egafd.com

Which begs the question- Ashes to Ashes...a woman detective has an accident- and wakes up with Gene Hunt and Ray. In the Met. In 1981.

She can't be in Sam's imagination- so the 1973 isn't of Sam's creation....it is a version of Oz...Frank Morgan as the wizard, putting things right.

The last scene last night of the Granada driving away - it may have been cobbles, but it sure as hell looked like a [Brown] Brick Road.

colonel wrote:

> Would they be the same in his world, though?

Yes they would, remember in series 1 when the office had a sweepstake on the Grand National, Gene picked an 'unknown' Red Rum that Sam was VERY eager to trade with.
Gene asked if he'd had 'inside information'
And Sam also spoke of Mobile Phones and iPods, so if they existed, why not 'sporting fixtures' and horrid Xmas #1's?

If you are going to make a cop drama set in the 70s then do just that not this charade set in times 30 years apart, bring back the sweeney !thumbsup!

It doesn't matter what you make----historical dramas, cop shows, science fiction, whatever----they will always be more about the time they were made than the time they are set.

You couldn't do a Sweeney today, because without the reference points and an understanding of the time, it would just seem brutal and stupid. The original Star Trek looks naively stupid now, and any attempt to recreate that show as it went out would just be embarrassing. But at the time---with the cold war in full swing, the civil rights movement, the Vietnam war--- it seemed like a beacon of hope when there seemed to be none.

Worth bearing in mind that the blessed Brian Blessed said the cast of I, Claudius (including wonderful acting talents such as Sian Phillips and John Hurt) couldn't get the characters until the director said, "It's the Mafia." Take away the cultural or pop references, and it can seem bewildering.

WPC Annie Cartwright aka Liz White.

Is it me or is there something deliciously gorgeous about her?

A bloody good point very well made that man!!

I all ways think the best example of this is the "Western" genre. Compare the classic era of westerns to those made in the 70s 80s and 90s and you can clearly see how they are more a statement about the time in which they were made as oppose to the era the were trying to depict. I mean compare "The Searchers" say to "Butch and Sundance" or even "Young guns"

The Wersterns made by the likes of John Ford were all ways they tale of the lone strong man trying to do the best he can. The films made in the 60s and 70s all ways seem to be about revolting against the system. And films such as "Young Guns" "Posse" and "The unforgiven" are little more than gang warfare tales set in the 19th century.

But no matter where or when they were made on the whole they made for great cinema (Butch and and Sundance is one of the greatest films ever made imho as is the wild bunch) So it would be quite interesting to see what they can do with the 70s police genre. All though having waffled all that (crap im sure some of you will think) I do firmly believe that "The Sweeny" should be left well and truelly alone!!

Sorry bit of a ramble there I hope no one minds!!

Peace out

BB

Caractacus wrote:

> It doesn't matter what you make----historical dramas, cop
> shows, science fiction, whatever----they will always be more
> about the time they were made than the time they are set.
>
> You couldn't do a Sweeney today, because without the reference
> points and an understanding of the time, it would just seem
> brutal and stupid.

planeterotica wrote:

There are many programmes made that are set in earlier times and they dont need to have this thing about moving from the past to the present and back again we all no its not possible and for me it just makes the programme less realistic, as for not making the Sweeney again dosnt the Flying Squad exist anymore if they do then you make it in the present time as the Sweeney of the 70s was.

Caractacus wrote:

> The original Star Trek looks naively stupid now, and any attempt to recreate that show as it went out would just be embarrassing. But at the time---with the cold war in full swing, the civil rights movement, the Vietnam war--- it seemed like a beacon of hope when there seemed to be none.

Fair point, but as much as anything else, wasn't ST about the Americanization of other worlds, particularly with regards to codes of conduct and various other moral quandaries differing races face (justice, freedom etc)? The space race of the era plays its part here too, perhaps.

It's worth noting that when they brought it back with ST:TNG in the late eighties they'd added a sheen of quasi-liberalism and a more politically even cast, yet largely carried on much as before.

Naive, yes, but still......a bit worrying.

I think Hugh Grant and Rupert Everett would be perfect for Regan and Carter.

i thought the prime directive in the star treks was to *not get involved* and just study. surely the direct opposite of america!

the only exception was the captain - kirks prime directive was to poke anything from another planet.