I can see why a second season is needed - to find out what the first season was all about!
Happy new year!
Bob

Are you new to Survivors, or watched since the 1970s? loved it since 1975

Email  

Well, what a crud ending to series one, Greg hit and bleedin, Tom who can't hit a barn door at 20ft, a helio taking photos of everyone, "The Government" Lol, Six episodes and all they can muster is less than half a dozen shot guns for the "Bad guys" and a 9mm pistol for the "Government"...The "good guys" well they do have Tom with a crow bar

Come on BBC, 2/10, must try harder

DD

Are you new to Survivors, or watched since the 1970s? Oldie

Email   Website

ive got to admit i thought that was the best episode yet, really enjoyed it.They will deffo have to make a second series as 2 many cliff hangers were left there

Are you new to Survivors, or watched since the 1970s? watched the original

Email  

Sensational episode, edge-of-the-seat stuff, stunning. Much as I adore the original series this was just in a different league. Outstanding and I can't wait for series two.

Are you new to Survivors, or watched since the 1970s? 1970s

Email   Website

I'm totally with you Paul.

Stunning does not even get close.

Loved the story. The characters are outstanding (Greg clearly has to die as he is due to regenerate into the doctor sometime next year).

I loved all the shots of deserted and spooky Manchester. Best shot wasn't the flashy CGI (but that was excellent) it was the bloated body casually bobbing in the river.

WOW.

Series two needs to be set round an open range and they need to start discussing the best way to rotate crops and cure sheep bloat (**** clover) while sipping elderflower wine and...

please for the love of god will someone get the cast some arran knit jumpers.

Are you new to Survivors, or watched since the 1970s? Old fan (long live the blue furry coat)

Email  

"Sensational episode, edge-of-the-seat stuff, stunning"

I think you need to get out more... Sorry but those words must have been from another programme, sure you weren't watching "nature watch"

I've seen better stuff on Casualty to be honest.

DD

Are you new to Survivors, or watched since the 1970s? Oldie

Email   Website

Well, if you watch 'Casualty' that probably explains why this astonishing episode of 'Survivors' was a bit beyond you. I'm very sorry for those who didn't find episode six just wonderful - because it just...was. End of, frankly

Are you new to Survivors, or watched since the 1970s? 1970s

Email   Website

Paul, anyone who thinks that episode 6 was edge of seat exciting shouldn't be up past the watershed to be honest...

I hope that you enjoy christmas, after all it can get quite exciting

Hopefully season two will have us all wetting ourselves with excitement, well no doubt that some will be, I'll be there waiting to see if they finally get it, or if it turns out to be another soap opera.

YMMV

Are you new to Survivors, or watched since the 1970s? Oldie

Email   Website

Yes, Dave, thanks for your (ill) considered opinion. You've said your bit, give it a rest now. What a shame to find the same sort of shouty "me! me! me!" trolls infesting this forum the way they do one or two of the Dr Who forums. You're just wrong, mate - episode six was a tour de force of great, exciting modern TV - you can bang on otherwise as much as you like but you are just so far wide of the mark I don't know whether to pity you or laugh at you. But as it's Christmas maybe I'll just laugh.

Are you new to Survivors, or watched since the 1970s? 1970s

Email   Website

"Yes, Dave, thanks for your (ill) considered opinion. You've said your bit, give it a rest now. What a shame to find the same sort of shouty "me! me! me!" trolls infesting this forum the way they do one or two of the Dr Who forums. You're just wrong, mate - episode six was a tour de force of great, exciting modern TV"

Paul, I am certainly not one of your type who thinks the new "Survivors" is something to get hyper about, and certainly not one of the "troll" types you are trying to compare me with, If you think that this is a "tour de force of great, exciting modern TV" then I wondering whether to cash in my TV licence and leave for another planet If this is what you call "great TV" what hope is there for the future of TV.

I guess we should remember that this is "only TV" and not something to get all over excited about. Some of us live in the real world and would like to occasionally see a bit of "real life situations" in our programs of choice.

