March 28, 2007

Life on Mars: The ending?

Writing about web page http://www.bbc.co.uk/lifeonmars/series2/

Life on Mars TV showI’m thoroughly enjoying the current (second) series of Life on Mars. It’s a bit more issues-driven than I remember the first series being, but the fantastic lead performances and the clever integration of the episodic elements with the over-arching story arc make it hugely entertaining.

What I’m wondering about, though, is what the resolution is going to be. The makers have announced that this is the final series and that there will be an explanation/resolution of Sam Tyler’s predicament. We’ve now seen six of the eight episodes, so there isn’t long to go before the story has to get wrapped up somehow. There only seem to be a certain number of possibilities:-

  1. Sam wakes up back in 2006, and it’s made clear that all the events of 1973 only actually took place in his mind. Perhaps after he wakes up he checks the records and discovers that there never was a Gene Hunt working in Manchester in 1973.
  2. Sam wakes up back in 2006, and it’s made clear that he really did go back in time. Perhaps he gets to go and visit the – presumably rather elderly by now – Gene Hunt, or Annie Cartwright, (or, more sadly, visit their graves?) and they share their recollections of 1973. Be a bit freaky for the old people seeing Sam Tyler thirty-odd years later, aged not a day, though.
  3. Sam stays in 1973. I think it would be a difficult ending to pull off if we’re led to believe that he’s really in a coma in 2006 and by staying in 1973, the writers are also condemning 2006 Sam to remain in a coma indefinitely. But could 2006 Sam die but 1973 Sam survive? Or could we have the premise reversed on us, and discover that actually Sam has only ever existed in 1973 and he just has an exceptionally vivid imagination, a tendency to hallucinate, and a good strike rate for predictions of the future? It seems unlikely; we’ve seen 2006 Sam so clearly and unambiguously, and his knowledge is so comprehensive, that it would feel like a cheat to claim that none of it was real.

Until the latest episode (episode 6), I leant towards the idea that he’d get back to 2006. But in episode 6, Sam seemed to be moving towards severing some of his ties with his 2006 life, which makes me less certain than I was; I’m now evenly split between him staying in 1973 and getting back to 2006.

The other intriguing question, I think, is whether there’ll be some explanation or reason for the whole thing. If he really is back in time, was he sent back for a purpose? Is there something he has to do or realise before he can get back? If he was “sent” back, will the makers attempt to explain how, or by whom, or (more wisely, I think) just do a Groundhog Day and not explain how or why the magic happened. I suspect that there will come a point in episode 7 or 8 where it becomes clear to Sam what he has to do to get back (and that might involve dying in 1973) and he’ll be able to choose whether he does what’s needed, or elects to remain in 1973, and the suspense of the last episode will be seeing which choice he makes.


- 50 comments by 3 or more people Not publicly viewable

[Skip to the latest comment]
  1. And hopefully some explanations, too… for example, who is the man in Hyde (?) who rings him at his desk from time to time but asked not to be called back? Or will that be left as just part of the mystery.

    I wondered, too, if last night’s ‘moving on’ episode was to allow for some kind of brief romantic involvement with Annie before the end since they seem so friendly at present. Or is ‘Annie’ actually one of the nurses in the acute medical unit he’s comatose in that he will get friendly with when he wakes up. (Because everyone knows that nurses always get a soft spot for their patients on tv/films.)

    Even more cheesily – and therefore where my money is presently ‘cos it’s the sort of thing that scriptwriters these days like to shove in to tie up the loose ends – are all the characters in ‘1973’ actually present day people he has semi-consciously glimpsed wandering around the hospital ward he is laying in – Gene in a white coat with a stethoscope barking out orders to his juniors, anyone? He has then placed them all in his 1973 world because his brain has regressed to the safety of childhood because of the seriousness of his injuries but also because something happened to him when he was 5 and the last episode sees him coming to terms with the loss of, say, his older brother in that year whose memories have since been buried? Cue lots of manly tears as he realises it wasn’t his fault that his older brother fell from the disused Mancunian mill loft they were both playing in leaving him with a sense of abandonment until he was rescued by the police?

    Gosh, I should get a job as a BBC scriptwriter for all that!

