I've been thinking this over. (And theorising a bit because I've only read the spoilers to 2.08 so far.)
I think I would be happiest if John Simm's theory was the correct one - that Sam had never woken up, and that 2007 was part of his coma dream. If nothing else it's more credible - from what I've read it sounds as if Sam recovered from major brain surgery with no external injuries, and was back to work within a scene or two. Whereas in real life I'd expect months of physical therapy and counselling before he was back on his feet - let alone put in a stressful and responsible position.
(And would no one, really, on the 2007 police force notice that there was something wrong with Sam, and take steps to deal with it? After all, we're not living in Gene Hunt's world, where "let's get a drink in you!" is the answer to all problems.)
And emotionally ... if Sam was in fact dying on the operating table, then his leap off the building would represent him overcoming his fear and embracing his fate, which is a far more positive ending than committing suicide because you can't cope with reality any more. Poor Sam.
Though once again, a lot of the comments I've been reading highlight how unreal Sam's 2007 seems. Which I suppose is another argument in favour of Mr Simm's theory.
I'm also shaking my head a bit about what this means in terms of Sam's character - maybe his brain injury causes some major personality changes! - because if there was one thing I thought I knew about Sam from watching the other episodes, it was that emotionally repressed or not, Sam cared. Passionately. About the people around him, about being a good policeman, about justice and fairness. Even when he thought the people around him were totally imaginary.
Now if something had caused Sam to realise that the people in 1973 were real and he had to go back and save them - that I would have loved as ending. Or, as above, he never made it back to 2007, and the last 15 minutes of 2:08 were his dying moments - well that would satisfy me too, especially as I'd been slowly becoming more convinced by the coma theory all through series 2. (I liked the idea that the "gang" were in fact necessary facets of Sam's own psyche.) However, from what Matthew Graham has to say about Ashes to Ashes, neither alternative is true.
Meep.
(My opinions, of course, are subject to change upon actually viewing the episode!)
>I've been thinking this over. (And theorising a bit because I've only read the spoilers to 2.08 so far.)
I was spoiled before I watched it, too - and glad I was, because otherwise, this ending would have devastated me even more than it did anyway. *g*
>I think I would be happiest if John Simm's theory was the correct one - that Sam had never woken up, and that 2007 was part of his coma dream.
Yes, me too - see my variation of that theory above. It's the only semi-happy ending I can see that makes narrative and psychological sense to me.
>If nothing else it's more credible - from what I've read it sounds as if Sam recovered from major brain surgery with no external injuries, and was back to work within a scene or two. Whereas in real life I'd expect months of physical therapy and counselling before he was back on his feet - let alone put in a stressful and responsible position.
Yes, I agree that the depiction of 2007 wasn't particularly credible. Unfortunately it sort of ties in with the medically not very believable coma info we've had so far - in the sense that over the course of the series I've gained the strong impression that they never really cared much about how believable the medical side of it all was and the coma was essentially a plot device they didn't put much thought into. So, I tend to believe that while they do not exactly go out of their way to make us *believe* in 2007, they don't exactly give us big clues that it isn't real either.
>And emotionally ... if Sam was in fact dying on the operating table, then his leap off the building would represent him overcoming his fear and embracing his fate, which is a far more positive ending than committing suicide because you can't cope with reality any more. Poor Sam.
Yeah. I would have *liked* that ending - of him accepting death. Unfortunately, while not being completely invalidated by what's on the screen, it's not particularly strongly suggested, either, IMO. The main impression I get from the ending is that it really is a tragedy being dressed up as a happy ending.
>I'm also shaking my head a bit about what this means in terms of Sam's character - maybe his brain injury causes some major personality changes! - because if there was one thing I thought I knew about Sam from watching the other episodes, it was that emotionally repressed or not, Sam cared. Passionately. About the people around him, about being a good policeman, about justice and fairness. Even when he thought the people around him were totally imaginary.
I'm totally with you on this, too. It seems out of character to me, too.
I'm totally amazed by how absolute the majority of people who loved the ending is. I've been reading reviews on LJ and in the forum, and so far I've found less than ten people who aren't completely thrilled with it.
I think what is worrying me about this ending, is not this episode on its own, but the episode taken in conjunction with Matthew's interview and his plans for A2A. Because taken on its own Sam's fate sounds as if it can be interpreted in more than one life afirming and/or enobling way.
(Of course the whole A2A project had me worried from the start - because I like my "art", or at least my entertainment, to make intellectual as well as emotional sense. At the moment it looks partly like a LOM ripoff, and partly like a complete muddle. How can a third person interact with someone else's imaginary friends - it boggles the mind!)
Right from the moment we first heard about it I've only been interested in A2A insofar as it touched upon the question of what was real in LOM. Now that LOM is over and has given us a fairly clear answer (plus one or two equally likely alternatives) my interest in A2A has gone from 'very low' to 'non-existent'. And, yeah, I agree, what we've heard so far doesn't sound particularly confidence-inspiring.
I think I would be happiest if John Simm's theory was the correct one - that Sam had never woken up, and that 2007 was part of his coma dream. If nothing else it's more credible - from what I've read it sounds as if Sam recovered from major brain surgery with no external injuries, and was back to work within a scene or two. Whereas in real life I'd expect months of physical therapy and counselling before he was back on his feet - let alone put in a stressful and responsible position.
