Ashes to Ashes

[mick]

Did anyone notice the time hole in the store room?

No?!

Stepping into the store room instantly transported them from 1981 to 1983 where there was…

1. BMC 100 Betamax video cameras (circa 1983)
2. BMC 200 Betamax video cameras (circa 1983)
3. A Commmodore 1530 Cassette deck (1983 C64 design)
4. A rack of betamax cassettes (most featuring label designs from 1983)
5. A BASF cassette pulled from the rack (featuring the 1983 cover re-design)

Pretty bizzare as outside the storeroom everything is pretty much spot on for ’81, including TV sets, radios and the Commodore 8032 (1980) on Gene’s desk.

Will there be a subplot with the storeroom later that makes me look stupid?

So, my sad nerdy rantings aside, what did everyone think?

Topic

[John Hoare]

Fun (loved the Rainbow stuff), but – not a patch on Life On Mars – that first episode, anyway. I was absolutely blown away by the first episode of Life On Mars, but sadly that wasn’t the case here.

[Jonathan Capps]

Everyone seems to be saying the Quatro was a 1983 model with 81 wheels trims stuck on. Is that the case, Mick?

[mick]

It certainly is an ’83 model, it’s previous owner is Erich Stahler from Pistonheads and a picture of the car can be seen on his profile:

http://www.pistonheads.co.uk/gassing/profile.asp?h=0&memberId=13012&t=486866

[Ian Symes]

I don’t think that first episode will be representative of the rest of the series. They had to get the premise across for the n00bs, as well as setting up Alex as a character. Unfortunately, they set Alex up as a bit annoying. I hope she tones down the “I’m going to wake up in a minute” shite, and yes, WE KNOW you’ve got a daughter! You took her to the scene of a hostage-taking, you fucking plum. There was also far too many mash-up, dreamy, surreally moments. They’re easily more effective if used sparingly, not every five minutes without fail. More stuff like Bowieclown’s reflection in the table and his Pipes-esque appearance in the lock-up, please!

That said, any moment when Gene Hunt was on-screen was ace, as expected, and Ray and Chris are still great too. I’m confident that it’ll settle down in future episodes, and Alex will grow to treat her predicament more like Sam did. They’re in a tricky situation where there’s no “am I mad, in a coma or back in time?” mystery to play off, so I guess Alex trying to find out why the baddy (whose name I forget) wanted her dead, and what her parents have to do with it, will replace this. But hopefully they’ll realise that one of the strongest aspects of LoM was that each episode was a self-contained cops and robbers story, and allow this to come to the fore of Ashes To Ashes.

Oh, and awesome soundtrack, obviously. Not sure I like Gene Hunt drinking wine, though!

[Andrew]

> Will there be a subplot with the storeroom later that makes me look stupid?

You mean something along the lines of IT’S NOT REAL AND IT’S ALL A COMA DREAM?

Could happen, I guess. :-)

I actually enjoyed this way more than pretty much all of Life on Mars series two. Use of music less effective, visuals very strong. Cursed by having to basically re-do LoM’s opener, but that was inevitable. Getting a bit OTT on the iconic nature of Gene Hunt, but I can live with it.

Still find it hard to care about catching villains when they’re not real, but knowing where we stand means I’m not being teased about a final revelation that may (and for me did) disappoint. I’m finding it way easier to enjoy now the mystery of LoM is out of the way.

[Nakrophile]

It was pretty much what I expected. Good fun, but it made no sense. What seems to have happened is that Alex (who is really annoying) has found her way into the world Sam created in his subconscious. Gene, Ray and Chris are still around and remember Sam, who is now dead in this world. The fact they have killed Sam kind of pisses me off.

So… what? That makes no sense. If anything, it seems to point to more of a time travel angle, which it was made clear wasn’t what happened in Life On Mars. All I can think is that Alex has read so much of Sam’s reports and what-not that she has re-created his world, just without him and eight years on. Which doesn’t make any sense.

