Talk:Life on Mars (British TV series)

Anachronisms

I have just fixed the spelling in the 'anacronysms' section, but I'm wondering if this section is even worth keeping. The entries so far are so convoluted that they don't really contribute anything to the article other than a vague feeling of geeky fancruft. Could this list expand sufficiently, given that it is pretty clear to the regular viewer that anachronisms are not being used as major plot points? I think we need to consider the balance between encyclopaedic and unnecessary pedantry. Peeper 10:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think they're worth keeping, and while they're unsourced and compiled for Wikipedia they arguably breach the no original research rule. —Whouk (talk) 10:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree with that. Not worth keeping, for the moment anyway. Angmering 18:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The point of the anacronysms section was to present information about the show which may be of importance to the ongoing plot, namely that there has been evidence all through the series that Sam has not travelled through time. Should these turn out to simply be errors on the part of the researchers then by all means remove them but at this point there is no evidence that they are.

Furthermore, what kind of 'evidence' would you like? The entry for the Mancunian Way is linked to and shows its construction date, so there's evidence for you. Would you like a production date for Nelson's telephone, too? I'm sure there's a website somewhere or someone could e-mail BT.

As for sourcing, it could be done with photos but I'm wary of making the article look like a scrap book. Zoe.r 23:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I understood the point of the section, although there are two reasons in support of its removal. Firstly, the point I was making is that the anachronisms (no disrespect but please note how to spell it) listed do not contribute to the quality of the article. My personal view, as I said at the outset, is that they smack of fancruft and are extremely obscure and the likelihood that any of these details might be of importance to the plot is extremely low. Secondly and more importantly, as Whouk points out, it breaches the no original research rule.

I suggest that, unless stringent and well-supported objections surface shortly, the section is wholly removed. If you really wish to keep any of it, then there could be a case for listing the anachronistic music played in the show with its date of release, which can be easily sourced, and possibly including the Mancunian Way, although I don't recall whether this was specifically named in the programme - they may have filmed there but not intended it to be explicitly identified as such. The other information is just not notable. I am not trying to be contrary, just to keep this article at a high standard, which in the main it already is. Peeper 11:47, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

First of all, if you mean no disrespect, why continue to highlight one spelling mistake? Once was more than enough; drop it.

Secondly, I fail to see what relevance your "personal view" has on the content of an encyclopaedic article. Just because you don't yet know the whole plot of this series does not mean a section of this article should be removed, in fact it works against you - until you know all the facts, you should not be attempting any course of action.

As for the Mancunian Way being identified, a large advertisment for the building of the road is displayed full-screen at 10 minutes, 20 seconds into episode one. I can add a screengrab of this if anyone thinks its absolutely necessary but, as I said before, I don't see a need to fill this article with images.

You seem to have decided that it'd be okay to list the anacronistic music from the series but you're arguing against the rest of it? This smacks of arguing both for and against the removal of this section. You can have it one way or the other.

If you're going to argue for a high standard article surely you should be arguing for the article to be as complete as possible, not just focussing of areas you've decided are relevant to you.

Finally, the anacronisms section does not constitute original research as publication, issue and building dates for all the items listed are clearly already available. Zoe.r 22:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, I didn't mean to cause offence. I only mentioned the spelling as you didn't appear to have noticed the first time, sorry about that. I think you will find that everything here is 'personal view', that's the point of all users trying to reach consensus. I stand by what I have said. Some of the anachronisms are just so obscure that they seem to be more fancruft than serious observations. I acknowledged that some of them are stronger than others (like the music) - but if you want me to choose all or nothing, then I still say remove the lot. Sorry. I appreciate that it can be annoying when people suggest the removal of your own contributions and I hope you will understand that this is all meant in the spirit of Wikipedia. Let's wait and see what the consensus is before we take any further action. If you are upset and want to take this up with me then please feel free. Peeper 23:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm in no way upset by this. However, I am going to continue to argue against the removal of a section of this article simply because you don't feel some of its contents are appropriate. If you don't like some of the contents, argue for their removal, not the section they're in. Zoe.r 23:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I thought his watch from the last episode was non-contempraneous. I think digital watches at the time were still LED and you had to press the button to see the time. Jooler 22:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the section should be left in. The views of the watch in the hostage episode were very blatant - anyone who owned a digital watch in 1973 will know that they used LEDs and the LCD variety didn't make a commercial appearance until post-1975. The type shown in the program (dual - LCD and combined dial) is of circa 1985. I have a feeling this is deliberate rather than an error on the part of the costume department. --Johnbyng 10:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't add this into the main section as I don't know all the codes for wikipedia. But there are two visual gaffs in the football episode. 1. After driving teh car into the back of the net at the start - large black sky sat dishes can be seen on the buildings in the background for a few seconds 2. In the final scenes with the man city youth in the background 4 modern air con units can be seen on the building in the background

