Survivors (new and old)

Nick Barlow wrote:Thinking about it after the fact, and seeing Gray's comments, I think the one error they made was showing a bit too much of the pre-virus life of the characters. (IIRC, we only saw Abby and Jenny in the original version) One of the strengths of the original version was that it left a lot of the details of the collapse up to your imagination while Abby was passed out. I think the only real gain from the extra stories was that image of Najid in the mosque, surrounded by the praying dead. If it had been up to me, I'd have kept his story in, but only introduced Al when he almost runs him over, Tom when the guard comes to let him out and spent more time with Jenny and Anya to increase the shock when she dies.

Well. quite - all this did was to bore me crapless! I didn't even notice Freema die, I was starting to drift. Then PJ turned up and it became interesting.

The explosion, though - that was crap-a-dap-a-ding-dong!

Rich Flair wrote:
The explosion, though - that was crap-a-dap-a-ding-dong!

I have to admit, it was. Good plot incident, rubbish special effect.



But I liked the back stories. It showed us the normal world that the characters had been ripped away from. Tom was shown to be a complete and utter thug, and I liked the whole 'are they just going to leave him in his cell to die?' suspense.

Abby's maternal instincts were given a thorough grounding, which gave her a solid reason to go looking for her son. And I loved the scene where she woke up. That's got to be your worst nightmare, hasn't it? "I went to sleep, and when I woke up everyone in the world was dead."



Selfish Al up in his flat made me snigger. What a numpty. What a complete and utter selfish toerag. I'd like to see if his character grows a spine. And I liked Jen and whats-her-face dying, to show how the solid female friendships Anya had formed her life around just... went.



In fact, the only back story I could have done without would have been that little kid's. I refuse to believe that a whole mosque full of men can die simultaneously in identical positions. They should have just found the kid wandering in a street somewhere. No back story required.

Sid Seadevil wrote:

Frank wrote:I think you should be paid squillions of pounds by the BBC to go on telly and say things like that.

No, better still, I should be paid lots of pounds to do that.

Well I think they should pay both of us to go on and say things like that. We could form a double act. But not like Ant 'N' Dec. Craig and Len perhaps?

Now that sounds fab-u-lous. Every time Julie Graham does a decent bit of acting you could hold up your score board and shout 'Sevaaaaaannnnnn!'. I will take great pride in saying, 'it's a disahhhstttahhhh, darling'.

Lucy McGough wrote: That's got to be your worst nightmare, hasn't it? "I went to sleep, and when I woke up everyone in the world was dead.".

I could think of a lot worse things...

Lucy McGough wrote:
I have to admit, it was. Good plot incident, rubbish special effect.

A disaaaahhssterr

Lucy McGough wrote:But I liked the back stories. It showed us the normal world that the characters had been ripped away from. Tom was shown to be a complete and utter thug, and I liked the whole 'are they just going to leave him in his cell to die?' suspense.

Sevaaaaaahhhhhhnnnn!

Lucy McGough wrote:Abby's maternal instincts were given a thorough grounding, which gave her a solid reason to go looking for her son. And I loved the scene where she woke up. That's got to be your worst nightmare, hasn't it? "I went to sleep, and when I woke up everyone in the world was dead."

Ten!!!!

Lucy McGough wrote:Selfish Al up in his flat made me snigger. What a numpty. What a complete and utter selfish toerag. I'd like to see if his character grows a spine. And I liked Jen and whats-her-face dying, to show how the solid female friendships Anya had formed her life around just... went.

A disaaaahhsstaaahh

Lucy McGough wrote:In fact, the only back story I could have done without would have been that little kid's. I refuse to believe that a whole mosque full of men can die simultaneously in identical positions. They should have just found the kid wandering in a street somewhere. No back story required.

A disaaaahhsstaaahh

Gah!!! That'll teach me to cancel Sky but keep the freesat option- I programmed it for both Einstein and Eddington and Survivors, and fail to get either!!!!


grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!

Still, Survivors is repeated Friday early morning, and I can watch Einstein on iPlayer, but it doesn't stop either from being spoilt before I watched them (very disappointed to hear that Freema doesn't survive the episode).

Ah well.

Rich Flair wrote:I could think of a lot worse things...

Indeed... 'Well, I say 'worst nightmare', I mean 'most dearly-held fantasy'...'

Nick Barlow wrote:Thinking about it after the fact, and seeing Gray's comments, I think the one error they made was showing a bit too much of the pre-virus life of the characters. (IIRC, we only saw Abby and Jenny in the original version) One of the strengths of the original version was that it left a lot of the details of the collapse up to your imagination while Abby was passed out. I think the only real gain from the extra stories was that image of Najid in the mosque, surrounded by the praying dead. If it had been up to me, I'd have kept his story in, but only introduced Al when he almost runs him over, Tom when the guard comes to let him out and spent more time with Jenny and Anya to increase the shock when she dies.

There's a point going through my head (that I'll almost certainly fail to make) between this and Frank's desire to show more apocolypse. I think there was a mistake in showing everything. It either has to be the most harrowing television ever - a constant shower of death of lost loved ones and destruction in the streets - so that we can genuinely believe in the apocolypse, or give it a break - perhaps weeks - so we can rejoin the characters when faith might be beginning to return and Abby's "all stand together" speech might be believable. Survivors is already harrowing - the concept itself ensures that - you don't need to show everything.