[Andrew]

> What seems to have happened is that Alex (who is really annoying) has found her way into the world Sam created in his subconscious

Well, no, she’s built a version of Sam’s mind IN her subconscious. Which, when she spent a long time talking about that world with him, kinda makes sense. It’s like a friend having a holiday which they tell you about in detail, then you dream about your own version that night. Of COURSE she’s build Sam into that world one way or another, because she knows they knew him, weird though it is.

> The fact they have killed Sam kind of pisses me off.

Five words: “They never found his body.”

[pfm]

There’s no way Simm won’t appear in this at some point. Probably not this series though. Considering Hunt and co were figments of Sam’s imagination, and yet they’re treat as though they’re real in Ashes To Ashes, this suggests Alex literally exists in Sam’s mind, that maybe she was never real herself. But that would be a bit crap.

Any explanation they try to do is going to be messy. That’s why they’ll probably never do one and it will be left shrouded in mystery.

[Nakrophile]

It all makes little sense at the moment. If anything, it seems to point to more of a time travel thing than anything else, and that really would be stupid. Hmmm. I imagine Sam will appear at some point (maybe with Annie) although really it would be… silly.

[Dave]

>Will there be a subplot with the storeroom later that makes me look stupid?

Why wait for the subplot?

I enjoyed this, but it’s no Life On Mars. I had hoped that it would be quicker off the mark with the exposition of the coma/delusion/time travel stuff, but there seemed to be more in this ep than in the whole of 1973.

[Andrew]

> and yet they?re treat as though they?re real in Ashes To Ashes

Why? By who? How is anyone getting anything other than a ‘coma dream’ rationale for this series?

> this suggests Alex literally exists in Sam?s mind

Why does it? She’s heard of Hunt, his team, and Sam. She knows about them, now she’s imagining them.

With the set-up line in ep one I expect Sam to appear in the series finale, frankly.

[penny]

Well, I’m looking forward to the next ep to hopefully find out more as to why that guy wanted to take Drake hostage in the first place because he said something about Drake’s parents being involved or at least that was implied.

Also, I do find it interesting that the guy had pock scar on his left cheek, which in the “Coma” (if it is to be the same) Hunt shot up with his machine gun. – I guess everyone spotted that anyway.

Was Adam Ant really that popular back then, because when ever I get a dj to put one of his songs on people leave the dance floor … is it embarrassment at having liking him back then? Because I quite like the music myself.

Anyway, I have just seen: http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/tv_and_radio/article3271604.ece
I like the funny picture at least, but I don’t agree that Ashes to Ashes doesn’t work. It’s only been one episode and they are slagging it off already. Plus Mr Darcy was not in a wet nighty! It was a very big shirt that was very, very wet.
……..erm……
Oh yes, *cough*…I rather enjoyed the difference of the two characters: Sam Tyler was just a straight stay to the rules cop, where as Alex Drake is a psychologist cop who is in to analysing everything and working out how people work by sort of get in to they mind sort of thing, which is why it’s so interesting as she has or at least what seems to be the case is that she has created her own version of Sam’s world but based in an area she knows and at a time pass Sam’s so then the mind can’t give her the answers straight off about him or how to get out because her mind would reject it for being to easy as she is all about solving the hard puzzles.

…Of course I could be wrong and therefore I need to watch more.

[Tarka Dal]

Okay forgive me if I’m being really stupid, but whilst we can assume that a lot is going on in her mind is from Sam’s case notes. The dialogue with Ray about Sam coming back and being with them for seven years was entirely new to her. Now I guess we’re meant to believe that it’s a) Just an easy way to explain Sam’s abscene away B) Her subconscious confirming her own theory that time in the real world and the retro-world move at different speeds.

Still the ambiguity can be used to give the show it’s own mystery and rules to play within and break.

LoM was great in the way Ian mentioned, that it was episodic, however having just watched both series in the last two weeks. I found it at times a little annoying to see the team bond at the end of one episode, only for the attitudes to reset back for the start of the next one. Mick pointed out this was how most 70s cop shows works and that’s far enough, but at the same point it meant that we didn’t get a decent story arc and given the fantastic premise I was disappointed with that.