If he had brain surgery in 2007, then his head would be shaved! That's one other thing I can think off that none of 2007 was real. Still, it sucked! I so agree with you on your two theories - that 1973 is real - or that the last 15 minutes aren't real. Where can I read John Simm's thoughts, by the way? I stayed away from most places I go to because I didn't wanna get spoiled. I'm still amazed that I watched the ending spoiler-free, actually.
And if they didn't want to go so far as to shave the actor's head - then they could have wrapped some bandages around it! You can add to the not-real clues the fact that Sam was wearing the 1973 sideburns in 2006. He dons the suit, but re-grows the 1973 sideburns?
John Simm's thoughts on the matter were in a throwaway line in the Matthew Graham interview. Enough to tell us how he must have played it, however.
I think I would be happiest if John Simm's theory was the correct one - that Sam had never woken up, and that 2007 was part of his coma dream. If nothing else it's more credible - from what I've read it sounds as if Sam recovered from major brain surgery with no external injuries, and was back to work within a scene or two. Whereas in real life I'd expect months of physical therapy and counselling before he was back on his feet - let alone put in a stressful and responsible position.
(And would no one, really, on the 2007 police force notice that there was something wrong with Sam, and take steps to deal with it? After all, we're not living in Gene Hunt's world, where "let's get a drink in you!" is the answer to all problems.)
And emotionally ... if Sam was in fact dying on the operating table, then his leap off the building would represent him overcoming his fear and embracing his fate, which is a far more positive ending than committing suicide because you can't cope with reality any more. Poor Sam.
Though once again, a lot of the comments I've been reading highlight how unreal Sam's 2007 seems. Which I suppose is another argument in favour of Mr Simm's theory.
I'm also shaking my head a bit about what this means in terms of Sam's character - maybe his brain injury causes some major personality changes! - because if there was one thing I thought I knew about Sam from watching the other episodes, it was that emotionally repressed or not, Sam cared. Passionately. About the people around him, about being a good policeman, about justice and fairness. Even when he thought the people around him were totally imaginary.
Now if something had caused Sam to realise that the people in 1973 were real and he had to go back and save them - that I would have loved as ending. Or, as above, he never made it back to 2007, and the last 15 minutes of 2:08 were his dying moments - well that would satisfy me too, especially as I'd been slowly becoming more convinced by the coma theory all through series 2. (I liked the idea that the "gang" were in fact necessary facets of Sam's own psyche.) However, from what Matthew Graham has to say about Ashes to Ashes, neither alternative is true.
Meep.
(My opinions, of course, are subject to change upon actually viewing the episode!)
Reply
I was spoiled before I watched it, too - and glad I was, because otherwise, this ending would have devastated me even more than it did anyway. *g*
>I think I would be happiest if John Simm's theory was the correct one - that Sam had never woken up, and that 2007 was part of his coma dream.
Yes, me too - see my variation of that theory above. It's the only semi-happy ending I can see that makes narrative and psychological sense to me.
>If nothing else it's more credible - from what I've read it sounds as if Sam recovered from major brain surgery with no external injuries, and was back to work within a scene or two. Whereas in real life I'd expect months of physical therapy and counselling before he was back on his feet - let alone put in a stressful and responsible position.
Yes, I agree that the depiction of 2007 wasn't particularly credible. Unfortunately it sort of ties in with the medically not very believable coma info we've had so far - in the sense that over the course of the series I've gained the strong impression that they never really cared much about how believable the medical side of it all was and the coma was essentially a plot device they didn't put much thought into. So, I tend to believe that while they do not exactly go out of their way to make us *believe* in 2007, they don't exactly give us big clues that it isn't real either.
>And emotionally ... if Sam was in fact dying on the operating table, then his leap off the building would represent him overcoming his fear and embracing his fate, which is a far more positive ending than committing suicide because you can't cope with reality any more. Poor Sam.
Yeah. I would have *liked* that ending - of him accepting death. Unfortunately, while not being completely invalidated by what's on the screen, it's not particularly strongly suggested, either, IMO. The main impression I get from the ending is that it really is a tragedy being dressed up as a happy ending.
>I'm also shaking my head a bit about what this means in terms of Sam's character - maybe his brain injury causes some major personality changes! - because if there was one thing I thought I knew about Sam from watching the other episodes, it was that emotionally repressed or not, Sam cared. Passionately. About the people around him, about being a good policeman, about justice and fairness. Even when he thought the people around him were totally imaginary.
I'm totally with you on this, too. It seems out of character to me, too.
I'm totally amazed by how absolute the majority of people who loved the ending is. I've been reading reviews on LJ and in the forum, and so far I've found less than ten people who aren't completely thrilled with it.
Reply
(Of course the whole A2A project had me worried from the start - because I like my "art", or at least my entertainment, to make intellectual as well as emotional sense. At the moment it looks partly like a LOM ripoff, and partly like a complete muddle. How can a third person interact with someone else's imaginary friends - it boggles the mind!)
Reply
Reply
If he had brain surgery in 2007, then his head would be shaved! That's one other thing I can think off that none of 2007 was real. Still, it sucked! I so agree with you on your two theories - that 1973 is real - or that the last 15 minutes aren't real. Where can I read John Simm's thoughts, by the way? I stayed away from most places I go to because I didn't wanna get spoiled. I'm still amazed that I watched the ending spoiler-free, actually.
Reply
John Simm's thoughts on the matter were in a throwaway line in the Matthew Graham interview. Enough to tell us how he must have played it, however.
Reply
Leave a comment