Jump to content

Talk:Ashes to Ashes (British TV series)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Opening theme

[edit]

The article says that the opening theme is the Bowie song of the same name. Does anyone have any evidence for this? The opening theme to Life on Mars (TV series) was not the Bowie song, after all. Pelago 22:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My gut instinct says "bollocks!" Not bloody likely is it? Be bold. Remove it. DBD 22:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I bet it is, that's a point most media has been referencing, keep it. Mr. Garrison (talk · contribs)
WTF?? the theme to life on mars is the version on the original album —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jonny rope (talk • contribs) 17:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
No it wasn't, although it was used in the first and final episodes boffy_b 17:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The theme music is "Ashes To Ashes Theme" by Edmund Butt, who also composed the LOM theme.

RTE

[edit]

An RTE news report on Life on MArs said the spin-off would be much of the same and that the new character would also suffer and accident and be flung back in time. Incidently the new character is a police physcoligist and is studying Sam Tylers "case." HAs there been any other news reports/leaks to confirm this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jonny rope (talk • contribs) 18:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, that's all just taken from the official BBC Press Release here. Angmering 18:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Drake

[edit]

Rumour has it Spooks' Keeley Hawes has been cast as the star of the series

http://www.holymoly.co.uk/news/28/keeley-hawes-is-to-take-the-lead-role-in-ashes-to-ashes-the-sequel-to-life-on-mars-665.html 90.194.246.250 14:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sun spoiler (Gene to die?)

[edit]

I don't usually trust the Sun with these things but this is from the horses mouth: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/tv/article695618.ece that being said it could just be Sara Nathan reading far too much into Glenister's vague comments.

“I would love to do another series of Ashes To Ashes, I think we need another one. But I don’t think we should go beyond the Eighties.”

I have used the Sun as a reference for the Audi Quattro anachronism, as that is from a much more clear cut quote. However I wish to ask here before including the spoiler. --GracieLizzie (talk) 13:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm opposed to using gossip rags, not just the Sun, as sources in Wikipedia (we've had to ask similar questions in editing the Doctor Who articles).
However, the term used in the Sun is "killed off", and in context this merely means that Glenister isn't kindly disposed to the idea of having a further series set in the 1990s. This might well have been in response to a leading question (which is why I'm generally opposed to use of gossip rags--it's their stock in trade).
When I read the Quattro anachronism, I did wonder why this was considered news. In the 1980s it was not unknown for an imported car to be adapted for right hand drive, so I'm not so sure that's such an anachronism as might at first appear. --Tony Sidaway 21:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The capitalisation of 'quattro'

[edit]

According to Audi AG's trademarking, and badging on all quattro models, inlcuding the car which Gene Hunt drives, quattro is uncapitalised, my correction yesterday was not speculation, or an error, and therefore didn't need fixing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.185.36 (talk) 21:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital_letters)#Mixed or non-capitalization notes: "For proper names and trademarks that are given in mixed or non-capitalization by their owners (such as k.d. lang, adidas and others), follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules." Alan smithee (talk) 08:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note that although style for trademarks has not changed, style for "k.d. lang" has. Manual of Style now says:"Some individuals do not want their personal names capitalized. In such cases, Wikipedia articles may use lower case variants of personal names if they have regular and established use in reliable third-party sources." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.214.18.240 (talk) 20:00, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Archive Talk Page

[edit]

I was bold and archived the talk page up to 8 February 2008. This archiving was reverted, however, so I guess there's a discussion to be had. I'll go first:

The sections "Opening Theme", "RTE" and "Alex Drake" deal purely in speculation regarding the upcoming series. As Ashes to Ashes is now no longer upcoming, these sections are completely obsolete and there is nothing further to add to them. The sections "Sun spoiler" and "The capitalisation of 'quattro'" have both been amicably resolved, some weeksago, so I believe these ight as well be archived too. I'd be interested to hear if anyone disagrees. A bright cold day in april (talk) 03:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would an archiving only be done if there was an onerous amount of text on the page? So far there isn't very much and it isn't worth moving just yet. Mmm commentaries (talk) 06:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ashes to Ashes has begun

