MovieChat Forums > Life on Mars (2006) Discussion > Should there have been at least one more...

Should there have been at least one more series?

posted 12 years ago by jane_bront
7 replies | jump to latest

I read on wikipedia that the creators felt that two series were enough to tell Sam's story. It just seemed like sixteen episodes was too short. This is in part because I liked the show and the main characters so much that I wanted it to go on and on. What do you think? I'm only used to shows ending after two series (called "seasons" in the US) because of cancellation which is what I thought had happened to LOM. Would you have liked a third or do you think two was enough for Sam's story?

~"Chris, am I weird?"
~"Yeah, but so what? Everybody's weird."

[–] ineedmulder 12 years ago

Well,I felt the same way when I found out the series was only 16 episodes.But after watching Ashes to Ashes which the writers used their ending with that spin-off,I think they ended the show exactly right time.Life on Mars is Sam's story from the beginning till the end.No matter how hearbreaking for some,he chooses his own path.But in spin-off,the writers try to wrap up so many things in their third series that they almost forgot about their main character.I don't know at least that's how I felt when I watched it.

Having said that,it would be so great to see more of Tyler,Gene,Ray,Chris and Annie.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Prismark10 12 years ago

With John Simm unwilling to commit to a third series, the makers were left with no option but end the series and go with a spin off.

Its that man again!!

[–] mica404 12 years ago

You always want more, who wouldn't want to see more stories with those 5 characters?

The difference is in the nature of the show and the channel commissioning it.

The truth was that the series was based around Sam's story, and there is only so long you can stretch that out. I'm not sure in the end if it was the writers or John Simm who pulled the trigger, but they quit before they had to stretch the story out, or the quality started to fall, so I guess it was a good decision.

If you compare with long running shows, they either survive because they are episodic/procedurals, so they last as long as you can keep coming up with good stories (and the viewers don't get bored). Alternatively, if the show is arc based, it lasts as long as you keep coming up with new story arcs.

The LoM guys got around things with Ashes to Ashes, which in some way is series 3,4,5. There is also the point that UK shows like this tend to have a very small writing team, -- with the same people writing everything you get the distinctive feel of these programs that everyone loves, but fewer episodes.

It also helps that the BBC is largely a non-profit organization, where a US network always has one eye on its advertising revenue, they don't ave the same pressures. So when the writers of a popular show say that's it, it doesn't have the same impact.

[–] Hammerfanatic46 12 years ago

I share your love for the show completely . I think that it could easily have justified a third series .

John Simm opted to leave it where it was,but has subsequently expressed regret that he did .I have read that the way Ashes to Ashes ends is exactly what was planned if a third series had come to fruition.

Gordon P. Clarkson

[–] music_lover921 12 years ago

I loved the show but John Simn made the right decision to call it quits. It was smart and it was good storytelling. So no leaving it after 2 series was smart and the right thing to do.

The story was about Sam's journey, it was about him starting to live again after being so closed off. In the first episode of the series he was head over heart and by the time you got to the end he has not only learnt how to love and live but he has learnt how to trust his gut instinct which. As Nelson said "if you can't feel, you ain't living. If they were to have another series what were they going to do for 8 eps? Continue to have spookey dookey nightmares...yawn boring. You can only drag it on for so long and if they had kept going with it it would have overrstayed its welcome. It would've undercut everything that came before and it would've trivalised the emotional significance of that final jump. What was also good about the ending was that it was an unconvental ending and therefore bold. To make the whole thing about purgatory and just shove him on like what they did to Alex in Ashes would've made the whole journey look like a waste of time and a joke. But then again Ashes to Ashes did a fine job in ruining the ending of LOM.

I have seen that article too about the whole being planned all along and Matthew Graham had tried to pass that off but that is a whole lot of BS because he said the exact same thing when LOM ended. He had also said that at the time that the show was about one man's personal oddessy and not some wired bizzare climax but then changed his story. He had also stated that Ashes was different to LOM and was a spin off but then again changed his story in series 3. He then admitted after making eternal law that a lot of the things seen in Ashes was taken from eternal law because they were not sure if the show would get taken up. Then you had the fact that the three series of ashes just does not add up, you had a few references to sam and to lom in the first 2 series but then all of a sudden we got this BS storyline on whether or not Gene hunt killed sam tyler? I mean WTF??? How the writers thought i was going to follow that storyline for even 1 minute was beyond me. There was no character exploration of Gene but then all of a sudden he becomes a 19 year old boy killed on the job but then made up everything in purgatory after being told in LOM that he was just a 70s copper. Plus there was no character exploration of Chris and Shaz for nearly 2 whole series but then all of a sudden they have a backstory, chris is afraid of whistles and shaz of screwdrivers. And the amount of plot holes and continuity issues that occured from series 2 to 3 made it look like that the writers had amnesia. You just have to look at the inconsisteny, the lack of continuity between the series (you could make the three seasons into three separate tv shows) and the lack of plot direction across the three series of ashes just shows that everything in ashes was not planned out at all and if it was then they didn't do a good job showing that onscreen.

[–] freebird1987 11 years ago

I think that two series is enough.