How many of you tuned in to watch the launch of ABC's Life on Mars last night?Likely by now you've already read my original review of the pilot episode (back when David E. Kelley was the showrunner) from back in May as well as my review of the reshot pilot (under the direction of executive producers/showrunners Josh Appelbaum, Andre Nemec, and Scott Rosenberg) but now you've had a chance to watch the premiere episode, with Jason O'Mara (Men in Trees) filling in for the original's John Simm as Detective Sam Tyler, who finds himself inexplicably stuck in 1973.
Is he in a coma? Has he traveled through time? Or is something else altogether going on here? It looks like the producers aren't revealing though they do say that Sam isn't necessarily in a coma, which was a given fact of the original BBC series.
But I am curious to see what everyone thought of Life on Mars' premiere episode ("Out Here in the Fields"), both those of you who are fans of the original and newbies coming to ABC's version without any preconceived notions. Did you like O'Mara as Sam Tyler? Were you totally engrossed by Lisa Bonet? Are you in awe of Harvey Keitel? Or do you think Philip Glenister does Gene Hunt better?
Talk back here.
Comments
Had they held back, shown us Sam's struggle to make sense of his situation and his anxiety about getting back to save Maya, and then dropped the image of the towers as the act 4-out (as it was ABC, I'm assuming a five act structure) I'd have been okay. They would have earned it.
They earned nothing from me after the teaser.
Here are my fuller thoughts.
Give it a pass and go watch a REAL talented actor play Sam on BBC America. It looks like ABC saw a show with Chemistry in Life on Mars, but had no idea what really made it great. Consequently, their remake left ME and my husband both completely flat. There was no reason to remake this when they are copying the dialogue line for line with MUCH lessor actors.
Shame on you ABC.
The World Trade Center thing didn't bother me because of its shock value. What did bother me is the fact that I'm pretty sure they hadn't completed construction on it in 1973. Um...WTF?
For the record, I've seen and adore the original BBC version.
The producers may say that, but this only provides further proof that they didn't really understand their source material.
And while I see what they were trying to do, making the beginning more like an episode of CSI or something, identical twins? Really?
A very different feel to the BBC version, which was to be expected, but that feel had been what dragged me in to the original. I'd recommend the original to anyone, as it appeals on so many levels; I think I'd only recommend this version to people who were really in to CSI.
I'll give the show a shot, though. Maybe like other adaptations that have worked, it'll just take a few episodes to find its legs.
I have never seen the BBC version, but I did some marketing on the ABC series and really stand behind it. i think the show is great and the cast is outstanding!
Had they had even the ounce of skill the guys producing Knight Rider have, they'd have earned the right by pushing Sam around for the first four acts and then had a powerful act-out for 4. But they made the laziest possible choice instead.