Chatting to Mick last night, the other issue is that the series seems to be set two years behind when we are being told. The world presented seems too ‘eighties’ for 1981, as with any decade it hadn’t got going then yet far more believable if it was 1983. Why are we being bombared with iconic 80s things like Yuppies, Mobiles, Walkmans etc when in reality 1981 was the left-overs of the seventies?
In terms of the decade they’ve only given themselves eighteen months of a decade to base the world on.

[Tarka Dal]

Mick and I also agreed last night that the whole thing is about Gene Hunt anyway.

[John Hoare]

Yes, the decision to place the series in 1981 is very, VERY odd. It feels a lot more like 1984. Of course, it’s easily explainable away if it’s all in her mind, and it doesn’t really bug me, but it’s still an odd decision.

As the royal wedding episode is coming up, perhaps we can assume they wanted to reflect certain events in 1981, but the general feel of the 80s (at least, as portrayed on telly) – and so decided to have the best of both worlds.

The lack of reaction of Gene and the others to Alex’s weird behaviour was also strange – I suppose they didn’t want to repeat the beats from the first ep of LoM, which I can understand – but I don’t think more or less ignoring it worked either.

[Pete Part Three]

>Mick and I also agreed last night that the whole thing is about Gene Hunt anyway.

This is true. We’ll find out at some point that Hunt is the real time-traveller; this is why he’s hardly aged in 8 years.

[Seb Patrick]

>How is anyone getting anything other than a ?coma dream? rationale for this series?

To quote from someone else’s blog :

There seems to have been a certain amount of point-missing as regards the excellent first episode of Ashes to Ashes. Even the estimable freakytigger seems to take at face value Alex Drake’s assumption that it’s all happening in her own comatose brain – but if she’s just creating this from her own reading of Sam Tyler’s file, then she wouldn’t know – as we do, as Ray tells her – that Sam went back. All the evidence suggests that Gene Hunt’s world is real (for a given value of the word) and persistent. And as for the fears that it will be impossible to follow through the potential weirdness of the story on a prime time, mainstream show – bear in mind that the moral of the final Life on Mars was it is better to commit suicide than live in the modern world. I had feared a lame retread with more sexual tension; instead, they seem to be making exactly the sequel they needed to make if it was to be any more than a mere franchise-stretcher. And, one which gives them a perfect excuse to go crazily OTT because we no longer need to even slightly believe this might be the ‘real’ version of the past era rather than some kind of policeman’s Valhalla in period dress.

I’m not saying I necessarily agree. But it’s quite clearly not as clear-cut as we might have assumed. They’re definitely playing with the mystery again.

[Andrew]

Interesting. But I think that overestimates the capability of the production. “Am I mad, in a coma, or back in time?” Well, actually, the middle one. The one we all thought it was, but was so easy to guess that we thought you HAD to be bluffing.

I liked LoM for various reasons, but its clever plot twists wasn’t one of them. The logic ended up being as straight-line as could be, despite stuff (in series one especially) making us question otherwise. I suspect this is much the same…

> The dialogue with Ray about Sam coming back and being with them for seven years was entirely new to her.

But the ‘seven years’ thing doesn’t become ‘fact’ by this – she can imagine he’s missing, imagine the duration of his stay. So it’s only the notion of his return that she didn’t know about. And I have no problem seeing that as the show wanting to deal with the Sam issue, rather than a well-thought-out hint that we don’t know what we think we know. Last time we thought we knew something, we were right.

But, as I say, it’s the lack of complexity that’s allowing me to enjoy this first episode more than much of the second series of LoM. So I’m happy.

[ChrisM]

Bear in mind though that whilst Sam was present in every scene of LoM in some form or other (even when he wasn’t ‘there’ he was observing on monitors etc) this isn’t the case with the main character in Ashes to Ashes. There are at least 2 scenes where she is not present. First, when Gene and the other guys are chatting in the hall. Second, when the other 2 cops (I’m bad with names) are staking out a perp and the girl get’s kidnapped.

In other words we’re seeing the point of view of other characters. This suggests that it’s not all in her own mind.