In all honesty, I'm wary of the modern street furniture and building additions being cited as anacronisms. Air conditioning units and sattelite dishes are fixed to buildings and can't be removed by the TV crew for a few shots. It may be that it was too expensive to digitally remove them from the shots, or they may not have been noticed. Snowflake Sans Crainte 23:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

also a question was del boy produced in the seventies? If not there is a graffiti about it in the episode with the guns. On the grey door near the Rainbow cafe.

No, Only Fools and Horses began in 1981. Angmering 19:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but who is to say Del (Derek) himself didn't put that graffiti there? Del Boy the character would have been alive in 1973. This should probably be listed as a reference in the main article. Bollinger 20:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't. It's completely uncitable, immensely trivial and, on another level, why on Earth would Del Boy be graffitiing walls in Manchester? Angmering 22:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Immensely trivial? Citing one of the top line shows on the BBC in the last 20 years? As to why Del Boy would be doing it, why don't you ask Tony Jordan. The graffiti is very obvious and it's near impossible to think it was either not noticed, in fact, I wouldn't be surprised if they put it there.Bollinger 20:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Several items in the anachronisms list should have sources or be removed; for example, the item about "guv" being Metropolitan Police slang. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 21:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Sam's use of the term "guv" in the first episode seemed clearly to me to be his joke at the setting he found himself in. And in that episode, at least (I haven't seen the rest yet) the reference to the Glasgow Coma Scale came from a voice from the future on his television. Scatterkeir 00:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

W.R.T anachronisms, and particularly the colour of the Cortina, I believe it is "Tawny Metallic" rather than "Roman Bronze" (the former being a more darker brown, the latter more orange). I have no citation, but I owned a similarly aged XL in Tawny Metallic and a friend had such a coloured GXL. 87.242.146.153 22:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)Steve C

Second Series

It was announced at the end of last nights final episode that the show will be returning for a second series next year.Alibabs 00:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Yep, we've had this info in the article for a while. It'd been confirmed in a few places — John Simm on Jonathan Ross's Saturday morning BBC Radio 2 show a few weeks back, and Jane Featherstone in the Manchester Evening News. Filming starts in April. Angmering 19:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

If they don't begn series 2 with ELP's Karn Evil 9 ("Welcome back, my friends...") I may just lynch them. - Theo T. Herman

Marc Warren says he'll be appearing in the second series as a "baddie" in the latest Radio Times. Some info, if you want to cite it - date, 8th-14th, Article - One Final Question, written by Benji Wilson HornetMike 17:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Probably not worth adding it until we have a section on the individual episode in which he appears next year. Angmering 06:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Good Article nomination has failed

The Good article nomination for Life on Mars (British TV series) has failed, for the following reason:

'Filming locations' and 'Cast' should be made into prose instead of being lists, and the 'anachronisms' section seems largely irrelevant and is also a bullet-pointed list - not good prose! Also, the sentence 'A listing of all songs used in the programme can be found here' is not very encyclopaedic - you should just include the link in 'external links'. The other sections are well written and well referenced. Worldtraveller 23:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The anachronisms section is now in prose but I'm sure it could be tidied-up further and perhaps linked in more with the discussions over Sam's predicament (is he back in time, is he imagining it all, etc). Anyone care to try their hand? Snowflake Sans Crainte 22:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I haven't seen enough of the shows yet but it seems the key song at the beginning of the episode relates to the story of the episode. The first "Life on mars" dealt with him being out of sync with 1973. The second "Band on the run" dealt with a band of thugs on the run. The third "ball room blitz" deals with a fight in a pub. Black arrow 06:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Mention of the Grand National and Red Rum

There is a note about an event in episode four (it was previously in episode three and was moved today Aug. 25th, 2006) about Sam trying to help Gene win a sweepstakes on Red Rum in the Grand National. This excellent (sorry POV I know) series is currently showing here in the US and my viewing has brought this note into question. I have been discussing this with Angmering. Rather than copy all of our correspondence to this page click here [[1]] and here [[2]] and go to the relevant postings. I am posting this here in the hope that other wikipedians can help clear up the question of whether this event is actually mentioned in the series. As of today I have been unable to find it mentioned in the five episodes I have seen, but, as I say in my last post to Angmering, I have three eps still to view. In our messages a few other possibilities about this confusing situation are mentioned and I will just say that any help that any of you can give will be much appreciated and cheers to all. MarnetteD | Talk 19:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