[edit]

Ashes to Ashes has now begun and, as such more information will be added to this page on a weekly basis. I've tidied up the article, removed the future tense and upcoming-programme-speculation and included a bit of new information gleaned from the first episode and some of the press reaction. Al the reaction I've so far come across has been negative, so I'd be interested if anyone can find anything positive to balance it out (from similarly reputable sources, obviously). A bright cold day in april (talk) 03:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Early reviews

[edit]

Sam Wollaston of The Guardian didn't like it, and went so far as to describe it as "actually pretty bad". The Independent and The Times seemed to find it moderately entertaining. I didn't see the NewsNight review and as that's not particularly verifiable I'm inclined to disregard it and perhaps will even remove the reference. So would anybody object if I changed the reaction section to give a more balanced, slightly more detailed account? --Tony Sidaway 03:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Telegraph liked it too. Really the only unequivocally poor review I've seen so far was in the Guardian. --Tony Sidaway 03:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And the New Statesman like it. I've rewritten the summary as "generally well received" and noted the Guardian as sole dissenting view. --Tony Sidaway 03:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tony, I'd agree with you that the the initial assesment of the Independent review was off the mark. Despite his criticisms, the reviewer describes himself as "moderately happy". But I would argue that it is fair to describe the Times review as "poor". It claims that "much is secondhand", "old conceits are reworked" and "worse, the action-scenes are no longer taken seriously. Shoot-outs are played for laughs". It awards the first episode two out of five stars. For the Newsnight Review review, this is hostile (2 to 1 very much against it) and I've found a verifiable link on BBC's iPlayer which I'll reference on the main page: [1]. This video is only available until 22:30 on 08/02/2008, however, so I'll timedate it. As such, I'll change reaction to 'lukewarm' A bright cold day in april (talk) 03:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your assessment of the Times review is fair; I think I was selective in my reading. However I don't think "lukewarm" is correct. The Independent was lukewarm but the New Statesman and Telegraph both gave the episode the thumbs up. Robert Hanks (Independent) was "moderately happy", Rachel Cooke (New Stateman) said the show "successfully makes the jump to 1981". Gerard O'Donovan (Telegraph) declared "the “Gene genie” was back in business with a bang." --Tony Sidaway 03:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're right - "lukewarm" won't do at all. So far we have 3 "Negatives" (Guardian and Newsnight) and 3 "Positives" (Telegraph, New Statesman and Independent). Do you think "mixed" would be more accurate? A bright cold day in april (talk) 04:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's also this positive review in the Glasgow Herald. I think we need to sleep on this and re-assess. No need to rush it. --Tony Sidaway 04:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Avoidance of clumsy description

[edit]

An apparent difficulty with this programme (and Life On Mars) is that the world of Gene Hunt ("1981" and "1973") exists, apparently, in the minds of Sam and Alex. As such, clumsy description is creeping into the article (e.g. "from Hunt's point of view"). Does anyone have any ideas how to best deal with this? In the meantime, I'll tidy up the grammar.A bright cold day in april (talk) 03:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's unavoidable, and indeed for me one of the most entertaining facets of the series, that you can regard the two continuities as separate though related. "From Hunt's point of view", etc, is a precise and economical way of describing what is going on. --Tony Sidaway 03:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it's one of the very best aspects of the show (indeed, both shows). I just find the phrasing to be clumsy and make for difficult reading, I suppose. Although I haven't thought of a way to more gracefully describe the situation whilst retaining the accuracy of "point of view"A bright cold day in april (talk) 04:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At least *one* anachronism?

[edit]

This seems quite a silly inclusion, as Life on Mars had plenty of anachronisms (mostly unintentional of course - modern day fixtures etc). So perhaps it is better to say "intentional" anachronism?Mmm commentaries (talk) 05:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, and I have changed this on your recommendationA bright cold day in april (talk) 17:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spin-off?

