But the Film is a Saddening Bore/’Cause I Wrote it Ten Times Before

I really don't know what to think about Ashes To Ashes. Not least this is because I managed to miss the second episode. I'm sure my opinion is slightly coloured by the fact that Life On Mars is one of my all-time favourite songs and I never really rated Ashes To Ashes anything like as much.

The first thing that struck me about the opening episode was the singing. I still don't understand why the gunman was singing "I'm happy, hope you're happy" before she was shot, except that that's the message the action man is supposed to give. One can only assume that she has a tumor as well and she was out of it long before she woke up in 1981. That, or the gunman had watched Life On Mars and wanted to fuck with her head.

I was also slightly annoyed by the ending. Okay, you've set up the series. But after all the "how do you know my parents" routine, it's now impossible for that plotline to be resolved until the series ends, presumably either a month and a half or a year from now.

But all of the above notwithstanding, there is one thing about the show I absolutely loved:

Look, all right. Just relax. OK, 'Chris'? I know how this goes. Hunt's the bullish one, Ray's the misogynistic one, and you're the nervous one, blah blah blah. I don't care. I am going to stop Arthur Layton because that could be the mental trigger to get me out of here. OK?

It's just so pleasingly self-aware. Like in Voyager, when Tom Paris points out that every time they find what appears to be a way back to Earth, something goes unexpectedly wrong. Or in Trumpton when Captain Flack gets all excited when he thinks there's finally a real fire. The characters in TV shows should notice when similar things keep happening. Otherwise it just starts to look ridiculous.

The test of this show, I think, will be in how well it keeps Drake interested without getting her thinking that her 1981 world is real. If she thinks it's real, it'll just be Life On Mars again. If she doesn't care what happens to the imaginary people in her head then the whole show will descend into farce.

Actually, that would be much better. I hope she masters the art of lucid dreaming and learns to create any object she likes. It'd be like a gritty version of Penny Crayon, except with marginally more sensible clothes.

Well, "Sam Tyler" IS an anagram of "Masterly"...

A transcript of this Saturday's Doctor Who finalé has leaked online. Apparently. Here it is for your reading pleasure:

[The earth is saved. The Doctor looks at the Master with pure hate. The Master weeps, defeated.]

MASTER
You've done it again, Doctor. Just like all the other times.

DOCTOR
Leave now. Leave this planet in peace.

MASTER
But... I haven't got a TARDIS. And what's to stop me coming up with another evil plan?

DOCTOR
Hmm... good point. Well, guess I'll just have to use this on you!

[The Doctor pulls out the Timelord-to-Humanifyer that kept showing up every other episode]

MASTER
Nooo!!

[Cut to: an unconcious Master in the TARDIS with the Doctor and Martha]

MARTHA
So, where are you going to take him? And how will you make sure he doesn't turn back?

DOCTOR
Well, I thought I'd dump him in 1973. He'll think he's a cop or something. I'll give him a complicated backstory to explain his flashbacks from 2007. Let's say.. he was in a car accident and just woke up in 1973. And have him question whether he is mad, in a coma, or back in time.

MARTHA
That sounds ridiculous.

Well, that's how I want it to end anyway. The amount of people who think the Toclafene are actually alternate-universe Daleks is just silly. I mean, why would Russel T Davies bring back the Daleks just for the season finalé?

Oh.

It's The Freakiest Show

This time last week, I'd never seen Life On Mars. Doctor Who represented the first time I'd ever seen John Simm travel backwards through time. Recently I have seen the first couple of episodes, and I remain fairly convinced that Doctor Who remains the only time I've seen John Simm travel backwards through time.

I've heard that the ending of Life On Mars was terribly ambiguous, but I've not seen that, and to be fair the start was wholly unambiguous. A man is hit very hard by a car, then he has a strange little vision, then he wakes up in a slightly wrong version of the past, hearing random snippets of hospital conversation, in a coincidentally very similar situation to what he was doing in 2006.

So what are the theories? Is he mad, in a coma, or back in time? Well, he's clearly in a coma. I mean, sure, I can't prove he's not actually travelled back in time, and the fact that there's a huge bridge missing isn't just artistic license, and the hospital snippets aren't just hallucinations, and the fact he landed in the past with an ID and a coherent backstory aren't just, er, whatever would explain landing in the past with a backstory. And I can't prove he isn't a genuine 1973 cop who just imagined his entire life from 1969 to 2006 (and again, the fact that there's a huge bridge missing isn't just artistic license, and the hospital snippets aren't just hallucinations). Or maybe he's in a coma and back in time somehow, although that still raises all the same questions about the bridge and his backstory. But really, which is more likely? (Hint: "in a coma" is necessarily more likely than "in a coma and back in time".)

I tell you, that Richard Dawkins would have a word or two to say about believing the back-in-time version.