With the episode (4, with Warren) playing right here in front of me (UK dvds), the situation is: Sam draws "Proud Percy", Chris tells him it's for the Grand National sweepstakes. Gene then draws Red Rum and Sam tries to swap - but doesn't say why, obviously, claiming he "just likes the name". Gene is suspicious of this and asks Sam if he has any inside info, a thread picked up on later when the police watch the Grand National. None of the others know who Red Rum is. The original scene occurs in the police station just after Sam arrests Warren's employee. Perhaps it was cut? And I 23:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to straighten this out And I. The only scene that you describe that made it into the alleged (dag nab it BBC America) uncut version here in the US is them watching the race on the TV in the pub. Keep enjoying this show and thanks again. MarnetteD | Talk 00:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Footnoting

Footnoting needs sorting out to use consistent system: first three are using <ref> : rest is using templates. Morwen - Talk 08:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I know, I'm sorry. Much of the article was written before I knew about the <ref> template. I keep meaning to go through it and convert them all to refs — I will at some point, I promise. Maybe this weekend? Angmering 17:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Anachronism - "Boss"/"Guv"

Should this actually be included? The only time "Guv" is used in the first episode in 1973 is by Sam when he calls Gene it at the end (who seems a bit suprised when he does so); previously, everyone calls their superior "Boss." If it's used by anyone else in later episodes, it can be put down to Sam introducing it to the office argot. Nick Cooper 07:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think those guys took their cue from Sam, the outsider from 'Hyde'; I get the feeling he was called that all along. Still, what's to say DCI Hunt isn't an exception from the norm? A guy like that easily could have a unique nickname. Radagast 05:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

When Annie called Gene "guv" in episode 6 of season 1, that instantly made it clear to the hostage taker that she was in the police. I do think we were supposed to think that it was a term commonly used in the police at the time. ChiLlBeserker 15:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Spin off -Ashes to Ashes?

According to this article in the Times;

The Torchwood formula has prompted a similar experiment with Spooks, the BBC One drama. Rogue Spooks will feature young MI5 recruits. The next show to give audiences a sense of déjà vu will be Life on Mars, which stars John Simm as Sam Tyler, a detective who is catapulted back to 1973 after a road accident.

BBC One has commissioned a sequel starring Philip Glenister, who plays hard-drinking Detective Chief Inspector Gene Hunt. Provisionally titled Ashes to Ashes, the action picks up the characters in 1981, for a series that the BBC calls “More Miami Vice than The Sweeney”.

Something perhaps should be added about this.Number36 05:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Was the US TV remake axed?

Was the pilot of the US remake, as reported on here, axed? I can't find much info on it later than March or so last year. --GracieLizzie 18:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Userbox

Enjoy: {{User:Radagast/User Life on Mars}}

Radagast 15:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Life on Mars in Germany

'Life on Mars' starts in germany at 3 February 2007 at private cable-network "kabel eins" (what means cable one). They will show it on saturdays on primetime - 1 episode at 20:15, next at 21.25; every episode will be aired in 70 minutes so I think they don't edit the episodes for their commercials. They will only be syncronized [usualy all television series and movies in german television are translated into german language].

Would someone build it in? I'm registeret at german wikipedia and my english isn't good enough. Thomas from Germany 217.87.142.137 18:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

done ;-) --Stefan Kunzmann 00:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

All international versions cut?

After Life on Mars aired in Germany, many watchers complained that Kabel eins (the broadcaster) edited this series severely [3]. In the discussion in various german blogs it turned out that these cuts were originally made by the BBC for international distribution and all foreign DVD releases as well as broadcasts are cut this way [4] [5]. Can anyone else confirm this and possibly update the article to reflect that? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.57.69.164 (talk) 21:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC).