[edit]

Although the original was Life on Mars with Sam Tyler, the producers have never called this is a Spin-off, but they have called it a sequel, should this change the article to say sequel? LuGiADude (talk) 14:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If they call it a sequel, that's fine with me. I tend to think of it as a spin-off, but for reasons that probably only make sense to me. --Tony Sidaway 16:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And now it says "serves as a sequel". Which is what you say when you're having a childish argument about if a show which follows in sequence but introduces new characters is "a sequel" or "a spin-off" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.214.18.240 (talk) 19:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marked Metropolitan Police Ford Granada Mk2 Police Car Possible incorrection

[edit]

Just a thing I wandered is noticing a marked Metropolitan Police Ford Granada Mk2 [2] that I never recalled seeing any marked Ford Granada Metropolitan Police Cars during the 1980s which instead the car used instead for that class of patrol car in London was the Rover SD1? [3] Just wandered if it could be worthwhile mentioning? Also it doesn't have the correct Metropolitan Police red/yellow/red stripes along the side. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wrh1973 (talk • contribs) 19:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This kind of stuff is excellent--put it on a Life on Mars forum or wiki--but here it's original research. --Tony Sidaway 19:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Depiction of 1981 (1)

[edit]

In line with the recent change to the LOM page, I'll change the Anachronisms section for this page to Depiction of 1981. A bright cold day in april (talk) 17:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We'll see how it goes. I was never happy with a section for potentially endless lists of anachronisms. It may be that we've simply swapped it for a section for potentially endless lists of differences between 2008 and 1981. --Tony Sidaway 18:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Background section

[edit]

I'd like to keep the background section very sparse, if possible. I suggest that we remove the precise description of the circumstances under which Alex Drake is shot. The significance of the hostage situation, and her encounter with the hostage taker in 1981, is not yet clear. I'd reverse the effect of this edit. The change from "Philip Glenister) as its main character" to "Philip Glenister) as possibly its best known character from Life on Mars." is also unhelpful in my opinion. "Main character" is clear enough, and the note of uncertainty is inappropriate. --Tony Sidaway 18:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree with this perspective. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a life and I am not arguing pointlessly like a child. Have it your way and undo my edit, arent you big kids now? Well done from me! Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 20:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the talk page is where we thrash out agreements, that isn't being childish its being mature. And I am sure if you have some good arguments that they will be listened to. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No need for it, go ahead and revert. I pity you. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 20:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I beg your pardon? But lets stick to arguments. We cannot claim that Hunt is the main LoM character as that was clearly Sam Tyler. I think the other information is too detailed and is a potential spoiler (not all of us have had a chance to see AtA yet). Thanks, SqueakBox 20:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the character qualifier all together. Seems petty to quibble over it and WP:OR anyway. --Veritas (talk) 20:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

lol, you just dug a hole for yourself, I never put that sentance. Get it right please Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 20:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Er, nobody said you did. We are here to discuss the article, not blame anybody for anything. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well there is no need for any of that. I have said that I dont mind you reverting it and that I agree with you. Go ahead. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 20:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Pierrot/The Clown

[edit]

As the BBC bills the chap in the pierrot costume as The Clown, I've changed a reference in the article to agree to that. I'd been calling him "The Pierrot" before seeing that. --Tony Sidaway 02:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The A Team, Miami Vice, Clint Eastwood, Gone with the Wind, and pastiche

[edit]

The shoot-out sequences in the film obviously owe a lot to The A-Team as well as eighties crime series like Miami Vice, although Hunt's seemingly anachronistic reference can be read as an unconscious (to him) reference, because the phrase "the 'A' team" was in normal use as a superlative long before the George Peppard TV series.

In particular, although I never watched the A-Team (I got the impression that it was a kids' show) I do recall switching it on once and seeing a gun battle in which some pretty lethal-looking weapons were used at almost point-blank range, and although many rounds were fired nobody got badly hurt. This of course is exactly what happened in the shout-out in the first episode of Ashes to Ashes last Thursday!

This brings me to the subject: pastiche.