Then of course we have that other scene at the start when she is threatened by the criminal who apparently knew her. But that’s already been mentioned by someone above…

I thought it a bit of a shame in LoM that Sam made no attempt to check out the history of the station and research if the other characters exist. I can understand them wanting to leave it ambiguous but you’d think he would have checked, even if he found nothing conclusive.

[John Hoare]

In other words we?re seeing the point of view of other characters. This suggests that it?s not all in her own mind.

This is a very, VERY good point.

It’s always possible that they’ve decided to let things like this slip slightly, in order to make things easier for themselves… but I think the doubt is there, certainly.

[Andrew]

Again, though, I think it suggests a logic that the makers either aren’t aware of, or don’t care about. Those scenes are no different from all the scenes in Titanic that Rose didn’t witness – born of writer’s habit and convenience.

LoM went with the most obvious solution. For all the debate, the stuff people read into it turned out to be just that – stuff we saw, and ended up not mattering. I doubt AtA will be any different. But, as I say, I like the show for it.

[ChrisM]

Whoops. I just editted a spelling mistake I noticed in the above post and it’s move it out of sequence to John and Andrew’s responses….

I didn’t realised it worked like that. Never mind.

[John Hoare]

Whoops. I just editted a spelling mistake I noticed in the above post and it?s move it out of sequence to John and Andrew?s responses?.

I didn?t realised it worked like that. Never mind.

I’ve just moved it back into the right position. And it *shouldn’t* work like that – it’s a nasty bug.

Will get it fixed when I get the chance…

[Pete Part Three]

They gave you the only options in the voice-over at the start of the credits so there was really no way to go in the final episode. The final episode, as much as I liked it, didn’t really work for me due to all the fluff about false identities.

There was never really any certainty about WTF was going on; take the episode where the comatose Sam was being taunted by that club dealer who he went on to imprison and change the course of history. So, was he in a coma or was he back in time? Both, apparently.

[Andrew]

> They gave you the only options in the voice-over at the start of the credits so there was really no way to go in the final episode.

Those were Sam’s suspicions, though, so I wouldn’t say we were locked in to those being the only alternatives.

I think the hope – certainly for me – was that NONE of the obvious answers would be the resolution. That they show had been clever enough to seed a solution that would make sense, but take us by surprise.

It’s like a detective drama. Done right, the eventual guilty party is someone you never suspected, wouldn’t put IN the list of suspects. LoM not only went for a listed suspect (and they didn’t have to), but it went for the one we all saw at the start, standing over the body, bloody knife in hand yelling “I’m everso happy I killed him!”

Is it okay to play on a mystery, then have the ‘twist’ be that the obvious solution IS the solution?

Put another way – if Lost concluded this way, wouldn’t people be miffed?

> So, was he in a coma or was he back in time? Both, apparently.

I think this is why I lack faith in a smartly-constructed twist. The show played pretty fast and lose with its implications and wasn’t too fussed about the consequences.

[John Hoare]

Surely what made LoM’s ending work isn’t what the resolution itself was – the coma – it’s how it was presented? I found the suicide stuff, and the way that Sam didn’t really fit into the real world any more, the interesting stuff there.

It works for me, anyway. But then, I didn’t spend the entire series trying to figure out the twist – I just enjoyed each episode for its many other merits. If you’ve built it up and built it up, practically ANYTHING would be a disappointment. Admittedly, the creators did *invite* that, but that’s just good marketing. You’re not forced to put it above all else.

(Mind you, I’m not exactly sure that I LIKE the moral of LoM – beating up people is fun, and modern policing is tedious. That’s an exaggeration, of course, and it’s not like the series doesn’t put the other side extensively – but it does have a very slight tinge of dodginess about it. As does the lionisation of Gene Hunt.)

[ChrisM]

I think the main point was that there was a requirement for balance. I.e. in a lot of the episodes it was Sam’s modern policing which solved the case, yet he learnt that sometimes you had to follow your gut instinct too (not that it’s always right). That and that the old days were more ‘fun’ somehow rather than the clinical policing of today, or at least the way it was put across. Even the buildings in the present day looked cold and sterile (although they were beautiful in a way) whilst the offices of yesteryear (although the same building) were dingy.. you could almost smell the b-o in the room.. but there was character there too.