    28 Mar 2007, 11:45

  2. John Dale

    Yeah. And are there linguistic clues too? Gene Hunt seems to be too blatant a pun on the search for relatives to be accidental, and likewise the fact that Sam has supposedly come from Hyde.

    28 Mar 2007, 13:31

  3. Steve Rumsby

    Option 1 is a bit boring, really. This was all just Sam dreaming while in a coma? This would be a bit of a let-down as an explanation, wouldn’t it?

    Option 3 feels like a bit of a let down too, doesn’t it?

    Option 2 has been hinted at in previous episodes. One of the conversations with the man on the phone talked about him being “sent” to do something, I think? Or is my memory playing tricks? But the problem with option 2 is that the technology to do this doesn’t actually exist in 2006. He can’t have been sent back to 1973 from 2006. Maybe there’s a twist, though. Perhaps he was sent back from a time further in the future? In 1973 he obviously has a restricted memory of 2006. He remembers 21sst century people and police techniques, but not being sent back in time, nor any details of why. So clearly we can’t completely trust his memory of where he comes from. His memory has been affected either by the time travel process, or by the people who sent him for some reason. So maybe his memory of coming from 2006 is wrong (or a plant)?

    Or maybe I’ve just been thinking about it too hard:-)

    28 Mar 2007, 13:52

  4. John Dale

    The trouble with a “He’s not really from 2006 at all” ending is that it would be completely out of left field, and I think it would be less satisfying because of that. It’s a bit deus ex machina to produce an eleventh hour revelation that nothing we’ve been watching has been true, or at least, not the important part of the truth. I think and hope that the ending will draw upon everything that we’ve seen thus far – the man from Hyde, the phone calls, the TV sequences and so on – rather than under-cutting it all.

    28 Mar 2007, 14:00

  5. The man from Hyde would fit in with my theory about the missing sibling… in a kind of “don’t go there, hide!” way… though I fear my application for scriptwriter might now be handed in at the Eastenders office, instead of Drama.

    And because I’m thinking about it too hard, too, Dr Gene Hunt must be the organ transplant harvester in the ward in 2006 who is actually getting pretty cross and shouting a lot because he’s waiting for Sam to die so he can start cherry picking!

    28 Mar 2007, 14:16

  6. Apparently, there may be a spin off called “Ashes to Ashes” which is a Gene Hunt vehicle so we may actually get no resolution whatsoever.

    Another theory I’ve seen elsewhere is that Sam has another accident or is shot up at the end of the final episode and goes off to another year, thus perpetuating the sci-fi aspect of the show…

    28 Mar 2007, 14:36

  7. Philippa Cross

    There was a comment from the man on the phone about Sam being sent to do something – and something like Sam having to hold on a bit longer (which suggests a return to 2006). That’s been the only real reference of that sort (i.e. that’s he’s on a mission, placed there deliberately), I think, but given how strong the writing is, I would hope it was not a careless comment which will not particularly fit with whatever final resolution, or worse, one which was put in to confuse – though again I think that is unlikely as the writing is too intelligent and careful for that. But I agree that Sam was seemingly much happier with the concept of being in 1973 in last night’s episode. Perhaps he will come to accept it, start a relationship with Annie etc – only to be dragged back to 2006. In fact I could see a final episode around how strange/disorientated/out of place he feels back in the force in 2006. It was better in the old days, you know….

    28 Mar 2007, 14:47

  8. The BBC have already (sort of) used option 3 once before to end a series – anyone else recall ‘Goodnight Sweetheart’?

    28 Mar 2007, 15:26

  9. John Dale

    I did wonder idly whether they had in mind one of those time-travel resolution/paradox devices where Sam does something in 1973 which means that his accident in 2006 simply won’t happen. He’s hit by the car because he’s stricken by grief over his girlfriend’s kidnapping and isn’t paying attention. So if he can prevent the kidnapping, or tell himself to watch out, or otherwise influence events, then paradoxically, he won’t get knocked down and won’t need to go back in time to prevent it. Or will he? My head hurts!

    Endings like this are a bit of a cliche, though; we’ve seen them in Star Trek, Red Dwarf, the Terminator films, Futurama, Back to the Future and many more.