Trivia

The series contains a number of references to real world people and events in an often humorous or by-the-by manner; such as Phylis' statement in episode one of series two: "This isn't the Magna Carta, just put an X" when trying to get a man to sign to sectioning. (In reality, the Magna Carta was not signed as King John could not write.) I'm wondering if references such as this could be compiled into a Trivia section? --Zoe.R 17:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, he could write. Claims of his illiteracy are a fallacy, as the article clearly says. All kings and other great nobles were literate by that time. But no, I think things like that are far too trivial to mention in the article. They serve no useful purpose. -- Necrothesp 18:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Now that's interesting, as the textbooks from my history lessons (which admittedly about 10 years old now) state that although he'd been taught literacy and could read, he couldn't write. --Zoe.R 19:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be quite weird to teach someone to read but not to write! If someone could read I think they'd at least be able to write their name, if only by copying the letters. In any case, I've always found school textbooks to be less than reliable sources. They do have a tendency to perpetuate myths. And one of them is that hardly any medieval people could read and write - that might be true for the peasantry, but it's not true for the upper classes or even for many townspeople. -- Necrothesp 20:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

This is pretty far off topic, but my understanding was that in ancient times reading was a more common skill than writing, which was often the preserve of scribes and/or monks (depending on culture). Many people in positions of power could read but not write, simply because they had servants or slaves to do their writing for them. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

True, they employed scribes, but they could still write, just as a businessman can even though he has a secretary. The scribes were there for the hard work. Well, that was the case in medieval times, I'm not sure about 'ancient'. Is there an article about this somewhere in Wikipedia? It's certainly not the only myth constantly perpetuated about medieval times...perhaps we need a myth-debunking page (if there isn't one already). Gwinva 08:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't really know much about it, honestly — I know slightly more about the Classical period than I do about the medieval, but I'm hardly an expert on either. Your secretary analogy is a good one, but consider that there are a lot of executives who technically know how to use, say, PowerPoint, but aren't nearly as proficient as their secretaries. Similarly, when writing was a limited skill, prominent political figures might have been able to write, but not particularly comfortable doing it.

But, as I say, I'm not an expert, and it's entirely possible that my understanding is, as you say, based on myth rather than scholarship. Literacy doesn't have much on the history of literacy — not sure if there's another article that does. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 09:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Another anachronism?

The most recent episode (the one with the IRA plot) had Hunt saying something along the lines of "What part of 'blowing up in five minutes' don't you understand?" My wife pointed out that this expression is quite recent, deriving from the "No means no" anti-rape campaigns of the late 1980s and 1990s. There's a source backing her up here. But is this solid enough evidence to add the line to the "anachronisms" section? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

A quick look in The Times digital archives (which go up to 1985), shows no instances of the phrase or anything similar, so your wife could well be right. Angmering 11:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I dunno, to me it looks more like a scripting mistake than a planted clue. Plus Gene may have simply coined it independently before it became popular. --GracieLizzie 11:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think either Josiah or myself were suggesting it *was* anything other than a scripting mistake. Angmering 11:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, it's just that many of these anachronisms are treat as clues. It may be notable as an anachronism but personally I am not sure it really is. --GracieLizzie 11:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that this would be a perfectly plausible phrase for someone to use, even if it wasn't as widespread as it is now. It doesn't use any word that wasn't around in the 1970s, ergo someone could have used it. So no, I don't think it qualifies as an anachronism. -- Necrothesp 13:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it qualifies either for the reasons stated by Necrothesp - it's perfectly believable that Hunt could have come out with it and there's nothing intrinsically modern about either the words or the thinking behind them - the adverts only popularised it --Zagrebo 19:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not that the words or the thinking behind them are modern, it's just that it's a riff on a quotation that hadn't been said yet ("What part of 'no' don't you understand?"). To make an absurd analogy, it's like if Hunt had said "I knew Sam Tyler — I worked with Sam Tyler — and you are no Sam Tyler." The words aren't anachronistic, but the way they're put together is.

That said, if people don't think it's worth noting, I don't feel that strong about it. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

People have been speaking English for a long time; to me the phrase sounds pure northern in the context of the show. You know, sarcasm, Manchester.... ;) Hakluyt bean 00:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It's beginning to look like any anachronism can be put down as a "clue" to excuse poor writing/research. Sam's insistence, for example, that the IRA only use home-made explosive or later Semtex, and not dynamite overlooks the fact that their use of the gelignite - a refinement of dynamite - was widespread. Nick Cooper 00:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The IRA did use dynamite, but a way of coding dynamite in a way that would persist after detonation was introduced, and it became difficult to divert supplies from legitimate uses (e.g. quarrying)

Demolition Man?

