'Survivors' Season One: The Verdict

The BBC's 'reimagining' of the classic 1970s drama has just finished its first season and already been granted another outing next year following reasonable ratings. The critical response was anything but consistent however, so Cult Spy takes a look at what did and didn't work throughout the show's debut run.

The timing of Survivors was certainly spot on, as the world has been full of scares about superbugs and killer viruses in recent years. The opening episode was scarily plausible, particularly in the government's lie-packed PR exercises to limit the public panic. It was also visually haunting, with the images of dead bodies in a mosque, a hospital and a children's dormitory packing an emotional punch.

Yet afterwards, the show's imagination and scope suffered. Where were all the dead, rotting bodies lining the streets, with packs of wild animals roaming around? Even just a couple of brief scenes in this post-watershed show, hinting at the true horror of the situation, could have immersed us further into the nightmarish scenario encountered by the characters.

Unfortunately, as is the case with so many BBC genre shows, the scope was widened and the budget spent primarily on the season premiere and the finale. The episodes in between, although full of pleasing character development and scenarios like the supermarket vigilantes, did lose a lot of ground in relation to the central apocalyptic premise.

However,Survivors often excelled with more personal situations. The third episode, revolving around a protective father shielding his children, was very powerful and emotive - with a suitably ambiguous bittersweet ending. The developing bond between Al and Najid was rewarding, while Abby's cathartic fling with an outlawed cave-dweller, featuring a passionate spot of skinnydipping, was scintillating.

An attempt to keep viewers hooked through a scientist-related subplot was painfully misguided, as their mysterious deeds were shoehorned into the final moments of successive episodes in the first half of the season. It was frustrating instead of intriguing. Similarly, Abby's quest to find her son Peter was given too much importance within the plot, especially when compared to the journeys of the other, more appealing characters. That last scene in the season finale was shocking for all the wrong reasons.

There were many standout scenes of great drama interspersed throughout the season. Best of all was Al's breakdown while trying to kill a chicken, with his tears a delayed reaction to his earlier manslaughter of a violent shop owner. The sight of Sarah being confronted by the crippled Bob, who she left to die in the supermarket, was a standout development in the season finale. The premiere also had a stunning pay-off with the prison break, as Tom Price's vicious stabbing of the warden, after offering him the chance to walk away, was electrifying.

Tom was certainly the best of the characters, allowing Max Beesley a role to sink his teeth into with relish. In fact, the casting was superb with the ensemble and the calibre of acting helped to steer the series through some awkward moments. Let's not forget the brave decision to kill off the characters portrayed by Shaun Dingwall and Freema Agyeman near the beginning too.

Watching Rose Tyler's dad and Martha Jones being swiftly dispatched made one wonder if showrunner Adrian Hodges has some kind of grudge against Doctor Who. As soon as the rumours started about Patterson Joseph playing the Time Lord, his character Greg was shot too!

Overall, Survivors did enough to warrant a second season - but it must improve and work harder to develop a nightmarish world of the near future. Otherwise it will turn into a bog standard soap with the occasional bit of footage of deserted streets thrown into the mix.
> What do you think of the first season of Survivors? Share your views