    28 Mar 2007, 15:38

  10. James

    I must admit I haven’t watched the programme enough to know if they’ve already answered this (I like it, but never have the time). Why is he bothering to work as a copper (save for having to do so initially to earn a crust and see out his notice period)? If I went back to some point like 1973, say 1984 for argument’s sake I’d whip down to the bookmakers and clean up on all the sports/election results that year. Then I’d buy a load of property I’d know was going to appreciate enormously, and set about the probably trickier task of trying to seduce girls with my amazing abilities to predict things.

    Should I get bored or develop more of a social conscience, I’d stand for public office and try to pre-empt all the wars I knew were coming (this would get tricky, since whatever happened in their place might be a lot worse – as in Stephen Fry’s novel Making History, when Germany became a lot more powerful and a lot more fascist in Hitler’s absence).

    29 Mar 2007, 11:37

  11. Steve Rumsby

    That’s an interesting idea, but if you unexpectedly found yourself in 1973 how likely are you to know such things? Maybe you are a big sports fan and you do know who won the Cup Final, or whatever, but I don’t. How many people would? Now, if you had forewarning and could prepare…

    I guess buying Microsoft or Apple shares might be a good idea, too!

    Or maybe he can’t remember such things precisely to prevent him from changing the future too much? A feature of 2006’s time travel technology?

    29 Mar 2007, 11:47

  12. James

    Just off the top of my head I can’t think of any 1973 sports results (closest being the 1975 cricket world cup, though just thinking of that brought to mind the the Aussies winning the Ashes (plus ca change) in 1974/5, Jeff Thomson’s breakthrough series.

    But most middle class people (if I can use that term) would remember something from the era soon enough. You could, for example, bet on things like election results (stick a grand or so on ‘Britain having a woman PM by the end of the 70s’ would be a good one for the medium term). It wouldn’t take too long for one such event to come around and if you were clever about going to a number of different bookies (and usuing proxies) you’d clean up in short order. Then the odd periodic bet over the years each American election/major sporting event would keep things going nicely. Ah, why can’t I go back …

    29 Mar 2007, 12:39

  13. 1973 – Man Utd are soon to get relegated from division one :( Also England don’t qualify for the world cup. Negative betting would see me through alright.

    31 Mar 2007, 15:18

  14. John Dale

    The current Radio Times mentions that next week’s issue (dated 7th-14th April, on sale tomorrow, Tue 3rd April) will include a feature listing readers’ theories as to how Life on Mars will end. I’m sure that there’ll be more and better theories than I’ve come up with, but doesn’t it also suggest that they must be pretty confident about the quality and unguessability of the actual ending? I’d have thought it would spoil it slightly if they publish a reader’s guess which does in fact give the whole thing away. Perhaps they’ll just ignore any guesses which are too close to the mark.

    02 Apr 2007, 10:45

  15. Will

    Does any one remember quantum leap? it could be a bit like that, where hes gone into someones body in the past also called sam tylor, and a copper. If i remember rightly in quantum leap he had to complete a task in the past or prevent something, maybe thats what their getting at here.

    Another theory could be that a very old gene hunt ran him over in 2006, which means sam will have to kill gene or more likely, seeing last weeks trailer, has to bang him up for murder. Which could mean the last episode left open for the two seperate endings that were shot. After all switching gene hunts name round results in ‘HUNT GENE’...............I need to get out more !!!

    02 Apr 2007, 12:14

  16. Will

    Actually (i was bored)i think, before sam went back, gene hunt had been sent to jail for the murder of the boxing promoter and the day he got out, he ran tyler over(being familiar with the 70s erratic driving). now sam has to go back and clear his name from the case, thats his ticket home! well its an idea.

    02 Apr 2007, 18:27

  17. Fast Eddie

    I think Gene Hunt is Sam’s estranged Dad & was sent back to 1973 with Sam after crashing his car when he ran Sam over in the very first episode.

    (Gene as in DNA. Hunt as in SEARCH )

    Whether they are in some sort of telepathic coma or sent back in a Doctor Who style ‘rift’, i dunno.

    03 Apr 2007, 17:57

  18. will

    I like that idea about the dna search! even after just watching that episode im still no closer to finding out!

    03 Apr 2007, 22:19

  19. John Dale

    Well, tonight’s penultimate episode seemed to hint very strongly that Sam’s fate is somehow tied to Gene Hunt’s. And the usual trailer for next week’s episode was conspicuous by its absence. Can’t wait!