Going back to the "Trolls" you talk about, this forum was inundated with them a few years back, hence the rules Bob had to put on the top of pages, he had 36 members who turned out to be just three, I was caring for the forum whilst Bob was on his holidays when this was detected by my detective work.You will also see that there are IP numbers on the side of each post, a way of tracking who is posting.

I will leave it at that for now. I have to prepare for the next "Death"

DD

Are you new to Survivors, or watched since the 1970s? Oldie

Email   Website

i think you two have now shared you difference,after all paul only said what he thought of series 6,there dosent need to be an ongoing debate about it,to be honest its getting a bit boring,so lets stick to the episode in question and not personal tit for tat.
happy xmas

umm sorry episode 6

I have copied a few posts from my forum on this subject matter, I hope none of them will mind...We have hit over 556 posts on this particular thread about the new series, something like 28 pages, so a lot of views from a quite wide field of viewers even from some who never saw the first series...I have copied you in on these via email Bob...

.....................................................
Anyway, some comments, even from some of the former posters from your forums in “the earlier days” 


Let’s be fair.

Its not a bloody patch on the original.

I'm sure the quality of the camera work etc. is better but the script writer has missed the point, The best episodes asked huge moral questions. Law and Order - murder, vengeance, acceptance of deception. The loneliness of power. Brilliant stirring stuff.

The re-make is all too Hollywood - the white hats win, the black hats lose. Remember when the hippy guy died to get some medicine - and had to be burned?

Awesome

Bring back the thought provoking stuff.

But they won't. All too real.


....................................................
Was a little puzzled that the roads were overgrowing with weeds, but the bodies where still in pretty good nick, even the ones in water.

The guy in McDonalds really deserves his 5 gold stars, looks like he died at his post still trying to serve burgers. Or maybe he'd eaten one?

Scoops

....................................................
Started out with quite a promising scenario of someone trying to impose their 'brave new world' on others in the area, didn't last long though, we were soon back to sillyness.


.....................................................
I've been avoiding this thread as we've sky+d this show and not watched it 'til "I'm a no-mark" was finished.
My God this show stinks.
I really don't care if any of the main characters live or die.
Don't know if I can be arsed watching any more of this dirge......

......................................................
I gave up watching it 2 episodes ago.

I thought it looked quite promising but now it really seems to be a farce how they "survive". Lots of things left unexplained and everything is too convenient for them.

Fraid its not for me....

Andy
....................................................

For me it's gone from being something I really looked forward to, to just something else that's on the telly.

....................................................
It's the last episode next week and we really should be on the edge of our seats wondering how it's all going to end. How what's going to end though? There's no major plot!

Not impressed.

....................................................

Perhaps some of these are not Sci-fi aholics like some on here and just good critics of a TV show...Who knows

Are you new to Survivors, or watched since the 1970s? Oldie

Email   Website

Perhaps a read of my site via Bobs links page will help

Are you new to Survivors, or watched since the 1970s? Oldie

Email   Website

Er...I'm a bit worried about you, Dave! You seem to be a bit obsessed with disliking this series and proving how bad it is by throwing around lots of comments from other people without much taste! I could do much the same thing with lots of people with far better taste - people who love the series and have the ability to not spit "it's crud, not a patch on the original!" all the time because, come on, that's all getting a bit boring now, isn't it? Some of us can move on and accept an exciting new series for what it is without banging on about previous versions - this is exactly the problem with the Dr Who Forums where a hardcore of whingers can't accept how good the new version of Dr Who is without comparing it, unfairly, to the old series. If you hate it so much you feel you have to be so contemptuous of it and so dismissive of those who have the taste and ability to appreciate it, why not give up on it and move on to something you might enjoy more? Your beloved 'Casualty', perhaps? or maybe soemthing with celebrities in it over on ITV? Who knows? Or, in reality, cares? Just stop whining about the new 'Survivors' because, whatever you think of it, it's a triumph - and a success. End of.

Are you new to Survivors, or watched since the 1970s? 1970s

Email   Website

Paul,

I have had a look at a lot of your "Stuff" on the web, and you appear to be locked away in your Sci-fi world...

I merely used "casualty" as a pointer, it is not my beloved.

The series (Survivors) started well with episode one and what they were saying, looked real promising, then they just didn't happen.

They had great opportunities to make a fantastic series, but they didn't...END OF! get it...

Now move on, maybe next series they will make it more exciting and edge of seat stuff, but they need to read what the real public thought of it, not a Sci-fi fanatic.

Enjoy christmas, but remember Santa ain't real

DD

Are you new to Survivors, or watched since the 1970s? Oldie

Email   Website

I seldom post on here, but felt the need to join in on this one
I think the whole series seemed rushed, compared to the original. The last episode had too many of them going missing or being abducted. First Anya,then Najid and finally Abby.
Yes it was fast paced, but not very realistic.

Hopefully the next series will focus more on facts (how they cope) than fantasy.

Alan

Are you new to Survivors, or watched since the 1970s? Watched since the first series in the 70's

Email   Website

Hmmm ok been a long time fan of survivors , having watched the original series far to many times for my own good :) (hmm nothing on tv today maybe time to start watching again )

I tried very hard to watch the 2008 version with an open mind , but alas I'm affraid that they just rush the pace , they did not focus on the real terror of the situation and just seemed to go all out for tv tastic viewing figures , being blunt WTF is going on with the others in the lab , why did the story need that branch when if done carefully there was so much it could have delivered without trying to be over complicating the story

I just hope that the second series takes a more focused view on how people would survive and prosper/fail in this new world

Are you new to Survivors, or watched since the 1970s? w

You see, Dave, it's your sarky tone that does you no favours. Yes, I'm a fan of good genre TV (you can call it "sci-fi" if you wish!) - and believe me, 'Survivors' was, generallyu, great genre TV. It may not be your cup of tea, that's your problem and I'm so sorry for you for that.

Yep, Santa ain't real - and I'm sort of hoping you might not be too!! Let's leave it there, eh? Other TV programmes are available for you to enjoy/moan about as is your wish.

Are you new to Survivors, or watched since the 1970s? 1970s

Email   Website

Paul why so.... Aggressive

You might not agree with Dave but Dave is entitled to his opinion.

This forum and its sister site have always been friendly welcoming places on the web. I like the fact that Dave saw the same programm as me but felt very different about it. The difference is what makes this forum and others like it so interesting.

It's Christmas.... be nice

Are you new to Survivors, or watched since the 1970s? long time fan

Email  

Without wishing to drag this rather silly and petty dispute out any longer than necessary, Craig, you might wish to revisit the posts in this thread where you'll find that Dave has consistently been the aggressive, sarcastic and, potentially, offensive one in this exchange. He leaped straight down my throat when I posted my own opinion on the superb sixth episode and has proceeded to reply to me with increasing rudeness ever since. I'm thick-skinned and I can laugh it off but no-one gets away with that in real life and certainly not on a 'friendly' fan forum dedicated to ane exciting television series. Perhaps dave might be wise to consider the tone of his responses to people he disagrees with in future - or, as I've suggested, stop watching television programmes which cause him so much distress and lead him to lose track of his manners.

Let's leave it there then, eh?

Are you new to Survivors, or watched since the 1970s? 1970s

Email   Website

Try to keep calm guys....... it's only TV, and that is really the problem.

It was OK again, plenty of running around and shooting although "our heroes" have still not really managed to arm themselves. I agree why can't career criminal Tom Price hit a barn when he is standing inside it?

Lovely clean city, no mention of disease, barely a mention of smell. Tidy streets, no bodies.

Most of the survivors in his one seemed to be children.

For me, too much going on, no character development and therefore no engagement with them. I really don't care about any of them. If the original season had ended with Greg Jenny or Abby being shot I would have been mortified.

For modern Beeb output it's OK but it's forgettable TV.

I hope that season two calms down a bit and starts to develop a bit more atmosphere. I guess we wait and see.

John,

One of the, many, problems with this series is that there is very little notion of passing time. At one point Abby mentions 'all these weeks' or some such but there is no real idea given as to how long it has been since 'The Death.'

So, we don't know if enough time has gone by for the bodies to have decomposed (the body in the canal may have been recent, for instance). So maybe no smell or maybe eye-watering, with out a reference point who can say?

Streets become litter strewn because people drop litter. Without people to drop the litter where would it come from? Anyway, some of the streets were quite messy, in a 'let's place an upturned delivery van here' sort of way. I always think it's funny in these 'disater' films that you get cars all over the roads and upturned buses and the like. Unless the death was instant I can just see people parking their cars neatly; the way they are conditioned to, and then dying in the drivers seat, or getting out and dying elsewhere. There would not be bodies everywhere, well maybe one or two, because people tend to go to ground when ill. They'd go home, or at least try to.

As to disease, well which ones are you thinking of? Typhus, cholera and diptheria, the ones most commonly mentioned in this context, need to exist first before they can infect the water supply. So if Manchester did not have any of these disease before The Death it wouldnt have them after it. This was one of the more unbelievable aspects of the first 3 series, the idea that the cities would be off limits due to disease. Personally I don't think they would be dangerous after the first 6-12 months and that the producers introduced the concept as a cost cutting measure. It also gave the a stong story line with Paul's self-sacrifice.

Personally I think this series looked good and, as is most modern TV, a triumph of looks over substance. Primeval was the same - looked good, crap stories ...

It could have been so much more.

Email  

Peter,

Yes, I have commented previously on the lack of any sense of the passage of time.

My point about the city was more to do with the empty streets. I agree not too many would have been driving around and for that reason there would be parked cars everywhere but there would also have been streets congested with traffic which did not get home - the ones the virus killed quickly. (remember the snarl-ups in the street when Jenny was trying to get to Anya)

Also the pretty CG fire was OK but it and many others would have occurred and burn't themselves out long ago ....along with floods and other things no longer maintained.

It would smell, millions of dead bodies in the city in apparently warm weather would smell. Also a real threat or not the survivors would be absulutely paranoid about disease having just survived a global pandemic.

I rant on about the my lack of empathy with the characters. Take poor old Greg as an example. What did he actually get to do in the first season? Compared to the original Greg he just feels like an incidental character which is why I care so little that he has been shot. Anya, the Jenny replacement, another weak character compared to Jenny in the original.

I also feel that there is no connection between the characters. In the original I felt that the central characters really cared for, and needed each other and hence I cared about them.

It's all about gunplay and action, crammed with ideas (mostly borrowed) but as a result has little depth and atmosphere.

It could have been so much better, it equally could have been so much worse.

I'm sure, for folk who do not compare it to the original it's OK but that for me is the problem. I would have been much happier if another PA idea had been adapted for TV rather than rehashing Survivors. Lets be honest there are lots of good ideas out there.

Looks good with no content is very much the problem with lots of film and TV these days. TV is starved of good writers and originality.I'm not sure talented new writers get a look in, so much being motivated by money and fashion. Mr Hodges Primeval is a good example .....effects driven but with little or no plot or character development. Russel T Davies is another TV hero, his Dr Who plots?? are laughable (a bit like my dreams) but are driven by healthy budget and loads of eye candy - pretty to look at, but total rubbish (I submit the Christmas special as an example)

So they're going to remake DOTT are they? ......why? what is wrong with the brilliant 80's version starring John Duttine? How can you make something close to perfect better?

Why not do something new for goodness sake?

An ok episode, though again trying to cram too much action into too little time.

I also regret that it seems to be duplicating one of my gripes about the old Survivors, namely disjointedness. No suggestion of talking to Garland's group, or any of the others, wrt a common front against Dexter and Samantha. Just take off unilaterally.

Still. Ep6 has left some interesting openings. At some point that scientist (the one with the conscience) is surely going to reach a breaking point with his boss (forget the name but think of him as "Mengele"). One possibility. Does Najid get captured also, and Mengele wants to do a post-mortem on him. For the other guy, this is maybe a step too far.

Also interesting to speculate on the development of Samantha's relationship with Dexter. Even now, she seems to have only very limited control over him. For the moment, he seems willing to shelter behind her relatively respectable image, in the hope that people will go along with her who might be less ready to follow an obvious gangster. As a respectable looking relict of the Ancien Regime, she plays the role of Hindenburg to Dexter's Hitler. However, she isn't as elderly as Hindenburg, so when he feels strong enough to do without her, a tragic accident will become necessary.

Just my thoughts. Hope you all had a nice Christmas.

Are you new to Survivors, or watched since the 1970s? Saw some episodes then. Got all the dvds as they came out.

Email  

John,

Whilst I agree, to an extent, that it'd be nice to see some new genre ideas on TV, you can't blame the Tv companies for going back to old favourites - they're well known, familiar, they're not a hard sell in the way than an all-new series is. Doesn't excuse the fact it's a bit lazy but as long as they're done well, like Survivors and especially Dr Who (I couldn't disagree more re your comments regarding Russell T Davies - his plots for the series are big, bold, brash, daft and hugely imaginative if you can be bothered to look at them properly which, sadly, a lot of so-called fans can't) I've no real problem. 'Day of the Triffids' is long overdue a remake - advances in FX will broaden the scope and look of it and, hopefully, we'll get a better actor playing Bill this time around!

Happy New Year!

Are you new to Survivors, or watched since the 1970s? 1970s

Email   Website

Paul,
I have loved (Good) Doctor Who since the days of William Hartnell.
I agree RTD has imagination, but he just doesn't know what to do with any of his ideas. He goes off on huge un-beleivable flights of fancy (as I say much like some of my more bizarre dreams) I like my SciFi to have some level of believability, most of the plot devices he dreams up are ridiculous. I guess as he is writing for children it doesn't really matter. All the best Doctor Who stories since the reboot have been the subtle ideas penned by others and I will loose no sleep over his departure but I assume we can agree to disagree over that one?

I thought that the 80's DOTT was a chilling and authentic conversion to TV and John Duttine under-played it well for me - an ordinary bloke thrown into an exra-ordinary situation. Yes today's F/X are vastly better but Survivors and many other things have proved that they do not always make for better story telling.

I understand your comments about the need to sell modern TV but surely a new and well publicised TV adaptation of "The Death Of Grass" or "Wrinkle in the Skin" (imagine the F/X possibilities) or "I Spied a Pale Horse" would sell just as well as another adaptation of DOTT?

I am a great fan of F/X done well but it seems so often nowadays to get in the way of the story telling instead of enhancing it, as it should.

There has been so much recent output on both film and TV with jaw dropping effects but no character development or plot - the result - a very empty viewing experience.

All that said, I am aware that there are opinions on this forum (and others) which are poles apart and that perhaps is as it should be. We can't all like the same things. I do suspect as hinted previously that the folk less satisfied with new Survivors and other things are the older visitors to the forum. As a result some of our expectations may be based on the pace and style of story telling we grew up with. They do say you don't really appreciate something until it is gone and perhaps that's why we old codgers do realise what we have lost?

I don't dislike new Survivors (or Dr Who) for that matter but I am somewhat disappointed by both.

And I like the way Tom Price is being developed.

He's beginning to resemble Pirrie in "The Death of Grass" - the one who does all the dirty work with which the others wouldn't soil their hands - but without which they probably wouldn't survive. They are very uncomfortable with him, and rather wish they didn't need him, but at last are starting to realise how much they do.

Are you new to Survivors, or watched since the 1970s? Saw some episodes then. Got all the dvds as they came out.

Email  

Yes, I think Price is the most interesting character, but he is being given more to do than most which gives him more depth anyway.

Hi John,

Well of course it's all down to individual taste. I'm a fan of old Dr Who from way, way back but find the new series - and especially the fast, witty, imaginative stories by Russell which are more concerned with telling a good story with interesting, believable characters than presenting dull, dry science-fiction gobble****ok - now vastly superior to the old to the extent that I find rewatching the old series difficult. When there are several non-Russell stories in a row in the new sereis I get itchy for one of his stories because I just like the irreverent way he writes and the wild stories he tells. I worry about how the show will manage without him at its helm. I adore the old Survivors for what it is/was - a great show from the 70s. but I'm able to set that aside and embrace the new show, telling a similar story in a modern way; for me it's as good now as the old show was then. I guess I'm just fortunate in that I don't sit and compare and contrast old/new, I watch the new and enjoy it without constantly worrying about whether it's "as good" as the old stuff. But that's just me!

Cheers and Happy New Year!

Are you new to Survivors, or watched since the 1970s? 1970s

Email   Website

John,

It occurs to me that something similar might be said about Al, whose "father-substitute" relationship with Najid has been reinforced by his taking of primary responsibility for rescuing him.

Perhaps I display the prejudices of an older generation, but at times, given how the boy's misbehaviour has endangered the rest of the Group, I wondered if it wasn't time for Al to carry his parental role a stage further - by taking Najid's pants down and slapping his behind for it. But I suppose it would be the wildest fantasy to expect today's BBC to have a "good guy" do anything so un-PC.

Are you new to Survivors, or watched since the 1970s? Saw some episodes then. Got all the dvds as they came out.

Email  

Al has actually become one of the more interesting characters, at least he appears to have a bit of spirit and a mind of his own, as demonstrated in the last episode and when he stood up to everyone in the eco-centre.

Mike, I suspect it would have to be an acbo (anti-community behaviour order).

Yuk! That sounds more the kind of thing Samantha might try and impose.

Are you new to Survivors, or watched since the 1970s? Saw some episodes then. Got all the dvds as they came out.

Email  

Hi Honey, I'm home...

Well I have been away from here for a few days so that the toys could be gathered safely in again.

I am hoping that the next series will be better, I'll let you know if it isn't

Am I real? Yes I am, and anyone who has been around for the past four years and had followed Bobs excellent forums would know that to be true.

Hi Bob, I had been hoping to come over to see you, but sadly missed the opportunity. Would you believe I am working real close to "Tanker Hill" at the moment, now that was a fun episode, Greg must have been an olympic athlete to have run from "Tanker Farm" to there

Have a great New Year.

ATB

DD

Are you new to Survivors, or watched since the 1970s? Oldie

Email   Website

Hello Dave & you have a good new year too.....I think you mean "God almighty pitch" as that hill is locally known!......Nearly everyone I met at Staunton has got, had or is about to have the Aussie flu bug that is floating about.
Bob

Are you new to Survivors, or watched since the 1970s? loved it since 1975

Email  

Yep, that's the one...

If I have to take anyone to the shops in Bodenham I take them down there, usually a bit faster than normal

So, time to be taking extra Vit C and Garlic around here to keep that nasty bug at bay. Just heard on the news that the drugs aren't working on this one, lots of folks have been getting the flu vaccine this year and it is the wrong one for this strain, looks like some will be having a bad start to the year

Keep well Bob, maybe next time you are up we can have a few single malts at the Swan.

DD

Are you new to Survivors, or watched since the 1970s? Oldie

Email   Website

Well Dave, that is perversely comforting to me.

Back in October, I enquired about a flu jab, only to be told that as I wasn't yet 65 they couldn't give me one on the NHS. I'd have to go private.

For various reasons, basically pre-Christmas rush, I never got round to doing so. Looks as if I was right to save my money.

Are you new to Survivors, or watched since the 1970s? Saw some episodes then. Got all the dvds as they came out.

Email  

Mike it is something to do with... An increasing number of patients who have received the flujab are now presenting with influenza. it suggest H3N2 Brisbane is drifting again... I picked this up from a GP on another forum.

Personally I wouldn't touch a flu vaccine these days, didn't do them any good in "Survivors", doesn't seem to be doing any good in the real world either.

link to BMJ article

Hope the link works

Are you new to Survivors, or watched since the 1970s? Oldie

Email   Website

The flu vaccine thing has always been very hit and miss. At some point a decision has to made on which strain to concentrate on for the coming "Flu season" and unfortunately it's often another strain which is the one that makes an appearance.

The best you can do really, if you are getting long in the tooth or have a chronic illness which makes you more vulnerable to complications, is to get the jab .....and then cross your fingers.

Sensible avoidance of exposure is the other useful strategy (when possible)

I was over in Jersey a few weeks ago. I had a meeting in a local company and the funy hting was everyone was talking about their appt with the compny nurse to get a flu jab. It sounded like the company had been warned about the likely flu viruses on the way to the island and had decided it would be chepaer topay for all staff to have a jab than pay sick pay for those who could not get to work!

I do not have a clue whether it was successful or not but it sounded like an annual event...

I haven't added my response to the series until now, as I have just come over some sort of bug which left me shivering and in terrible pain for most of Christmas. At first I thought I was getting the first of the kidney trouble that has affected other members of my family, but no, the doctor had no idea what it was!
Anyway, I was very dissappointed with the new series in the end, reminding me more of Last Train than Survivors. Once again they dithered through the episodes, right up until the end of episode six, at which point "We've run out of time! Panic Stations!" It was then a case of cramming as much action into the last five minutes as possible.
It annoys me that they have followed the same lead as the Battlestar Galactica remake, and ended the series like this. Why for once can't the end the series properly, like they did in the original series?
I don't know if I can be bothered to wait for the next series, they'll probably mess that up as well.

Are you new to Survivors, or watched since the 1970s? Fourteen Years

Email  

Hi Richard
I hope your feeling better now & a largely agree with your summing up - It showed how TV drama standards have dropped since the 1970s & how brilliant the original series was.
I wrote a while ago about my doubts of the BBC being able to produce drama of a 1970s standard - this has proved they cannot now do it - sad but true.
I had the flu bug 2 weeks before Xmas as soon as the sore throat hit I hibernated for about 5 days, staying in the warm & soon got over it after that.
It is those that fight it, trying to go to work & mix with others that cause ALL the problems - they help neither themselves or others who they pass their germs on to!
Bob

There are some really nasty bugs doing the rounds at the moment and you are right Bob, sufferers seem determined to share them around. I suppose job insecurity makes people reluctant to take time off.

What really gets on my nerves (he said climbing onto his soapbox) is people, particularly stupid TV presenters who say "Oh yes I've got flu at the moment" If they really had flu they would be pretty much incapacitated and feeling like you know what, not sitting in a studio massaging the egos of so called celebrities. (Rant over)

Speaking of "The Last Train" I watched it again a little while back and it had things I liked. The theme for a start was very haunting. I know it's sacrilege to say this on this forum but I also think it has far more atmosphere than new Survivors. It could have been better (I didn't like the ending) but it had something.

Really should get a copy of "Last train" I recall some of it and seem to remember it was a good laugh watching them going to the lock up to get the Transit van...Finding it had 4 flat tyres and a flat battery so started a generator to get it all sorted

Shame the petrol ws fifty years out of date

Good on you Bob for going into self imposed isolation, best way to deal with most illnesses that are contagious especially flu.

DD

Are you new to Survivors, or watched since the 1970s? Oldie

Email   Website

It's such a shame that so many of you want/wanted the BBC to make a series "of 1970s standards" - no-one else does (whatever it means) so I don't know why anyone realistically expected they would! The new show took the idea and updated it and it was never going to be like the old series in terms of pace, narrative, story beats etc - that was then and this is now. I'm still very much reminded of the Dr Who fans who won't 'let go' of the classic series and embrace the dynamism of the new one; it's much the same here with the new 'Survivors'. I still think the show would have been even better if it hadn't found it necessary to use the 'characters' (or at least the character names) of Greg and Abby and Tom but maybe that was a requirement of obtaining the rights to the concept from Nation's estate. At the end of the day I enjoyed six exciting TV episodes in a genre - the post-apolcalypse - which fascinates me and I'm very much looking forward to six more next year (and possibly the year after from the murmurs I'm hearing). When I want a fix of the old series, the DVD boxsets are on my shelf. But to me they're two different series sharing the same idea and I can enjoy both in very different ways without begrudging either one the existence of the other.

Yep, with you all re flu bugs etc! I was hit by some sort of chest infection/bronchitis in December and was off work for a week but went back too soon and even now am still suffering with the chesty cough syndrome. Ah well!

Are you new to Survivors, or watched since the 1970s? 1970s

Email   Website

Dave, I agree about quite a few of the practical plot devices used in Last Train, but I don't think realism was a worry to the writers. It was more about telling the story. It had lots of flaws but it had something else.

Paul, It's not about living in the past. There is a difference between something being new TV and something being great television. It seems to happen less now particularly on UK TV.

I have mentioned the new Battlestar Galactica previously. Gritty exciting riveting and above all well written television .....if UK TV was turning our programs of that quality I would have no complaints.

We can do it "Life on Mars" great concept, great characters excellent stories, but it doesn't happen very often.

Most new television is just an empty hollow and disappointing experience and I am convinced it is a problem of new writers not being encouraged. Previously series such as Play for Today etc were the training groung for new talent and it doesn't happen any more.

Paul
Galloways cough mixture is the best Cough treatment - if you can find this "old" remedy....1970s even!
I have looked at the BBC messageboards, Digital spy & several others - the general opinion about this new Survivors seems to be if the poster is young, then it was not too bad for 2008 TV Drama - for the older poster (like me) seems to be typical modern drama rubbish!.....believe me, I tried to enjoy it - but it was so badly written, poorly acted & I was deafened by the BBC orchestra at every turn I could not find much To enjoy at all I'm afraid - in fact having watched 1 & a half Bonekicker episodes, I think even that made a bit more sense than new Survivors - I'll keep you posted when I have watched the rest!
Bob

Are you new to Survivors, or watched since the 1970s? loved it since 1975

Email  

I'll be amazed if you can continue to watch Bonekickers Bob. The other half and I gave up after the first one. Poorly acted unbelievable claptrap pretty much covers it.

Another example, not the beeb I know, but the new series "Demons" trying to copy US genre programs such as Buffy, Angel and Supernatural but failing miserably.

Poor old Philip Glennister trying to do an American accent (why) and managing to sound like a Welsh Texan from Peckham.

Why can't we do what we used to do, quality serious adult drama instead of trying to appeal to the MTV attention span of a Goldfish generation?

Hi JP, (Last train) It is/was a good watch, A definate "to be added" to my DVD list; along with the full set of Survivors, old and new; Both modern versions of "I am Legend", must have a hunt for the earlier versions as well sometime.

It is amasing what bits get remembered from these previously shown "things", I remembered lots from all three "Survivors" but usually got them mixed up...

DD

Are you new to Survivors, or watched since the 1970s? Oldie

Email   Website

John,

...trying to appeal to the MTV attention span of a Goldfish generation?

Got it in one. I fail to see why, given 'the unique way the BBC is funded' that the BBC seems to feel it must placate the mornic channel hoppers. The idea seems to be that if something isn't happening RIGHT NOW!!! then people will just surf away. Well let them!

There are a thousand examples of how the BBC have dumbed down for market share but the worse has to be 'Horizon.' That used to be a challenging and interesting science programme. Now it veers between Eco-Warrior agit-prop and the banal & infantile. I can't remember the last time I watched Horizon and saw something I didn't already know - because I read it the week before in the Sun! Surely there must be someone in the BBC that understands that people with intelligence DO watch the TV, if there is something worth seeing.

That's what's wrong with this Survivors. It's aimed at morons.

Email  

Sad, but very true Peter - but people do not want to know the truth these days, that is why so many people are in debt, why people are losing their jobs, why Woolworths have closed, why our contry in very nearly bankrupt.......

Are you new to Survivors, or watched since the 1970s? loved it since 1975

Email