It appears to me that the style adopted for that episode, if not for the later series which we've yet to see, is pastiche. Eastwood, sorry I mean Hunt, is often shown from below with his chest thrust forward, from below, with portentous theme music while his snakeskin boots creak gently. Ret Butler, er I mean Hunt, is also often shown in classic romantic poses such as saving Drake's life and then carrying her over the threshold (almost literally pregnant with symbolism) of his police station, or coming to the rescue, Uzi at the ready, on a speed launch under the Tower Bridge. Keep those eyes peeled this week, and see if you can spot the references. --Tony Sidaway 13:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Soundtrack section

[edit]

This section is utterly unencyclopedic. Apologies to those who have taken the time to compile the list but I'm afraid it's just not the sort of thing Wikipedia is for. I'm removing itA bright cold day in april (talk) 01:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's done. A little more info about the soundtrack might not hurt, but a blow-by-blow account of every single song featured is ridiculous. A bright cold day in april (talk) 01:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. There will be half a dozen or more oldies in each episode so listing them all is out of the question. For the most part, they're solely there to emphasize a period atmosphere and awaken old memories. Where a particular song is relevant to the plot, to the point of becoming tangled up in events, it may be appropriate to mention the song in context. --Tony Sidaway 01:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but that's arrogant, high-handed nonsense, lads. At least three users were adding the songs, and Wikipedia is there to be a source of reference. The music used is of more interest to more people than the trivial minutiae that you seem perfectly happy to pontificate about. I strongly suggest that you lighten up, lose the attitude, and concentrate on what Wikipedia should be for, which is providing a useful, popular online encyclopedia. 84.70.152.192 (talk) 02:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I'm going to have to disagree. And I don't know why you assume anyone who disagrees with you has "an attitude"? Wikipedia's run by consensus and, as it says at the bottom of the page "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly... do not submit it". As for concentrating "on what Wikipedia should be for", I would argue that it's an encyclopedia. If you want to provide a track list of songs for Ashes to Ashes fans or 80s music enthusiasts on a fanpage then that's cool, but that's not what Wikipedia's for (please see Wp:NOT). No offence and nothing personal, by the way - I can see that you must have taken quite a bit of time going through the episodes identifying and listing songs but this just isn't the place for them. Sorry. 138.253.249.67 (talk) 11:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to revert it again just yet as it has been changed three or four times in the last few days. But I am going to attach cleanup notices to the article as it clearly doesn't meet WP guidelines at the moment.138.253.249.67 (talk) 11:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded the soundtrack section a little to incorporate the synthpop genre that featured in episode 2, and to mention Steve Strange's appearance performing Fade to Grey. I've added the following html comment to the section:

Suggestion: to demonstrate each music genre featured in the series, use one or two examples. Feel free to add music that is integrated into the plot (such as the title track, and Fade to Grey whch is integral to the Blitz scene in episode 2.) It may be appropriate to list each piece of music in the episode articles, but please don't put an exhaustive list of all tracks in the series on this article as it will probably be reverted.

Gene Hunt's first scene

[edit]

Does anyone know what the music playing over Gene Hunt's first appearance was? It's the scene when Hawes is grabbed by the businessman and suddenly the Audi comes screeching into view with what turns out to be Hunt driving. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandonkey (talk • contribs) 13:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--Tony Sidaway 19:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it's "Gene Genie" by Edmund Butt (composed for the series. 3fingeredPete (talk) 18:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Depiction of 1981 (2)

[edit]

I've removed the following recent addition (if I recall correctly it was actually a reinsertion) to the "Depiction of 1981" section:

A scene in the first episode features Gene Hunt organising his troops and declaring that his group would be known as the "A team]." If this was a reference to the TV programme The A-Team, then the only one that could possibly have heard of it was Alex Drake, as it was not screened until 1983. A similar reference in the first episode to the Klingon language is likely anachronistic, since beyond a few words in Star Trek: The Motion Picture it was not popularly thought of as a language until its vocabulary was expanded by Marc Okrand in 1984's Star Trek III: The Search for Spock.