How is the film Demolition Man a theme of Life on Mars? An argument might be made that there are parallels between the two, but a) it seems pretty coincidental to me, and b) unless the parallels have been noted by a reliable source, it's original research. Anyone mind if I remove the Demolition Man bit from the "Themes" section? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

No, it's always seemed dodgy to me — mind you, the whole section is completely unsourced and bordering on OR anyway, which is why I recently tagged it. Angmering 22:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

True, the section as a whole has a whiff of OR about it — but the Demoltion Man bit was well and truly stinky. I've removed it. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Quantum Leap Connection?

After watching a few of the first season episodes (I'm in NZ and we're just seeing it now), I keep thinking that there are some parallels to the Quantum Leap (TV series). Sam has jumped back in time, just as Sam Beckett did. Sam Tyler is constantly wondering if he has to set something right for him to leap back, just as Sam Beckett had to do (although he just bounced from life to life). There is also the connection that Sam Tyler is constantly hearing voices from the current time, just as Sam Beckett hears from Al who is in the present. In Quantum Leap, the last episode reveals that Sam Beckett never did return home, could this also be Sam Tyler's fate? Both Sam's also benefit from their knowledge of the future to help them with situations back in their current time frame. Even their common name, Sam, is another linkage.

I wonder if the creators of Life on Mars were Quantum Leap fans? --Mendors 11:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I doubt it, but you never know. However, in interviews with the likes of SFX and Radio Times they've generally been pretty open about acknowledging their inspirations — The Sweeny, etc — so if the series had been a direct influence I suspect they would have mentioned it somewhere. Angmering 14:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Matthew Graham has said (possibly in a documentary on the UK DVD, or a different one shown on BBC4, I forget which) that Quantum Leap was used as inspiration for the title sequence, with Sam's voiceover and montage showing how he came to be back in 1973. Markhw42 21:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The exact same thing came to my mind, I looked up Quantum Leap (TV series to see if it was intentional. It seems uncanny to me... -- Tompsci 21:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Well given that they both are called Sam, and the show ends with him literally leaping back in time, I think the inference is there. The test card girl could even be like the bartender in the last episode of QL. Glunark 11:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)Glunark.

This is for discussion of the article, not fan speculation - not original research. Please refrain from using this page to discuss theories unless you have a reliable source. Thankyou. QmunkE 13:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The anachronisms section

Is there a danger that this may be turning into a bit of a specialised section of interest to hard-core car enthusiasts only? Angmering 15:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

It's getting out of hand a bit, I think, and not just because of the car references. Without sources, most of it is just unreferenced OR and speculation. Some of the entries are not really anachronisms as such (e.g. "boss"/"guv", or "font"/fount"), and the heroin entry is not necessarily describing a contradiction at all (just because heroin use was widespread in, say, London by 1973 does not mean it wasn't new to Manchester back then). 217.34.39.123 10:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The use of language before its time is as much an anachronism as the appearance of objects or mention of organisations that were not around in 1973, and so is worthy of inclusion.

The OED is surprisingly unhelpful on the "font"/"fount" distinction. My recollection is that people in the UK used "typeface" or "fount" until US-manufactured word processors and DTP programs came along, but the OED (1989) simply says that "font" is usually "fount" and doesn't give any citations for "font". Later editions of OUP's dictionaries no doubt give more information.

Irrespective of whether or not language is misused, one thing that certainly should be mentioned (is it already?) is that Hunt rarely comments on Tyler's use of modern terms that were unheard of in 1973, such as "homophobia", which was unknown in its modern sense outside the gay community in the 1970s (if it was used at all at that time) other than as a little-used term for androphobia. Maybe he dismisses these further evidence of what he sees as Tyler's crackpot ideas. — Paul G 06:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The OED has two appearances of font in the 19th Century recorded. I suspect that before the general use of Windows based Word Processors the average person (i.e. not involved in printing) had little knowledge of font or fount. --jmb 08:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that "font" was an Americanism. I did know that before the advent of desktop publishing, it was a specialist term used primarily by printers. The larger question, though, is whether the "anachronisms" section as it currently stands constitutes original research. I suspect that it does, and should be severely pruned to include only those potential anachronisms which have been discussed in reliable sources (such as the bit about the Mancunian Way, or the apparent anachronisms discussed here). If there's some Life on Mars Companion book that discusses things like this, it would be an appropriate source as well — but upon reflection I think that individual viewers saying "Hang on, they didn't have x in 1973!" is original research and shouldn't be included here. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

It's starting to get utterly ridiculous now. Angmering 12:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Just delete everything that doesn't cite a reliable source. That would (a) uphold Wikipedia policy, and (b) get rid of most of it. Cop 633 13:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Not a dream?