Interesting to see the 80s office -albeit London based now- has a kind of in between look, quite clinical but not the dingy look of the 70s version.

As for the torturing of prisoners, I don’t think they were trying to say that was right, but stopping or at least decreasing that is Sam’s contribution, hence the balance I mentioned.

As for the iconisation or lionisation of Gene(whatever the term is) I pretty much agree, although I don’t think they really portrayed him that way in LoM. In fact they showed him to be a bit of a thug. A likeable thug, a great character and a sourse of great comedy but pretty narrow minded, quick to jump to the first choice. He was almost a party to murder in one episode when he might have allowed the NF to take an Indian guy to play out their own brand of justice if Sam hadn’t stepped in. (Ok he might not have gone through with it, but point is we’ll never know.) True he is ultimately heroic, but not quite the way he’s built up to be in the new series.

As for the truth of the situation at the end of LoM, whilst the second series in particular seemed to support that it was a dream to a large extent (i.e. the surgeon having the same face as the officer from Hyde) I never thought that was certain. And even if it was all a coma dream, in these days of twist endings, there not being a twist is kind of a twist in itself.

My personal theory is that the past world is real, but I’m not convinced they are actually travelling into the past of the world they left, albeit it’s right next door and connected to the ‘real’ world. (You know there are themes in these series that remind me of Stephen King’s Dark Tower books, but I won’t go into that in this post.) That being said they (be it Sam or the new lady cop.. is it Ashley?) are still simultaneously in a coma in 2006/8. I think maybe a translocation of consciousness is occuring.. although it makes you wonder what happened to the original mind that existed in their past selves’ body.

Yeah, I know that doesn’t make much sense…

Got a bit carried away there.

[John Hoare]

I think the balance thing definitely worked throughout the series. But I think it becomes a slight problem in the last episode – Sam, our hero, gives up our era, and goes back to the 70s, because he prefers it. We’re supposed to empathise with him.

It’s not too bad – after all, presumably Sam doesn’t go back and beat everyone up and call them poofs, but tries to carry on as he did throughout the series. Still, the ending, far more than the rest of the series, almost seems to suggest that policing in the 70s – at least, the version we’re shown – is preferable to how it is today. That’s the bit that’s dodgy.

Still, it’s better than spoon-feeding us what to think every five minutes, I guess.

[ChrisM]

It could be interpreted that way. It could just be interpreted as Sam’s preference though, i.e. in the end he liked it better back there, that was when he was most alive (ironically). However I agree, it seemed to be suggesting that in modern policing we’ve lost something with a nostalgic “Those were the days….”

That last post of mine was like a mini novel wasn’t it? Funny, when I’m actually sitting with a group of people, I’m nearly always the quiet bloke listening to everyone else (or zoning out) sipping a beer. It’s like I over compensate when I post or something.

[Ian Symes]

See, for me, Sam choosing to live in the 70s isn’t an indictment on modern policing, nor is it an endorsement of Gene’s approach. Despite the fact that the tipping point occurred during a dull meeting, the policing aspect seems pretty irrelevant compared to his main reason for returning: the other characters. For me, he returned so that he could be part of that team – to be Gene’s partner, to be Chris’s inspiration and, most importantly, to be with Annie. Life in 2006 no longer appealed to Sam because his relationships with the people of 1973 were more fulfilling and relevant that anything that remained in the real world. It’s nothing to do with paperwork, political correctness or not being able to punch people – it’s about his sense of self-worth and about love.

[John Hoare]

Yes, I think that’s a fair point. Although I’m not sure what wanting to be Gene’s partner says about Sam, and by extension, the sympathies we’re supposed to feel as an audience. Gene is a racist, sexist, homophobic thug, just one with a lot of charm – although, yes, also someone who also had tremendous good qualities too, that the writers are at pains to show.