Firstly, the term "the A team" was in use long before the TV series, which derived its name from that term and not vice versa. This provides the writers with the opportunity to put a verbal cue into Hunt's mouth, because much of the scene that follows resembles an A-Team gun battle in which nobody is seriously harmed.

Secondly the fact that a few geeks made up a Klingon language in 1984 does not make it unlikely that a person in 1981 would refer to apparent gibberish (the suspect had used the latin term ipso facto, which Skelton obviously didn't understand) as "Klingon". New-style Klingons with the brow ridges and a distinctive language spoken on screen were seen in the 1979 movie Star Trek: The Motion Picture. The "language" spoken was, to all intents and purposes, gibberish, which was Skelton's point of reference. --Tony Sidaway 01:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also unhappy with this addition so I've removed it:

Also, in the early part of the episode, the scene which establishes the timeline clearly shows a row of posters for the single "Prince Charming" by Adam and the Ants. This is was not released until September 1981 (DI Drake finds herself in July), with the album being released in October.

This has an air of "original research" about it, and while the single wasn't released until September, the album in October, the song had been recorded during the summer and I see no reason why the Prince Charming image could not have been used during the accompanying tour. How sure are we that the posters were for a released single? --Tony Sidaway 22:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To User:Zipgun

[edit]

Please stop adding the unsourced statement. Cite it first please. WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN it seems the winds have stopped... 17:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's been blocked. --Tony Sidaway 19:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Was it me or did Gene Hunt have modern mobile phones attatched to his body in episode 7 when he gets shot? They didn't look like mobiles you could get in 1981 that was for sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.141.87 (talk) 12:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ident

[edit]

Was this used for the lead-in? Or did they just use these? What's the ident that leads into it? Is it the yellow/blue BBC1 globe or is it the BBCone circles idents? --ÆAUSSIEevilÆ 00:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The globe hasn't been used since the 70's which is why they used it on Life On Mars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benv-b92 (talk • contribs) 21:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Teamashestoashes.jpg

[edit]

Image:Teamashestoashes.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have Ashes to Ashes made a mistake?

[edit]

DI Alex Drake arrives at Friday, 17 July 1981 according to the computer on Episode 1 but near the end of Epsiode 2 it shows that she didn't arrive till Monday, 20 July 1981. Have I just spotted a mistake that can be added to the trivia of Ashes to Ashes? Onshore —Preceding comment was added at 15:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, that would be original research. Wikipedia is not a place for personal observations - the Quattro reference is an exception because Glenister has specifically commented on it. --McGeddon (talk) 15:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's fiction. Only things that actually happened in the real world are guaranteed to happen on the right day--and there's even sometimes some confusion over this. At worst it's a minor continuity error. --Tony 16:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Tyler

[edit]

There's a passage in the continuity section that says:

. In 1980 he [Tyler] drove his car into a river during a car chase and is presumed dead, though the body was never found.

I've removed a recently added sentence:

This leaves the possibility of Tylers return possible in a later episode or series.

John Simm has stated publicly that he thinks he's taken Sam Tyler as far as he can, so it's not useful to speculate about a possible return, and even a statement like the above gives undue weight to a quite remote possibility. --Tony 18:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why would Alex imagine him up anyway?--86.43.64.115 (talk) 14:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope they bring him back in the finale of the whole show. - Najhoant Rieper

Three series?

[edit]

It says in the header that Matthew Graham has claimed the show is to run for three series total. Can we get this sourced? Tphi (talk) 22:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not found anything concrete, but I found an interview that talks about the potetial for a third series. Biscit (talk) 14:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. Interesting read as well :) Tphi (talk) 16:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Error observed in series 2

[edit]

Unfotunately I cannot put this in the article as it amounts to original research, but a quoted source would be nice to find. In the fist episode (set in 1982) Gene Hunt refers to Princess Margaret as being sixth in line to the throne. Zara Phillips (b. May 1981) was sixth in line and therefore Princess Margaret was seventh Dainamo (talk) 15:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Rose

[edit]