The series also features a strong ambiguity concerning Tyler's predicament: it is unclear whether he really has travelled back in time, is in a coma in 2006 and imagining his experiences, or if he is from 1973 but mentally unstable.

I would say the announcement of Ashes to Ashes destroys at least some of this ambiguity. It seems inconceivable that the BBC would commission a spin-off series that takes place entirely in Sam Tyler's mind, so it follows that Sam's Life on Mars experiences have at least some grounding in reality. I suppose we'll find out for sure next Tuesday. 217.34.39.123 08:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

There is always the possibility — slight, but there — that the whole announcement of Ashes to Ashes is an enormous bluff to help increase the mystery of the show's end. Also, even if this announcement does as you suggest, that doesn't change the fact that this ambiguity still existed for most of the two series of Life on Mars. The ambiguity will still have existed in the show's narrative as was seen even when we all finally know the answer at 10pm next Tuesday. Angmering 09:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

It's also possible the spin-off could contradict the ending and continue on the story of a figment of someone's imagination as if it had been real :) But that's not too likely.--86.43.64.115 14:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems like they could easily have their cake and eat it too here. Where Sam is in a coma in 2006-7, and experience a delusion of being in 1973, except that he is also in 1973, because his actions in the 'past' seem to have an effect on the future. But I geuss we'll find out Tuesday. --134.124.165.9 20:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

And remember to add spoiler warnings where required after the end of the second series has been shown in the UK as there are a lot of viewers in the rest of the world who have not yet got to the ending (in NZ the first series ended a few days ago).--Mendors 21:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'm planning on keeping a very close eye on how the details are handled in the article. Angmering 10:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

"It seems inconceivable that the BBC would commission a spin-off series that takes place entirely in Sam Tyler's mind" -- I'm sorry, but just had to say that that's the funniest thing I've ever read on Wiki. 220.23.58.94 13:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)Freemount

Hmm... I'm probably not the only one to wonder this, but the end of Series Two could be different to the explanation in the article. When I watched it, I was under the impression that Sam woke up from his coma, then jumped off the tower to get into another coma, so he could get back to the "unreal" world.

But all the same, I think it was a quite crappy ending.

Φ 21:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

PS. Was the point Sam left the 70s the same point he came back in? 'Cos if it wasn't then my argument kind of folds up...

That's a possibility - but then it's equally possible that 1973 is real and Sam jumped off to get back to the "real world" as it were. That was the impression I got. Nosdivad 21:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that's supposed to be the inferred version of events. If you look back to the first episode of series one, prior to the accident scene, Tyler's character is more than a little unlikable and "two dimensional" so to speak, which may be an indication of the falsity of this version of his past. However, the scene at the very end of the final episode in which the girl from the test card "switches off" the TV might well signify Sam's death, as one of the program's co-creators mentioned in a recent Radio Times feature on the show that the test card girl was supposed to symbolise "the apocalypse, the end."

Certainly the impression I was left with is that Sam really was from 2006 and that 1973 was a dream. But in the end he decided he preferred his dream to reality. As Nelson said, you're only alive when you can feel - and Sam felt more alive in his dream than in the real world and it is what you feel that is important. So he jumped off a building to induce another coma. I think this is supported by the voice coming over the radio after Sam returns to 1973, which he promptly tunes out because he isn't interested in his real life any more. I'm surprised really that other people drew different conclusions, I thought it was pretty clear. 80.93.170.99 23:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

c.f. A Stop at Willoughby, although the theme itself is as old as the hills. I felt pretty let down myself. Might have worked better if the sterile, cold, blue-lit world of 2006 had been fleshed out a bit further (for example, by setting 1-2 episodes of season 1 there, preferably at the cost of the dreadful football holigan ep.) DublinDilettante 05:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget the psychological effect, as a viewer, of being *rooted* in 2006/2007 ourselves. Watching the final episode, I was tempted by the argument "but he knows things about the future!" but what really has he indicated that he knows? We learn little of his list, and references we get, such as calling himself Tony Blair, might be ironic. He never clearly plays it as a joke. (but my inclination is to agree with that said above -- 2006 was real, but it felt unreal to him in the end, and knowing or not knowing the truth, he decided he preferred "the past".) 220.23.58.94 13:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)Freemount