If he was going back in time, it would be more justifiable – trying to change things. But this just existed in his head – and so it almost seems to condone it. I dunno. It doesn’t bother me that much, and I don’t think it’s a major problem – and yet something about it still makes me feel slightly uncomfortable. It’s certainly not as simple as saying “yah boo sucks” to political correctness… but there’s an *element* of that there, and I’m not sure it’s one I like.

[Ian Symes]

I wouldn’t rule out the “trying to change things” aspect. Trying to improve standards and tame Gene gave Sam a purpose in life. Whether it impacts on the real world or not, it’s still a goal for Sam to strive towards, and it gives him a more fulfilling life than 2006 can provide.

As for audience sympathies, Gene is a moral grey area that’s far more complex than being either a thug with good intentions, or a hero who does bad things. From the first episode onwards, the audience is never sure who is “right” out of Sam and Gene, and the majority of episodes arrive at the conclusion that it’s a bit of both. Sam and Gene joining forces as partners is the ultimate good cop/bad cop routine, when you boil it down to its constituent parts. But Sam and Gene obviously have a lot in common, and they both have the same aims in life: protecting the public, looking out for their team and striving to make a positive difference.

I genuinely think Gene *is* a sympathetic character by the end of LoM. Yes, he does some terrible things, but we know that he does them out of a strong sense of right and wrong. His definitions of these terms can be way out at times, but he is character whose motivation is to do good. For me, there’s no conflict about who the audience sides with, and ultimately there’s no great imperative for us to decide which is best out of 1973 and 2006, on a moral level. Political correctness and the differences in policing methods simply aren’t factors in Sam’s ultimate decision, for me. The reason for him wanting to partner Gene isn’t because he prefers 1973 policing to 2006 policing – or indeed that the audience is supposed to have a preference – it’s because bringing the two eras in line with each other gives his life purpose.

[John Hoare]

It’s all fair enough points, and I do agree – and I feel exactly the same way through all the series… apart from that last episode. I can’t get rid of the connotations how how they portray modern policing there, even though what you say makes total logical sense. Maybe it’s just me – after all, the writers did just spend 15 episodes with Sam kicking up a fuss and trying to change things. But I’m not sure if that shot of him in the meeting gives quite the right message.

I *do* think that there’s a danger with Ashes To Ashes that the might forget to put the other side of things, and just have Gene as the hero – certainly, there was far less of putting the other side in the first episode, and maybe the writers feel they’ve done it already. But we’ll see.

[Joey TORDFC]

I didn’t think there was any question that the primary reason Sam went back was because of his friendships/Annie.

Also, Alex Drake will shag “Gene”.

[John Hoare]

The thing is – if they wanted to emphasise the friendships thing, they shouldn’t have had him sitting there bored in a meeting. They should have had him sitting bored in some kind of social situation.

What’s seen implies unhappiness with modern policing methods. If you had him sitting bored in, say, a pub, that would imply that it was the people of 1973 he missed.

(And yes, OK, I suppose I *do* still find *choosing* any kind of friendship with someone like Gene Hunt uncomfortable. Despite his massive good side, the bad points are just that bit too unpleasant – witness him beating up a criminal against a car in the first ep of Ashes To Ashes. That really is just me, though, I suspect.)

[Nakrophile]

I didn’t take the ending of LOM as a damning indictment of policing today at all. I am going over some of the same points people have already made I’m sure, but it was the friendships he had made, life in general but most of all it was Annie. Sam simply wasn’t enjoying life anymore, and if the life he wants to lead is a dream in his head when he’s near death, so be it. I didn’t find anything wrong with the ending at all.

But the point someone made about Gene being the one who is traveling through time is an interesting one.

[John Hoare]

I didn?t take the ending of LOM as a damning indictment of policing today at all.

To be fair, I never said it was a damning indictment!

[Nakrophile]

I know, but exaggeration is a great thing. Besides, I wasn’t so much replying to you as I was the thread in general.

[John Hoare]

Anyway, I know and accept all the arguments. Even the fact that the scene was placed in a meeting rather than a pub or something can easily be explained by saying that Sam *has* no friends, and lives – or rather, doesn’t live – for his work.

And yet it all still makes me feel vaguely uncomfortable, the more I think about it. Not much I can do about that, though.