    03 Apr 2007, 22:21

  20. chris allen

    i belive, weell i think it could be one of two things,
    1) Sam is an old man dying and he is looking back over his life when it was good, ie 1973 when he was a young copper

    or

    2) Gene Hunt is the lead docter trying to sdave him thats why he is always against him, Ray is a docter who wants to turn the life support off, chris is a medical student, annie is a nurse , and the desk copper is a matron in the hospital

    or a ufo will pick them all up anfd destroy the world, my brain hurts

    it better be a good ending not one of those were they dont say anything cos that would be a complete **er

    04 Apr 2007, 12:58

  21. plain talker

    I have loved this show, and been intrigued by it, throughout both series. I am dying to know what the “truth” is.

    I definitely think that the characters from 1973 are people around Sam, in the hospital, “bleeding-through” into his coma.

    The drug-dealer episode last week got me thinking…

    When the raid went a bit Pete Tong, and sam ended up tied up, with the plugged-in iron on his chest, burning him… I wondered if that was Sam getting “zapped” with a defibrillator, in the 2006 reality, and that was how it has seeped through into his mind.

    04 Apr 2007, 23:12

  22. Cooje

    So the fact is this, any of the professional critics/writers who have previewed the final episode are agreed that it is a fabulous and fitting ending. I am on the edge of my seat already waiting to see it.

    My only comment on last nights episode;

    The irony of having Gene dress up in the tufty road safety outfit, after having run Sam over in the first episode, cannot be lost on us – surely a clue.

    05 Apr 2007, 08:27

  23. Rollsy71

    I didnt properly get into LoM untill the second series, but im completely hooked now! (Boxset series 1 & 2 is on order with Amazon!)
    I think its safe to say that because the series is being cut short at 2 series, the finale should be a cracker, regardless.
    Also the fact that Ashes to Ashes, the spin off series is in pre production, may have a pointer to the fact that Sam’s presence in ‘73 is not “all made up”....at least that’s how i see it.
    Fans of LoM are obviously gonna be gutted its over so soon but will have an immediate alternative fix to keep us all happy!

    Quality show and hats of to Auntie Beeb for comissioning it – makes me want to be a time travelling Marty McFly/Sam Tyler all over again!

    05 Apr 2007, 13:05

  24. Keith

    Sadly it is to end soon but I sympathise with both the two principal actors. Several months of living in 1973 was an incredible strain.

    Robert Glennister is to be particularly congratulated. Harder than Jack Regan and George Carter, Flying Squad, and, only in my opinion, on the same level as Charles Barlow and John Watt, of the Newtown CID

    I have had the privilege to serve with this type of senior officer and I mourn the passing of Gene Hunt almost as if he had been some one known to me personally.

    05 Apr 2007, 19:15

  25. Jace

    Yes there are many theories regarding the ending and I’m trying not to hope for too much – don’t want to be let down too hard.

    The ‘Ashes to Ashes’ series seems to blow the Wizard of Oz theory out of the water (everyone from 1973 being hospital attendants etc.) – unless it’s a medical drama.

    As for laying money with the bookies to make a financial killing – well even if you knew some results (Grand National etc.) you would still need some stake money, so Sam would need to work at something to raise it. Perhaps he is doing that. Then you would need a bookie prepared to lay big bets – not so easy back in 1973 without being in the know. (High street bookies had ridiculously small maximum pay-outs back then). Knowing Man Utd were going to be demoted would probably be useless information.

    Episode 6 cetainly seemed to lean towards Sam staying in 1973 – but that wasn’t built upon in episode 7 at all so my own pet theory is that Sam will simply save the day somehow, be emotionally returned to 2006 and some nonsense will probably be invented to half explain the time-leap but leave the actual substance of it a mystery. Probably for the best really – how do you give a logical explanation for something that is unlikely to actually happen in real life. (Sam visiting some of the retired characters back in 2006? Almost a bang on cert i my considered opinion).

    05 Apr 2007, 20:24

  26. will

    Im too confused but what ever the ending its gonna be impressive. I dont know if any one knew this but the guy that played the wizzard in wizzard of oz was called frank morgan and there was a dci frank morgan(the crazy guy from hyde guiding sam) in LOM. Also gene calls sam dorothey!! crazy or what!!