In the 11 May episode there is reference both to Sam Tyler, and Operation Rose: is this a direct reference to Sam's surname link to Dr Who's Rose Tyler? Jackiespeel (talk) 17:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I very much doubt it. magnius (talk) 18:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes there are "scriptwriters' in-jokes" (whether or not intended to be picked up by viewers) Jackiespeel (talk) 20:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Time travel

[edit]

Is it really fair to describe the series as time travel? It's left vague as to whether the main character is travelling in time or imagining himself being there while in a coma, so wouldn't it be better to remove that from the info box? Alastairward (talk) 21:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Time travel can mean many things, and the show is based around the idea of a person finding themselves in a different time, whether physically or mentally, so the description still seems apt. magnius (talk) 21:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Police Woman/Police Officer

[edit]

It seems we need to discuss this to sort this out. It's been listed as Alex Drake being a police officer for as long as the article has been up as far as I've seen, but now suddenly it's been changed to be "more descriptive" and she's being called a police woman. Now I'm not a feminist or anything, and I'd leave it be if that's how it was meant to be, but I'm pretty sure they call everyone who works in the police force a police officer now to be PC.

Just because the show is set in 1983 does not mean we describe her as being a police woman because "that's what they called them then", but even if we have to (is there a Wiki rule on that?) Alex Drake is from 2008 where they're called police officers.

I just felt some discussion was in order so if it gets changed back to "police woman" after me changing it back the 2nd time we can link to the discussion were it's been agreed upon.

I really can't believe I'm posting this though since it's really a non-issue butI'd like to avid further edit-wars. 77.96.95.251 (talk) 02:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been watching this edit war with some amusement and interest. For my own part, I think it's more appropriate to leave it as "police officer" for two reasons; one that you note 77.96.95.251 (can I call you 77, heh) which is that Alex is from modern times and likely wouldn't call herself a police woman. The other is harder to articulate; it is the term more in use now, and therefore is likely to sound less out of place to readers. Were the show itself to do a gag where Gene called her a police woman and she did a double take, that would be something to mention. But as an encyclopedia, it seems the goal should be to use the more identifiable terminology. Mind you I'm a yank, so it could be I'm way off base on usage for the U.K.; given that this is a U.K. series I defer to the U.K. editors' wisdom. Millahnna (mouse)talk 02:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly my point, they call them police officers in the UK now because it's more politically correct, and the wiki page police officer links to states they can also be called a policeman or policewoman so it's useless to keep changing it. Someone edited it back saying "either is correct so stop changing it" but it was written as police officer first so surely those changing it to police woman are the ones changing it and being nitpicky over it.
If it carries on though I'm just going to leave it. 77.96.95.251 (talk) 11:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I prefer "police woman" over "police officer" as it carries more information - especially as the character name could be male or female. The BBC bio (written as if in 1981) says "female Police officer" - I propose we use that term (a) because the BBC do, and (b) it seems like a good compromise. I42 (talk) 12:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I still think policewoman would make sense as her gender is significant in the program and it is a word that is commonly used, but I'm not going to sleep over it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.28.0.20 (talk) 15:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess her gender is important, but is it really that commonly used? Ah well, I think female police officer is the best way so everyone is happy.
You could argue that we'd have to put "policeman" or "male police officer" for Sam Tyler since his name could be either gender also. But I agree it's best if we use this since the Beeb also use it. 77.96.95.251 (talk) 18:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Funny, until now I'd never noticed that both series' had leads with gender neutral names. That seems like a good compromise though and for people who have seen Life on Mars but not A2A it might help clarify. Millahnna (mouse)talk 21:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The gender of Alex and Sam isn't that important until you get into parts of the article where the gender does matter, at which point, among other clues, the words "his", "he", "him", "her", "she" will tend to appear. This is why those parts of speech exist. --TS 04:24, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Series 3 (1983), Episode 1

[edit]

I'm gonna say OMG as having all of Life on Mars and all of Ashes to Ashes upto series 2 on DVD but either I'm very drunk but the same actress was in the first episode of Series 2 and 3. And no not regular cast but a also staring cast, if that makes sense, so I don't know her name but I had to mention. Would someone please kindly correct me on this :-) onshore