[ChrisM]

As for the balance in Ashes to Ashes, I have a feeling it might be the Gene show too. I’m not sure Alex will provide the moral counterpoint that Sam did, partly because a)she’s certain it’s all in her head and he was never that certain… hence no real people to hurt, and b) she’s a different character from him, a psychologist. Not to say psychologists aren’t moral, I just mean that I think that analysis of the way people tick will be what she brings to the mix rather than a strict following of police guidelines.

Of course it’s probably also fair to point out that Gene might not be exactly the same as he was in the previous show. At his core he’s pretty much the shame, but I remember that when he actually set out to capture the main suspect he seemed to use his mind and deduction, more so that he did in the previous show, rather than just jumping to conclusions (although he did a bit of that at the start.) In short, he might have learnt something from Sam (although I know he’ll be using plenty of his own brutal methods, from what I’ve seen in this episode and a clip I’ve seen from the next where he apparently drags an old man down some stairs. Yikes.)

I saw the actor (I forget his name) interviewed on Jonathan Ross and he said it’ll be quite a toungue in cheek show and that those hoping for another Life on Mars will be disappointed. Whilst I’m glad that there’ll be differences (otherwise it could get a bit boring and formulaic) I’m not so sure of the humor side. I love humor in shows, don’t get me wrong, but I hope that it doesn’t go too far down the farce route. There was a small element of that in the other show too, but it still felt like a world complete in itself, and I hope they keep that aspect in this show too.

[Nakrophile]

It is looking like it will be Gene show, I mean Philip Glenister’s name was even first in the credits…

[penny]

Would be funny if it turned out that it is really Gene in a coma dreaming it all.

[Tanya Jones]

One other point; hadn’t Sam’s girlfriend left him by the end of the series? He didn’t seem to have many other friends or close colleagues, so perhaps that played a part as well. And a character can be lovable, despite doing many things that you disagree with, if their intentions are honourable. Just look at Brittas!

[James]

How did he get inside the BMW? Even without using the remote, that model auto locks.

What’s with the DI.

The boat was called Lady Di.

Diana was mentioned several times.

The rank was chnged to Detective Inspector

You could also say auDI

DI means Shang-ti which translates into Supreme God= Gene Hunt

[Seb Patrick]

Incidentally… I downloaded this, rather than watching it as broadcast (I was out on Thursday). Did the broadcast version have a string of binary scroll across the bottom of the screen as the opening titles started? I initially wrote it off as a “tag” of the sort that a lot of cappers put on vids – but on the other hand, I got it from a site whose cappers don’t usually do that kind of thing, and the binary string showed up on a computer screen at one point in the ep – plus, of course, was a feature of that viral site that popped up a while back…

[Danny Stephenson]

Was that the one that put footage of a slaughterhouse in the middle of a film? I remember seeing one in Spiderman 3…

[ChrisM]

I don’t remember the binary scrolls at the start. I liked the gag in the closing credits though where the end credits are green 80s computer text with a flashing cursor at the end. Like those old BBC computer maybe.

We still had those at my secondary school although they were considered old tech even then. We basically had 2 computer rooms one full of Nimbus PCs and one full of huge slab BBC computers.

[Danny Stephenson]

yeah we used Acorn computers at high school…

[Dave]

>one full of huge slab BBC computers

They were ironically called BBC Micro computers

[John Hoare]

And a character can be lovable, despite doing many things that you disagree with, if their intentions are honourable.

This is fair enough. It’s just that meeting scene that bugs me, I think.

Anyway: the end credits to Ashes To Ashes were beautiful, yes (although too short – bloody end credit guidelines). They didn’t look like a BBC Micro though – it’s the wrong font. I suspect it might be trying to emulate a Commodore PET or something, but I don’t know for sure.

And BBC Micros were gorgeous machines. I used the successors (a BBC Master 128, a Risc PC, and later an Iyonix) for years. But don’t get me started on that one. (Although actually, BBC Micros weren’t that big – I suspect, in terms of total volume, they’re smaller than most PC towers).

[Author]

Replies