    06 Apr 2007, 01:16

  27. Col

    Personally i think we are all in a TV show and Life on Mars is reality….wonder if my credit card bills will be paid off in this finale… and i marry Claudia Shaffer (it has to be a TV series, she never ages, only TV make-up do that!

    06 Apr 2007, 01:32

  28. Hugh

    I’ve watched every episode of both series and for ages I was pretty convinced that Sam had actually been run down as a young boy in 1973 and been in a coma since. A lot of the imagery used in the series is very ‘child-focused’ – things like the Camberwick Green sketch, Basil Brush, etc which made me think he was viewing the 1973 world through a child’s eyes. I can remember in the first series when he meets his mother and she comments that her little lad wants to be a policeman when he grows up, so we know that he was keen to follow that career and maybe he has created this world in his mind, where he sees himself grown up as a copper? There are other clues too – and I was pretty convinced this was the story. BUT… then I remembered the episode where a criminal he put away in 1973 comes (presumably) to his hospital bed in 2006 and tries to kill him – a storyline that doesn’t really fit around my theory. Oh well, just have to wait til Tuesday night I guess….

    06 Apr 2007, 11:25

  29. Graham

    I have a theory that came to me last night. (I posted it somewhere else at the time and received some positive feedback)

    I don’t know if it fit’s all the criteria, but it may be that artistic licence has kicked in and gloss’s over the fiddly bits. And then again I could be completely wrong. right here goes…

    Think Quantum Leap. Think Astral Projection (or something similar).
    Why Quantum Leap (QL from now on)? Well, in QL, Sam travels back in time (but only within the period that he was alive) replacing other people but appearing as they are to everyone at that time to sort out some problem. And this was done with the aid of technology.

    In LoM, Sam has apparently travelled back in time (but only within the period that he was alive) and possibly replaced someone else called Sam Tyler (this is just part of the theory, so go with me on this), to sort out some problem/deal with and issue. And this was done with the aid of…
    Well, Astral Projection is where your concious mind leaves your body. I don’t know alot about it, but what I don know is that you remain tethered to your real body and you can go anywhere you want. With the LoM storyline, this could include time travel.
    Of course it might not actually be specifically Astral Projection. Who know’s where our minds go when we dream? And if they go anywhere, what about during a coma?

    In QL, Sam appears as himself to the viewer, but as the character he has possessed to the people around him. But he does see the character he is possessing in the mirror.

    In LoM, Sam appears as himself to the viewer, but we don’t know what the other people see.

    This explains a number of situations in that Sam can hear things around his 2006 body. And possibly those things may also effect him in some fashion.

    There is an argument that during AP, you cannot control/replace the mind of someone else. Apparently if your will is strong enough you can. Althought alot of what I know is based on that which I have heard, and to be honest there is no real hard evidence to support AP (which is why I mentioned ..or something similar).

    Oh and one more thing. Have you noticed that they are both called Sam!

    Just a thought.

    06 Apr 2007, 13:00

  30. lost soul

    Could it be that the 73 characters are manifestations of Sam`s phisical/emotional state whilst in the coma? For instance could DCI morgan be a anti-coma drug trying to work?

    06 Apr 2007, 16:15

  31. lost in space

    You never know, I don’t think you can rule anything out.

    06 Apr 2007, 19:32

  32. johnboy

    who knows???????!!! Roll on tuesday”””“

    06 Apr 2007, 21:58

  33. Juxtapose

    I can’t stand the programme myself and I’ve never been impressed by crooked punctuation marks either.

    07 Apr 2007, 11:27

  34. Claire

    The only reason I watched the first episode of LoM was because someone I knew was an extra, and I will be forever thankful to him, because straight away I was hooked on one of the best series I have ever seen(seeing as im 15, there havn’t been many other great series on in my lifetime…).

    And I cannot wait til Tuesday. I have been trying to work it all out but the plot ahs so many twists in it I just can’t figure it out, which is actually a good thing.