Sport relief 2010

[edit]

This isn't canon, but a section about the Sport relief segment might be order noting guest appearances by sports figures,etc. I did find it quite funny! Crocus57 (talk) 03:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Useful source

[edit]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/tvandradioblog/2010/may/21/ashes-to-ashes-final-episode - Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Last episode question

[edit]

Is the b/w clip from Dixon of Dock Green? Jackiespeel (talk) 20:25, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It was used because Jack Warner (the actor who plays Dixon) also played an officer in The Blue Lamp, and was murdered. The character was brought "back from the dead" to feature in Dixon of Dock Green.Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 20:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've just found this this which will also help answer your question. However, you should bear in mind that the "back from the dead" thing was not mentioned in the actual programme as it had nothing to do with the supernatural, simply the idea of the character.

Plot Spoilers

[edit]

Isn't the updated plot synopsis too explicit now? Anyone reading this article prior to watching the series will immediately find out the plot twist. House style across Wikipedia seems to veer between including spoilers (sometimes with a warning note) and leaving ending details ambiguous: which is correct? SLR (talk) 00:50, 23 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.6.10.6 (talk) [reply]

I agree. I'm aware that Wikipedia will allow spoilers, but I think in this case the ending being kept secret until you've seen it all is vital. As a short overview to the series anyway, it's not actually that important, the series as a whole was about Alex waking up in 1981 and trying to come to terms with her surroundings and making attempts to return to her own time. The first 23 episodes (out of 24) are not about a dead woman. I created the article List of Tales of the Unexpected episodes, and not once did I put the "reveal" into the synopses, as this would have made watching any of the series pointless. I think in exceptional cases, spoilers should not be allowed.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 16:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We no longer use spoiler warnings in articles, nor do we remove or omit significant information about a drama or other work of fiction to avoid "spoiling" the work. In that respect and many others, Wikipedia differs greatly from fan websites. Tasty monster (=TS ) 17:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is a very poor policy. Wikipedia SHOULD use spoiler warnings. I don't advocate "omitting significant information", and I agree that in the interest of completeness a place should be found for reporting the surprise plot twist. But there has to be some sort of balance. If I had come upon this article before having seen the concluding episode, I would have been extremely disappointed that you spoiled it for me. It would make me much less likely to ever visit Wikipedia in the future. 70.60.179.93 (talk) 18:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The reason we don't say that an article may contain spoilers is because it is expected that the topic of an article will be covered in detail ... so a spoiler warning is simply unnecessary. Please see WP:SPOILER. --JD554 (talk) 19:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please remove the spoilers, I feel like I've just been assaulted and robbed of any enjoyment that I may have derived from watching the series. I think most people are just looking for a rundown of the characters and plot, it's just asinine to keep this in the article when you know people are going to be coming here to see if they might be interested in watching the series. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.255.120.203 (talk) 05:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, sorry but this is an encyclopedia. All articles are there to be full and complete (where possible) examinations of the subject, and that means including full details of endings and plots. magnius (talk) 09:56, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, sorry, but the details in the questionable portion go beyond encyclopedic explanation and delve into trivia. The description of the final episode is the only entry of its kind in this article. There is no other explicit exposition detailing any other major plot point of the show. Such explicit plot "spoilers" don't add to the article and belong in the 'List Of Episodes' article where they fit in to the description of each episode's plot. Also, although I haven't seen the episode in question, it's also unsourced and original research, I may interpret the episode differently upon viewing it myself. - 214.13.35.169 (talk) 19:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why would anyone wishing to remain unspoiled proceed to read a sub-section titled "Ending" under the heading of "Plot"? Wikipedia articles are not responsible for a person's lack of impulse control. Millahnna (mouse)talk 21:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems unacceptable (and unnecessary) to me to have the key to the entire series revealed right at the top of the article. Anyone looking for information about earlier episodes (i.e. Series 1) will immediately stumble unintentionally on the massive spoiler, as I did when I was looking for information about the first episode of series 3. I'm not particularly into moaning about spoilers myself, but it was pretty annoying, and the condescending attitudes in this thread really don't help either. Why can it not be moved further down the article? Rolypole (talk) 22:07, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Schroedinger's Cat and the series