The character notes for Sam Tyler are too opinionated/conclusive, and don't fit the ambiguous style of the ending/series 2 summaries. It's a fair interpretation, but too one-sided. 80.47.240.38 23:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Well the ending simply seems to be ambiguous as to what is real, and just focuses on the fact that he doesn't feel the future is real, so he goes back to 1973 (it's more real than now) . The twist from Morgan that he's undercover, and created his identity from graves suggests that both realities are real. The spin-off suggests he did go back in time, and he's in a coma, and he's mad, but so's his 1973's self. So it's entirely possible that both are realities, or even that nothing is real. It basicaly addresses existential questions about what is real by saying "Who cares, as long as it feels real and you want to be there". In any case I'd say it should be highlighted as an ambigous ending that doesn't define itself scientifically because it doesn't really need too.Zelphi 11:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

In case anyone's interested, I remembered/found after discussion with people that when Sam goes back, he says that he kept his promise to the team (as he said to his Mum when he was out of his coma). So, I think he did in fact go back. Or perhaps (like in The Never-ending Story) he never woke up at all... 172.141.164.192 13:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

BBC1 announcer

Is the faux-1973 BBC1 announcer heard before each episode actually Bill Nighy? I've not seen any other references to this.

I thought the announcements sounded a little too plummy and exaggerated compared to the real ones from the late 60s-early 70s era (compare [6] to [7] and [8]), but top marks to them for having a go! 217.155.20.163 22:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it sounds like Nighy either: I'm going to tag it with a CN in the article. Angmering 01:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I've always thought it was Bill Nighy. Jooler 11:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Ending notes

This interview with co-creator Matthew Graham provides some specific answers. Namely:

• Sam was definitely in a coma, and from 2006 (“To be honest with you, I was always slightly surprised that people thought there was a genuine mystery. To me, it was very obvious – he got hit by a car, the doctors and nurses were speaking to him over the radio and through the television and he was in a coma.")
• The leap off the hospital roof was real -- Sam was committing suicide ("we had to persuade the BBC that the main character of this hit show should commit suicide")
• Test card girl at the end signifies the end of the series, not Sam's death (“And that last moment is really me saying, ‘Don’t worry about it. It’s just a piece of television, it’s just a story and it’s come to an end. That’s enough of that, off you go, do something else now, we’ll turn the telly off.’”)

The last two paragraphs (and the last sentence of the preceeding para) in the "Ending" section should probably be removed or edited accordingly.

nikclayton@gmail.com 83.67.27.141 10:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, the same interview notes that John Simm questioned whether the waking up was "real", or whether that entire sequence may not still be a part of Sam's coma dream. (And as commenters on discussion boards have asked, since when was brain surgery possible without Sam getting his head shaved?)

I think WP should leave the door open to some ambiguity. Jheald 11:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Ending revealed early

At roughly 5:30pm on Tuesday 10 April 2007, Philip Glenister appeared on the Paul O'Grady show on Channel 4. The two (who both knew the ending) were discussing the series when O'Grady asked "Why only two series?", to which Glenister answered, "How long can you stay in a coma?" therefore revealing the ending approximately 3½ hours early. This doesn't seem to have been picked up on by the BBC itself but seems to have been noticed by a large number of viewers Should this be mentioned in the article?

That's not a reveal, actually. It could merely be commentary regarding how long the question could be reasonably kept alive in the viewer's mind. 220.23.58.94 13:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)Freemount

Technically the ending isn't so much revealed, only that he can't stay in a coma forever. E.G. Death might get in the way, or he might come out. We know he comes out of the coma now, but that's not the full story of the ending. Actually we don't know if he comes out of the coma, or if he was ever in a coma really. So it's more Phil pointing out a simple reason why the show might end after 2 series. Maybe a mention in the trivia, but it's not a plot reveal. Zelphi 11:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

My feeling is - almost any ending would have seemed somewhat of a let-down (and the "all the characters in the dream are versions of real life" scenario has been overdone too much.) As the two-series limit had been imposed a more fluid ending (eg Sam Tyler moves between present and past) was probably not practical.

It was suggested in a newspaper that having Gene Hunt "with all his attitudes" switch into the present might make an interesting plot line.

