too feeble. The Brits perfected this program.

He's got a 30ish daughter and he's been shot 5 times. While you're pissing off, check out a couple films called Bad Lieutenant and Pulp Fiction where "the American Gene Hunt" was far from feeble.

Harvey Keitel is feeble looking in Life on Mars especially compared to Sam Tyler. In the superior British original, alot of the tension comes from Sam being so much smaller than Gene Hunt. This is lost in the American version due to Gene looking tired and old compared to Sams much stronger physique. I don't know what Harveys past roles has to do with this series or him being shot 5 times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.101.209.73 (talk) 01:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In short - nothing. This show really was crap. What a stupid ending. Unbelievable. -

talk 11:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Harvey Keitel is far from feeble -- he's plenty scary to Sam. Keitel plays the part great, better than most TV cops. I will miss him and Imperioli. The show is gone because it was too good for people, they couldn't get their head around it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.9.5.145 (talk) 20:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree. The makers of the US version didn't do the original justice at all. "american humour is different to UK" - This wasn't a comedy show. It was a terrible imitation of a British drama.

The British series was, like most British television, primitive. I doubt English people would be able to understand the American version, as it is too sophisticated for them. Gingermint (talk) 20:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"British TV is primitive". If you were not using irony, that surely must mean that it differs from styles that require flimsy special effects to bolster a shallow script that is designed to not provoke imagination or thought.

If the American version is too sophisticated, I have to agree that it is sophisticated in the meaning of "defiled by sophistry". 2600:1700:EA01:1090:F854:404:B880:3A46 (talk) 12:05, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aw jeez, so the British don't have the same appreciations as the Americans, and the Americans don't have the same appreciations as the British. Big deal, get over yourselves. Each was made for different cultures - how about you both see past your own noses? Each has their merits. Better things to do in life than subjectively judge because you can waste your whole life doing that. Meanwhile, lets build an encyclopedia. 203.123.84.51 (talk) 12:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 -

Talk | Contribs 09:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply

]

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 -

Talk | Contribs 08:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Check tvguide. -

talk 11:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

Could someone with the spare time please integrate this article's "Ratings" section into the grid at

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)[reply]

In the last episode 17, Sam's revelation to Rose that "luke skywalker"'s real name is "Sam Tyler" seems to be a surprise then, not at anytime before. Naaman Brown (talk) 13:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

It had a definitive ending because it was cancelled. Forever. -

talk 11:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

: 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)[reply]

I don't understand why the US market cant take the show in its original form based in Manchester UK. It seems like an extraordinary amount of energy to remake something that was brilliant in the first place.

I agree, but I can understand where theyre coming from. Particularly concerns about the differences between 1973 US and 1973 UK. Still, the original was way better.

I think we can hardly say anything very positive about the original. Also, who can tell the difference between Manchester in the 1970s and the present? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gingermint (talk • contribs) 22:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Also, who can tell the difference between Manchester in the 1970s and the present?"

Most people, except those who do not seek to understand much. 2600:1700:EA01:1090:F854:404:B880:3A46 (talk) 12:08, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I don't think so. Tony Crane actually started out in the original British version and it may not be a reference to Denny Crane. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Shadow Treasurer (talk • contribs) 05:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The British series was, like most British television, primitive. I doubt English people would be able to understand the American version, as it is too sophisticated for them. Gingermint (talk) 20:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gingermint (talk • contribs)

Aw jeez, so the British don't have the same appreciations as the Americans, and the Americans don't have the same appreciations as the British. Big deal, get over yourselves. Each was made for different cultures - how about you both see past your own noses? Each has their merits. Better things to do in life than subjectively judge because you can waste your whole life doing that. Meanwhile, lets build an encyclopedia. 203.123.84.51 (talk) 12:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on

• 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.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—

• 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.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:43, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on

• 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.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:36, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirects