TV
Show
“ Survivors ”
'Survivors' S01E03 - Part Three
Published Tuesday, Dec 2 2008, 21:58 GMT | By Ben Rawson-Jones | 14 comments
The character study of a father desperately trying to shelter his young family from the virus outside is nothing short of compelling. His firebomb attack on Greg and Tom is savage, but the cracks in the widowed man's emotional make-up gradually emerge throughout the episode. The dilemma posed involving his young daughter Kate, who comes into contact with potential virus carriers, is particularly involving and results in a sad, yet triumphant ending for the family. They may soon die, but at least they are free.
In contrast, the plot involving annoying government flunky Samantha and her base is mundane and uninvolving. Her shooting of the thief does provide a momentary surprise, but it feels unconvincing and there purely for shock value and to make explicit a theme about the burden of power in such harsh times. Nonetheless, this narrative strand does feature a great idea about survivors spreading messages via recorded video journals, as witnessed by Abby.
> What do you think of the episode? Share your views
Your Views
14 Comments
Your Responses
Can't help thinking this is an idea still waiting to "happen". Can't fault the attempt but something's not quite right - the planet's poulation has almost died and our characters are still only concerned about themselves and their own needs. No-one is discussing the big picture, and how it came about. I still think the Americans do this kind of thing better, and I hope they don't spoil it all as they did with the original series and try to make it an everlasting series. Get the story told and make it exciting in the telling. One main thing didn't ring true for me, and that was the Samantha character was still in charge - she'd be the first one shot in my script, normal people would remember the lies they were spun by that paricular politician. I'll still watch it but it needs to pick up it's skirts and get moving!!
I think it's doing ok, not really setting things alight but it's a start. Hopefully be given more of a chance than Bonekickers! (which didn't deserve it anyway). I think they'd all be really mentally freaked out by more things, that people wouldn't be all aggressive, they'd be truely thankful to see other people for example. I would have also thought that there wouldn't be any problems with finding food etc at this point. Funny how, with most of the population dying there seems to be a fair few people around their area. Hopefully soon we'll get to see more of their situation (diseased bodies etc)
The story is ok, can't understand why they haven't sourced some kind of radio system. Interestingly enough, this virus has solved the credit crunch, energy and overpopulation issues all in a couple of episodes. Feel a bit sorry for the guys on the international space station though.
Terriblr reimanining of a classic series that should have remained in the imagination of a television executive. The characters are stereotypes who go through all the cliches you expect them to. THe plot has no excitement and moves at the pace of a three legged tortoise, i.e a fair amount of time was devoted to building a chicken coup, watch Jimmy's Farm at least they do it with more pace and excitement. THe seventies version was a long running series, I doubt this one will last beyond one series. The original series admittedly eventually descended into a post apocalyptic version ofthe Good Life, but at least it started with a fair bit of excitement, something missing here!
It's ****, but I'm still watching it, probably because I'm so desperate for some British sci-fi. I just don't understand why some programmes have to be aimed at the lowest common denominator, Survivors treats the audience like we're stupid.
I think Survivors is gripping and episode 3 continued the excellent series. I hope they commission a season 2 and i will defo be buying this when its released on DVD in January. It's not often a good drama series is released in the UK and its nice to see the BBC relying on something other than American drama serials.
I disagree with the overall negative response to this episode, I was quite impressed with general storyline, and overall depiction of desperation shown by the "non-infected" survivors. As for the conspiracy storyline which at the moment seems to be building only slightly each episode, this is clearly building up to the big reveal which I am hoping will give the 2008 version an edge over the original storyline. However I do think they could have covered the whole survival side of things in much more detail, they rarely seem to go looking for food, water just seems to appear and not once have the considered making their house better insulated, despite the fact that one of the main characters commented that it was getting cold, claiming this was normal for the time of year, suggesting it is coming into winter. Not only that but Al went out to the local garden centre and brought back a toy shed? What about the seeds, tools, greenhouses which they could use to help build a sustainable future? Basically they seem to be trying to live a "normal" life in very abnormal circumstances, I do think they show deserves a good chance and it does have a lot of potential, I just hope they can carry it off without ending up with a repetative, boring show. I gave this an rating of 4 since I feel it could have been a lot worse, and it had some very convincing scenes.