On a TV Budget, IMO less is more.

Lucy McGough wrote:In fact, the only back story I could have done without would have been that little kid's. I refuse to believe that a whole mosque full of men can die simultaneously in identical positions. They should have just found the kid wandering in a street somewhere. No back story required.

It is my understanding of Islam that you have to be perfectly clean and healthy before you are allowed into a mosque to pray. So, what were all those sick people doing in the mosque in the first place?

I don't give a toss personally about the minor details - I enjoyed it and await developments with interest.

Sid Seadevil wrote:I don't give a toss personally about the minor details

OI!!!!!!!!!!

I'm just watching The Daleks now and I'm wondering if Terry Nation got the idea for Survivors from this. It features a post apocolyptic world (Thals) are trying to survive. The second episode is even called "The Survivors".

Are you accusing Terry Nation of reusing an idea time and again? Perish the thought Youngster.

Oh, how silly of me

I don't think there was a character called Tarrant in the original Survivors, so there was some originality there.

Decent enough. They're lucky that they got a good director and some great actors to make the teeth-grindingly awful dialogue seem convincing. Shame Freema died early on, I was hoping she'd be a main character. I'll be watching tonight, and hoping that it doesn't end up being like every single other post-apocalyptic drama ever.

That's the thing about apocalypses - there's only so much you can do with them.

Lucy McGough wrote:That's the thing about apocalypses - there's only so much you can do with them.

That's a shame.

ah, well, at least it's not the end of the world.

Could be worse. City could win the league.

Johnstone McGuckian wrote:Could be worse. City could win the league.

Chester City? Can't see it, myself. They've got about as much chance as Morecambe...

Anyway, moving back on-topic...

Well, having watched the second episode of Survivors without actually having seen the first, I have to admit that the things that keeps me watching are Paterson Joseph and Max Beesley. The problem is, I don't think the format of the show is really good for in depth characterisation, as one of the themes seems to be redemption and reinvention, and these two actors are the best at conveying a sense that they are doing just that, while retaining a sense of the people they used to be.

Beyond that, it already shows the first problem of the Survivors (or any post apocalypse story) format: it's lack of different potential plots. They must mostly revolve around the tensions from having a bunch of people who would not usually come together; or involve the main protagonists coming up against another group with differing priorities. Although cudos to the writers for showing the antagonists as having a slightly better morality than the protagonists at the end of this weeks episode- it would be interesting to se if the gang make a comeback in future episode, and include Bob.

Not a bad show- I still intend to watch the first episode on iPlayer at some point, but it lacks the self assurance and brashness of the BBC's recent telefantasy output, such as Life On Mars, Ashes to Ashes, Spooks, Dr Who or even Torchwod. It is, however, far superior to Bonekickers or Apparitions.

And yes, watching this is the first time I can actually visualise Paterson Joseph as the Doctor.

Lee Carey wrote:Well, having watched the second episode of Survivors without actually having seen the first, I have to admit that the things that keeps me watching are Paterson Joseph and Max Beesley. The problem is, I don't think the format of the show is really good for in depth characterisation, as one of the themes seems to be redemption and reinvention, and these two actors are the best at conveying a sense that they are doing just that, while retaining a sense of the people they used to be.

Beyond that, it already shows the first problem of the Survivors (or any post apocalypse story) format: it's lack of different potential plots. They must mostly revolve around the tensions from having a bunch of people who would not usually come together; or involve the main protagonists coming up against another group with differing priorities. Although cudos to the writers for showing the antagonists as having a slightly better morality than the protagonists at the end of this weeks episode- it would be interesting to se if the gang make a comeback in future episode, and include Bob.

Not a bad show- I still intend to watch the first episode on iPlayer at some point, but it lacks the self assurance and brashness of the BBC's recent telefantasy output, such as Life On Mars, Ashes to Ashes, Spooks, Dr Who or even Torchwod. It is, however, far superior to Bonekickers or Apparitions.

And yes, watching this is the first time I can actually visualise Paterson Joseph as the Doctor.

pretty much sums up my feelings lee- not bad but rather unsatisfying. and i could visualise max beasley as a possible doctor...

I'm with Barnaby and Lee on this. Enjoyable but not entirely satisfying. I thought Paterson Joseph was excellent in this second installment, as was Max Beesley. But it is going to get very limited by the format as it stands. Hence all this bobbins with the science boffins in their bunker which I'm sure will develop over the next few episodes as a counterpoint to all the in-fighting and battles with other survival groups. Otherwise, it is going to get boring very quickly.

I still the think the original is head and shoulders above this and it managed to dramatise an apocalypse on a small budget by following the less is more dictum. You either go all out and show everything in gory detail or you simply suggest everything. The new version isn't doing either and seems to be trying to please both sides at once. And not doing either all that well. One of the biggest criticisms in my office this week is the one I pointed out - where are all the dead bodies and crashed cars in the street? There is a demand for realism and the new version shies away from it. But that's Adrian Hodges for you. As he plainly admitted in the Radio Times last week the production team will throw anything out they consider too grim.