    Steer clear of the Daily mail – apparently they have published some massive spoiler about it – and the Sun is supposedly spoiling it on Tuesday. I would be so annoyed if I found out now…

    Lets hope its a good ending :)

    Claire xxx

    07 Apr 2007, 16:52

  35. Jonathan

    I loved life on mars! brillaint series, best bit of BBC writing in a long time!

    i think something to do with the original person that ran him over will be a big part to play, as we didnt get to see who it was in the first episode, it could be gene hunt, annie, or even himself? if he chose to stay in 1974 that is…

    either that, or at the beginning of the episode he wakes up, and decides he likes 1974 better, and kills himself, making him wake up permenantly in 1974.

    i hope there is a big time traval paradox ending, i like them! similar to back to the future, or blackadder back and forth.

    08 Apr 2007, 16:55

  36. Reg

    Has anyone read in the Radio times about it? Only in there they said that originally in episode 4 they were going to put in a sinister message that Basil Brush says while in the background on the tv that you would hear subconciously (sped up or backwords) Anyway, they said they had to eventually cut it but still left something in that part, I’ve been searching google for any mention but nothings shown up, so has anyone seen the clip in series one episode 4 where Basil B is on in the background? If so were you able to pick up on anything he says or that’s shown on the tv screen? Anyway great series.

    08 Apr 2007, 18:22

  37. Glen

    Sam has been shown to do things in 1973 that have led to changes (from his perspective) in 2006

    In Episode one Maya was kidnapped. After they caught Maya’s (potential) kinapper back in 1973 Sam got a message saying Maya was “now safe”

    In another episode he comes across a small time casino owner that he recognises as a big time crime boss in 2006. That same guy in 2006 is supposedly sitting by Sam’s bed torturing him.
    But after Sam frames the casino owner into being commited to a mental intistute, the future changes. Sam gets a message saying that the persom they caught torturing him was an escapee from mental instutute.

    So whatever the ending there has to be some element of time travel to all this
    Unless when (if) Sam wakes up nothing has changed, Maya is still kidnapped Etc, and he’s just dreamt it all. Which would be the most boring ending ever.

    08 Apr 2007, 23:25

  38. Darren

    Hi, has anyone noticed that Frank Morgan is a mix up of actor Garfield Morgan, who plays Regans boss Frank in the Sweeney?? Might just be another red herring!

    09 Apr 2007, 10:13

  39. Jo (MTB)

    The best part about the programme is that its set in Manchester. I didnt know Manchester in 1973 but I love the place, it has\ such a great vibe and I love the people and all the banter. Manchesters such a happy place, I love it.

    09 Apr 2007, 10:59

  40. Reg

    ‘Hi, has anyone noticed that Frank Morgan is a mix up of actor Garfield Morgan, who plays Regans boss Frank in the Sweeney?? Might just be another red herring!’

    Frank Morgan’s the name of the guy who played the Wizard of Oz in the film, the Radio Times said it shows that he too like the Wizard is not what he seems, although really we know that from his comment at the end of the episode last week anyway.

    09 Apr 2007, 11:26

  41. Donald

    Hi, Reg, yes I noticed that too

    09 Apr 2007, 13:12

  42. Nadine

    I’ve watched every episode of Life on Mars and loved every single one of them. It’s such an unusual series but i’ve no idea what is going to hapen. I’ve been trying to avoid any spoilers to do with it cause i don’t want anything to spoil it at the last minute.

    I really hope it does’nt just end up being a dream or something cause that would be the most dissappointing ending in the world, but every reviewer who has seen it says that it’ll blow your mind! Also in one of my magazines it warns “just remember it’s never over till it’s over”.

    We could probably have one of the most obvious endings that he was in a coma in 2006 all along and all the coppers are linked to him in some way in 2006 ie doctors, nurses, friends etc. There’s also a theory that possibly there’s a tv show on the tv about cops in the 70’s and he thinks he’s a part of that while in
    hospital. Or he could be an old man in 2006 and he’s recalling the goos old days (i like this idea).

    I think that Sam is possibly actualy in a coma in 1973 or that something happens to Annie that makes him stay in 1973 rather than go back to 2006. But i have so many ideas but none of them sound right. I think the writers will have come up with something so fantastic! I hope so anyway!!