(It is doubtful that there is any connection between Sam Tyler and Rose Tyler.) Jackiespeel 16:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by that last comment — if you're referring to the article's statement that he was named after her by Graham's daughter, that's been properly referenced with a cite to the Doctor Who Magazine interview in which he said it, which you can clearly see from the article. Angmering 16:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

More from the possibilities of "same surname and time travel and the fusion of possibilities that arises" (though Sam's is more ambiguous). Jackiespeel 22:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Well yes, that sounds like rubbish. I'm presuming if that supposed comparison was in the article it's not rightly been edited out, as I can't see it. Angmering 23:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

They're linking all their programmes together. In one episode he wakes up in Holby City Hospital then he goes for a pint in the Queen Vic. Then he applies for a job on The Apprentice. OMFG LOLL!!!!!!!

A version of Quantum Leap?

I understand from elsewhere that there is a certain amount of fanfic in which the three Tylers, including the one from Queer as Folk are cousins.

As this is straying into what is properly crossover fanfic best end the discussion here. Jackiespeel 21:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, better not to even mention the fabulous That's Life, On Cars. "My name is Richard Hammond. I had an accident, and I woke up in 1973. Am I mad, in a coma, or back in time? Whatever's happened, it's like I've landed on a different planet. Now, maybe if I can work out the reason, Jeremy Clarkson will stop yelling in my head." Jheald 21:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Having Sam Tyler in the present asking for research on the persons from his "alternative reality" might have been an amusing twist. Occasional references to fanfic/possibilities on talk pages is harmless.

Jackiespeel 22:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Character pages

Why do Sam and Gene's name redirect to the LOM page but Annie has her own page? I would think the main character had a page before one of the minor characters. Trcunning 15:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

GA renomination

I have renominated this article for Wikipedia:Good articles. Let me know if this is a problem. Andrew (My talk) 23:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

A few comments that may be of use in helping you to pass the GA:

• Overall, the article is far too long; it needs to be much tighter and there is a lot of fat that can be shed. Remember, the purpose of an encyclopedia article is to provide an overview for people, possibly who have never seen an episode, as to what LoM is about and its cultural impact not to be an endless list of detailed trvia.
• The lead section needs to expanded, as per WP:LEAD, to summarize all the main points covered in the body of the article.
• Personally, I'd put in the section covering the series concept and basic plot outline at the start, followed by the cast and crew information, followed by the production section.
• The production section is very well written and well cited. Well done. However, I'd create a new section for the paragraphs covering the US spin-off and the proposed Ashes to Ashes sequel and put them near the end of the article.
• Cars section: I'd drop this; it's uncited (and probably there is no secondary source available) and unencyclopedic. Might make for a nice fan site.
• Cast: Shouldn't be in a table, should provide some background of notable productions they have been in. A few choice quotes regarding how they approach their roles, see their characters etc from interviews would be nice. Detail should also be provided about notable crew members, especially Mathew Graham.
• Themes: far too long, too much detail, barely referenced, possibly WP:OR. As it stands now, this section will give you a lot of grief when it comes to GA and peer review.
• Trivia: these sections should be avoided as much as possible in articles. As a rule of thumb, if it can't be slotted into the body text of another section, it's probably too trivial to be considered part of an encyclopedia article.
• Reception: well referenced but too long and somewhat skewed in favour of the positive reviews. For balance, try to find some more critical reviews.
• Filming locations: as per my comments on Cars, above, this should be dropped.
• Anachronisms: interesting but far too long and too detailed; perhaps should be spun off as a separate, longer article with a summary of the more glaring ones in the main article?
• Overseas sales: again too long and too detailed and I'm not sure whether it could be classed as encyclopedic. If you want to keep it, suggest you present as a table; see the Heroes (TV series) article for one way this could be done.

I hope I haven't come across as too critical; it's obvious the editors have put a lot of work into this article and there are the makings of a GA class piece here if a good copy edit and a judicious pruning were applied. Life on Mars is a terrific series and deserves a terrific Wikipedia article. Best of luck!

Joe King 17:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, thanks very much for the review! Andrew (My talk) 19:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The Butterfly Dream

I thought about this when I watched the ending (it was also referenced in a review of the ending in the Independent, a UK newspaper [9]). Once, a Chinese poet dreamed he was a butterfly. The dream was so real, that when he "woke up", he noticed that he had no way of knowing if he was a poet dreaming he was a butterfly, or a butterfly dreaming that he was a poet (i.e.: he had no way of knowing which was his "real" life). You can read more about it in the Zhuangzi article (that's the name of the poet).--Athcnv 20:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Vehilces in the TV series

I'm sorry, is this section really necessary? It's for old car fans, not people who want information on the TV series. Trumad 08:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)