#31
Misanthropologist (d) wrote:
Hmm, ok (x5) ;)
I only thought she might be more relevant depending on what exactly the truth of his situation was. But as it was, I don’t think they copped out on an answer.
Posted on Fri, 13 April 2007 at 11:03
#32
Dennis wrote:
The only part of Life On Mars I have seen is the Camberwick Green clip elsewhere on these ‘ere boards (and pretty damn funny it is too - if the whole thing’s as good as that, no wonder people have been w*nking off all over it).
I wanted to see it all on DVD, but was worried the ending would be spoilt for me.
Fortunatley, those who DID see it seem to all have a different idea of what actually happened, so now it’s like one of those DVD films where they put alternate endings on as extras.
Posted on Fri, 13 April 2007 at 11:22
#33
Charlie wrote:
mrs h wrote:
I just would have liked to know why it was that every time she showed up it was really scary - I thought she was going to turn out to be someone relevant in his life or something - like a little sister that died, maybe.
But probably that’s because I didn’t find her very believable as the test card girl. I remember the test card girl very well. She had wavier hair and a squarer jaw…
Posted on Fri, 13 April 2007 at 16:33
#34
Misanthropologist (d) wrote:
Posted on Fri, 13 April 2007 at 17:33
#35
Dermot (The Derm) wrote:
^That’s the BBC’s official response to “What the fuck was the end of ‘Life On Mars’ about?”
Seriously
Posted on Fri, 13 April 2007 at 17:41
#36
mrs h wrote:
It’s about love :)
And the hideousness of 2007 :(
*jumps off roof*
Posted on Fri, 13 April 2007 at 17:49
#37
3ddo-on-the-balcony (eddo) wrote:
Mrs Balcony and I watched the series and we enjoyed it a lot. Fortunately we can watch a lot of good quality British drama on Dutch and Belgian tv, and BBC 1 and 2.
Posted on Fri, 13 April 2007 at 23:32
#38
Dennis wrote:
I know this is an old thread, but I missed the first few episodes so have been saving the series until Santa brought me the DVD, so I have only just watched the thing.
What a brilliant piece of TV! Loved it. And is it just me, or does Gene Hunt seem like a slightly harder/ cooler/ slimmer/ chirpier version of our very own Taunty Dan?!
Posted on Mon, 5 January 2009 at 15:07
#39
mrs h wrote:
If by ‘Taunty Dan’ you mean ‘unknown womble who’s never posted before but is quite cool’ then yes, I would agree with you. If you actually mean Taunty Dan then you should get somebody to wake you up :)
Posted on Mon, 5 January 2009 at 17:30
#40
Dennis wrote:
All I meant, to be fair, is that Dan has a long-ish brown coat that looks like his dad owned it in 1973. And he hangs round with people who wear flares and bad 70’s shirts. Well, me, to be precise… :(
Posted on Mon, 5 January 2009 at 17:32
#41
mrs h wrote:
Does he? I always imagined him to be a bit more 80s - New romantic, ruffly shirts, perm … all that sort of stuff. I’m actually quite relieved!
Posted on Mon, 5 January 2009 at 17:35
#42
Taunty Dan wrote:
Dennis wrote:
I know this is an old thread, but I missed the first few episodes so have been saving the series until Santa brought me the DVD, so I have only just watched the thing.
What a brilliant piece of TV! Loved it. And is it just me, or does Gene Hunt seem like a slightly harder/ cooler/ slimmer/ chirpier version of our very own Taunty Dan?!
I’d be horrified if it weren’t for the fact i’ve heard this several times before! :D And the fact i get called “gene hunt” in rhyming slang…
Posted on Mon, 5 January 2009 at 20:57 in reply to an earlier post
#43
Dennis wrote:
Mate, I have heard the “Beaker off the Muppets” comparisons a million times before too, but they still sting like lemon juice in a paper cut… :(
Posted on Tue, 6 January 2009 at 09:57
#44
Misanthropologist (d) wrote:
Dennis wrote:
And is it just me, or does Gene Hunt seem like a slightly harder/ cooler/ slimmer/ chirpier version of our very own Taunty Dan?!
Hmm. Remove ‘slightly’ and all the ‘-er’s from that sentence and… I think I’d still say ‘No, Dan looks more like a man in a pink floral dress. Because that’s what he is.’
Posted on Tue, 6 January 2009 at 11:58 in reply to an earlier post