Call me peculiar but I keep wondering when the real Abby Grant and Tom Price are going to make an appearance, ie, from the original and, still to my mind, superior 70s series.
Episode 3 was fractured, unconvincing, tacked together and entirely predictable in many places. I am also getting very bored now of the over emotional method acting and the ever present feeling that I've missed an episode somewhere. Over 90 % of the world's population is dead, and our twee wine drinking friends are either bursting into tears constantly over their "relationships" with each other or laughing and joking together like it's the morning after an all night party. Production values written on the back of a fag packet by the look of it. How to "do" survivors... 1: Pick an off the shelf scenario 2: Pick an off the shelf emotional response. 3: Film it in HD with filters. 4: Add Music. 5: Broadcast. This is a huge let down. Survivors is infected with ham acting, a cliched script, and an over reliance on cinematography to paper over the obvious cracks. I would ask those responsible for agreeing to allow this drivel on our tellies the same question as Jonathan from London...what have you been smoking?
It could have been so good - but this is utter, utter tosh. The acting is abysmal, the scripting is lazy and clichéd. The casting is absolutely awful. I could rant on all day about how bad this is - but I'll stop here and will not be watching it again.
Couldn't agree more Jonathan. I really enjoy this show and I'm quite tough to please. I especially like how the group are slowly starting to relate to each other, in quite subtle ways at times. Hope they can build their community.
The key factor in any drama is being able to suspend disbelief. This is impossible with Survivors, a programme suffering from a woeful script. The central premise of episodes 2 & 3 is that the survivors are scrapping over resources. I suggest they come to the small town where I live. There are two large supermarkets, several smaller ones and numerous corner shops. There is enough food here to keep hundreds of peope going for a year or two. If such a disaster ever occurred, the survivors would be sitting on a mountain of resources. Conflict would not arise for at least a year or two. Characters are also unbelievable. The paranoid dad is transformed into a happy, smiling simplteon in minutes after a quick chat with the psychotic killer convict, turned family counsellor, despite the fact that he now faces the likely death of his children and himself. Likewise, the government minister is turned from touchy feelie utopianist to violent vigilante in the blink of an eye. This programme squanders a great idea.
I dont know what the reviewer is smoking - this show is one of the best things I've seen on television in a long time, and this episode was one of the best. The Health Secretary's attempt to convince herself that she was in the right was really cleverly done I thought, and though the conspiracy sub-plot does feel out of place, to give this 3 stars when episodes of Heroes have been recieving simmilar scores is downright unforgivable!
Tube Talk
The Best TV Couples: Friday FiverTube Talk celebrates Valentine's Day by reminiscing about the best TV couples.
TV Interviews
'Celebrity Apprentice' Donald Trump Q&ADonald Trump teases the new season of Celebrity Apprentice.
Reality Bites
Does Simon Cowell have new SuBo?: VideoWatch a clip of Jonathan Antoine, who is tipped for success on BGT.
TV Ratings
'Celebrity Juice' breaks ITV2 recordThe Keith Lemon panel game earns ITV2 its highest ever audience.
So far, the remake has struck me as being very poor, and a waste of an invaluable opportunity. The new series just doesn't have the impact of the original. I'm surprised that there have been so few comparisons with the originals. Obviously, in the "reimagining", a lot of plots and characters have been conflated - usually to the detriment of both (e.g. the bit where Samantha executed the woman is obviously a combination of Arthur Wormley's power-grabbing, and "Law and Order", where a (presumed) murderer was executed. But for an ex-government minister to casually execute a woman for stealing food was just preposterous (even Arthur Wormley didn't do that), and rendered the character of Samantha completely unbelievable. (By the way, to Dave of Lancs: you should read Terry Nation's novel. You think the supermarkets would have food to last for years? Remember that there's no electricity, so all the refrigerated and fresh stuff would spoil in hours; all that would be left would be dried and tinned food - and even they have shelf lives. Of course there are mountains of supplies, but most of them are beyond reach - in the towns and cities, where even if you're prepared to brave the heaps of rotting corpses, the rats and the stink, you run the risk of catching any number of diseases. Then there's the problem of a few people with shotguns deciding that the supermarkets are now their property. You think that conflicts wouldn't happen for the first few years? Your confidence in the human race is touching!)