![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
is there life on mars?
Oct. 23rd, 2008 07:38 pmGah.
Had a fit of masochism and decided to watch the first episode of the US remake of Life on Mars, just to see what they'd done with it. And, um...well. The less said the better, really.
I think the biggest problem it had was that it wasn't sure what it wanted to be, a faithful copy of the original or its own story, and ended up falling down somewhere between the two. So that although it is almost scene-by-scene identical for large chunks of the episode, right down to dialogue and direction...it also over-simplifies the plot tremendously. You could argue that this is because the story has to be compressed into a much shorter airing time, 60 minutes reduced to 40...but they also veered off on rather a major, time-consuming tangent all of their own as a result of the plot changes, sacrificing characterisation for action. There was none of the polish and finesse of the original, and certainly none of the charisma. Where every single character in the original is bursting with personality and individuality right from the first moment, the characters here are almost uniformly bland. Even Gene, incredibly enough considering what an important character he is for the original - in this he made barely any impression at all!
Bland, in fact, is the best word to describe the episode - and probably the last word anyone would use to describe the original, which was so vibrant and eye-catching and had such instant impact.
Bleurgh. Well, I wanted to see what they've done with it, and now I know. They have butchered it. I think I'll just stick with the original, thanks all the same!
Had a fit of masochism and decided to watch the first episode of the US remake of Life on Mars, just to see what they'd done with it. And, um...well. The less said the better, really.
I think the biggest problem it had was that it wasn't sure what it wanted to be, a faithful copy of the original or its own story, and ended up falling down somewhere between the two. So that although it is almost scene-by-scene identical for large chunks of the episode, right down to dialogue and direction...it also over-simplifies the plot tremendously. You could argue that this is because the story has to be compressed into a much shorter airing time, 60 minutes reduced to 40...but they also veered off on rather a major, time-consuming tangent all of their own as a result of the plot changes, sacrificing characterisation for action. There was none of the polish and finesse of the original, and certainly none of the charisma. Where every single character in the original is bursting with personality and individuality right from the first moment, the characters here are almost uniformly bland. Even Gene, incredibly enough considering what an important character he is for the original - in this he made barely any impression at all!
Bland, in fact, is the best word to describe the episode - and probably the last word anyone would use to describe the original, which was so vibrant and eye-catching and had such instant impact.
Bleurgh. Well, I wanted to see what they've done with it, and now I know. They have butchered it. I think I'll just stick with the original, thanks all the same!
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