    09 Apr 2007, 19:15

  43. Sue

    I hope it lives up to your expectations and you won’t be disappointed like my friend who phoned me on Sunday evening and ended the call with “Don’t tell me how England are doing in the cricket, I’m watching the highlights tonight and don’t want to spoil it.” Too late, already spoilt!

    10 Apr 2007, 07:38

  44. Charles Pask

    I am betting that Sam will wake up in 2006 but then die as there seems to be some kind of theory that the ending will need to keep Sam out of the spin off series following Gene Hunt. Therefore Sam must either die in 1973 or 2006. If they were to say Gene Hunt is not real with Sam being in 2006, then how can they expect us to watch the Gene Hunt series when he doesnt exist.

    10 Apr 2007, 13:17

  45. Damaris

    I am gonna be so sorry after tonight that this brilliant series has ended, I was a teenager in the seventies and its been a trip down memory lane for me. As for the main characters Gene Hunt is priceless!! and even the charisma free Ray has his moments. I am not an avid telly watcher but this has had me champing at the bit for the next episode every week. If there is a spin off I just hope that it can be on the same par but I doubt that it will be possible, Cheers to the cast- you should all be mightily proud!!

    10 Apr 2007, 13:37

  46. don

    I reckon Sam will give up on being able to return to the real world where he is in hospital. He’ll give up on his present day wife and accept his liking of Annie. Basically, he’ll try so hard to wake up, he’ll come to a realisation that its impossible to do so and he’ll resign himself to never leaving the 70’s.

    At that point once he’s given up the fight so to speak, he’ll regain consciousness, wake up to see the people around him ( Gene Hunt as doctor, Annie as nurse etc etc ) and for whatever reason, he’ll pass on and die. Perhaps cause his mind had given up the fight to accept the real world, so will his body.

    10 Apr 2007, 15:11

  47. Will

    I think i’ve partially cracked it, the number from hyde, 2612, i think is a reference from the bible….Genisis chapter 26 verse 12. it states:-and isaac sowed in that land, and he found that same year a hundredfold: and the lord blessed him. Hundredfold means a hundred times or multiple. i think, with a little help from the grave on the advert, that there is many sam tylers in the past bit like quantum leap but actually him>>A ‘multiple’ of him!
    heres tonights trailer
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owGvYMHTj80&NR=1

    10 Apr 2007, 15:14

  48. Kirsti

    I came up with a theory the other night, admittedly after a lot of wine, so it’s highly likely it doesn’t hold up! Sam Tyler is actually Gene Hunt’s conscience – and the task he was sent back to carry out was to prevent Gene Hunt from turning bad. If you notice, throughout this series (increasingly so) the occasions when Sam ends up out of it due to some kind of malfunction coincide more and more with situations when Gene has an obvious choice between doing the right or wrong thing to get a result. Which would make Morgan the little devil on Gene’s shoulder urging him to do the wrong thing to get the criminal. I then got really confused and decided that this would only work if it turns out to be a bizarre dream of Gene’s in 2006 as an old man about to die. Then I gave up and drank more wine!!

    10 Apr 2007, 19:09

  49. Shirl

    I can’t wait to see this programme now, ROFL

    10 Apr 2007, 19:59

  50. John Dale

    Wow, lots of theories. In a little while we’ll know the actual ending. I’m going to close comments here for a few days now, just because once the ending’s been aired, it seems like there could be comments here talking about it, and I don’t want to spoil the ending for anyone who’ll be watching it on tape later.

    10 Apr 2007, 20:36


Add a comment

You are not allowed to comment on this entry as it has restricted commenting permissions.

Search this blog

Tags

Blog archive

Loading…

Most recent comments

  • I'm looking for two authors/books from the 1970s or early 80s. The first was set in England. All I r… by Leo on this entry
  • I'm looking for two authors/books from the 1970s or early 80s. The first was set in England. All I r… by Leo on this entry
  • I am trying to find a book about a grandfather who tells his grandson that if he imagines hard enoug… by hilary woolf on this entry
  • Hi Looking for a series of books in which the main character was a knight. The knight was either a f… by Ely McKenna on this entry
  • I'm trying to track down my favourite children's book from the early 1970s (pub. 1970 – 1973?) about… by Ally Holloway on this entry
Not signed in
Sign in

Powered by BlogBuilder
© MMXXI