DI Tyler Thinks He's From The Future. Cuckoo.

[rionaleonhart]

I loved that it said "And now, Life on Mars. In colour." before the episode. Hee!

OH MY GOD, SAM IS INSANE. (Well, we knew that already, of course, but he spent this episode being even more insane than usual.) I thought it started slowly at first - at the beginning, I was thinking 'oh no, do I not love Life on Mars any more?' - but then oh my God, I was absolutely hooked.


It's very different to the last time Sam had a very personal interest in a case (Episode Six in the last series, the case parallelling his mother's decision to have his life support turned off): there, he was being especially cautious for fear that somebody might die; here, he is being especially ruthless for fear that the suspect will get away. It was interesting to see Sam and Gene being, essentially, completely reversed. And then, of course, they eventually joined forces and were awesome, as always.

I somehow managed to find "we thought you'd like to die together" adorable, which is weird, frankly.

I loved it when Sam came out of the car, and he stumbled and collapsed and told Gene to go after the criminal, but instead Gene came back and helped him up. The Sam/Gene is still alive and well in this series, obviously.

And Gene respects Annie now, which is really rather lovely.

THERE WAS, HOWEVER, NO WALLSLAMMING. HOW CAN THERE BE NO WALLSLAMMING? DID GENE PHYSICALLY ATTACK SAM AT ALL? HOW CAN THERE BE AN EPISODE OF LIFE ON MARS WITHOUT GENE PUNCHING SAM IN THE GUT OR SLAMMING HIM AGAINST A WALL?

I was not able to watch Episode Two tonight, so please don't spoil me for that.

Comments

[rionaleonhart]

REBUTTAL OF EXHIBIT D: The accuser's failure to pay attention does not constitute evidence.

REBUTTAL OF EXHIBIT E: Due to above awesome rebuttal of D, this exhibit is no longer valid.

EXHIBIT E: Meaning that you only have three exhibits, whilst this makes five. So I win. MAN, I'M AWESOME.

[reipan.livejournal.com]

...hmm.

Actually, if we're going to be technical, your rebuttal of Exhibit D does not invalidate Exhibit E, because your Exhibits C and D were not, in fact, solid evidence. They were a question put to the jury and a statement of belief, respectively.

So if my Exhibit D doesn't count as evidence, no do your C and D. Meaning that I have four exhibits and you have three, or we've both got three. Depending on how it works.

Perhaps I have another dimension of the BBC open to me?

[rionaleonhart]

Exhibit D was a statement of fact, sir.

Perhaps I have another dimension of the BBC open to me?

I don't even understand what that means THE ACCUSER MAY NOT SHIFT DIMENSIONS. IT IS UNFAIR TO THOSE OF US WHO ARE UNABLE TO ESCAPE OUR THREE-DIMENSIONAL EXISTENCE.

Exhibit F: The defendant would like to refer the court to the Febuary 9th entries of lifein1973, a Life on Mars fan community with over six hundred members. Do the good people of this court really believe that, if the episode aired on that day, there would not be a single post regarding it?

[reipan.livejournal.com]

Exhibit D was not a statement of fact, madam. Facts are supported by evidence. There is no evidence, save that propagated by mass opinion, that repeating something at the same time a week after it was first shown is daft. It was a statement of opinion, and therefore has no place in a court case such as this.

The world's media seems to be conspiring to convince me it was on last week. The accuser sees nothing against dimension-switching in any laws laid down by the British government.

AND I'M NOT THE ONLY ONE SO HA. I refer your Honour to a Mr Christopher Ham(m)er, who recalls seeing a trailer for something Life-On-Marsy last week.

[rionaleonhart]

The defendant would like to point out that she is the only person who has actually provided links to back up points of evidence, whilst Miss Haberberg has given us only her word. Miss Haberberg clearly believes that she is actually from a week in the future, and that we are figments of her imagination. Can her word really be trusted?

[reipan.livejournal.com]

The accuser would like to point out a certain inconsistency in the case of Miss Evens - she referred to the accuser as "sir" in one post, and is now calling said accuser "Miss" Haberberg. The accuser has enough gender-confusion problems without this sort of thing.

Miss Evans is warned against making further unfounded statements of opinion. They are irrelevant to this trial and could provide unfair bias towards her opponent.

And believe me, I'd be doing better on this if it were possible to take screenshots of Homechoice.

(Also, you have KEPT ME UP. DAMN YOU. I have to get up tomorrow morning =( )

[reipan.livejournal.com]

(Also, it's spelled February.)
(Also, it's totally unfair that you get to be the judge in this.)

[reipan.livejournal.com]

(And I'm aware that your name is spelled Evans. My apologies. Although I do feel kind of spammy now.)

[rionaleonhart]

(I am not the judge! I am the defendant! I have referred to myself throughout as the defendant, and your calling me 'your honour' only goes to show that you are mentally unfit to bring forward a case. SO HA.

Can't we just accept that obviously you hallucinated these alleged announcements about its airing, because there is no reference anywhere to its airing on the ninth?

Also, I am sorry that I kept you up, and I hate myself for misspelling February. STUPID SUPERFLUOUS 'R'. Although at least I have not spelt anyone's name incorrectly, ha!

I AM NOT GOING TO APOLOGISE FOR GENDER-CONFUSING YOU BECAUSE NOW I HAVE NO IDEA WHETHER MY NAME IS SPELT WITH AN 'A' OR AN 'E' AND IT IS ALL YOUR FAULT.)