[edit]

So - are the LOM and A2A series in a parallel timeline in which they are alive when in their original reality they are dead (and so 'real history' goes on and they can solve crimes etc), an intermediate afterlife, or what? Jackiespeel (talk) 21:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the place to discuss these matters in detail, but the final episode establishes that all "past timeline" events in both series take place in an intermediate afterlife to which the dead and near-dead have access. They easily forget that they are dead, or are confused. The exact reason for the anachronism isn't explained, and I've no doubt this is a hot topic of conversation at forums like The Railway Arms. Tasty monster (=TS ) 06:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More a comment quickly written in passing (and to get in the SC reference): but the events are set in real history and the characters move forward in time (and not wanting to get involved in a particular fanfic).

At what stage in the five series was this ending decided upon? Jackiespeel (talk) 14:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'The alternative reality in which the characters operate' can be used to 'explain' the object anachronisms noted: and there is no obvious non-fanficcery explanation for the historical timeslippage (unless possibly 'when they decided that joining the police force would be a good idea). And the reason why Gene Hunt does not go into The Railway Arms himself (and let someone else take on his role) is no doubt also being discussed on The Railway Arms forum.

Whatever our pet interests we all have an occasional 'passing visit' to areas where there are forums for those wishing a longer term discussion. Jackiespeel (talk) 15:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SPOILER

[edit]

Come on! What about spoiling two series with just one line?????

(...) The final episode reveals that the Life on Mars/Ashes to Ashes world is a form of limbo for "restless dead" police officers (...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.12.16.185 (talk • contribs)

I agree - this is crazy - if you google Ashes to Ashes this is the top hit, and the Google preview of the link includes that first sentence of 1.1 Ending - ruining the show for anyone new who Googles the show. Can we restructure the page somehow or trick Google to grab a different bit? Or just delete the "ending" section from the page (is it really necessary to write that down?) - alexbowyer —Preceding undated comment added 00:05, 15 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]

See WP:Spoiler Wikipedia is not censored and such information should not be removed because some hypothetical reader who wants to see it hasn't done so and may read it here first. In this case it is very hypothetical as the program has been broadcast more than once and released on DVD. Or we would have no plot information, no sport results, no Oscar results in case someone, somewhere had not seen the TV program and did not want it spoiled for them.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 01:22, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just googled Ashes to Ashes and sure enough the very line they have plucked out in the preview text is the ending, which seems incredibly harsh. I understand that within the article - you shouldn't read the "Ending" section if you haven't seen it, but it's unavoidable via Google. Any way of changing that? Probably not!--Tuzapicabit (talk) 12:16, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, this isn't about WP:Spoiler. In this case it is the description text on google. Since google is probably the first place anyone new to the show is going to look up information to it, it just seems a bit cruel. And not very informative. As a search description you should have something more like the first line of the article: "Ashes to Ashes is a British science fiction and police procedural drama television series, serving as the sequel to Life on Mars." How many people are actually going to search for information about the ending of Ashes to Ashes by simply searching "Ashes to Ashes" in google?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.147.188 (talk) 08:01, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ashes to Ashes (TV series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:22, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Ashes to Ashes (TV series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:55, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Ashes to Ashes (TV series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:10, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Taken from article

[edit]

This had nothing to do with Critical Reception.

In 2012, the die-cast toys and collectable manufacturer Corgi released a 1:43 scale model of the Audi Quattro and a two-piece set featuring the Quattro that has been "shot-up" and a Ford Granada police car which featured in a chase in one of the later episodes.[1]

References

  1. ^ "Ashes to Ashes set – Audi quattro & Ford Granada 2.8 Mk2 – Police". Product Code: CC02799. Corgi Diecast Models. Archived from the original on 27 September 2013.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ashes_to_Ashes_(British_TV_series)&oldid=1205399454"