New Survivors

Cliffjumper · Post by **Cliffjumper** » Tue Nov 25, 2008 6:18 pm

Any particular reason I should be making any plans to watch this? Is there some upside with replacing a realistic group of people with a bunch of soap extras and the one off Doctor Who who couldn't act, but looked like she could because they got Tate in as her replacement? Top ethnic base-touching as well - from the primary cast of 10, we have three blacks, two Asians and possibly a Pole. Very PC.

Seriously, is the world actually this low on ideas? Is the BBC's basic plan to just remake its' entire output?

Post by **inflatable dalek** » Tue Nov 25, 2008 8:52 pm

FANTASTIC FACT! They don't have the rights to remake the TV show, but rather the rights to the novelisation by Nation. So they can't use anything that wasn't in the first four episodes/wasn't in the book. Which at least means they'll have to strike out in their own direction fairly early on. I haven't had chance to see it myself yet (for some reason even though Virgin only broadcast in pan and scan meaning you lose half the picture on a widescreen show when you go through the I Player on their replay service its in the right ratio, since noticing that I've hardly bothered watching anything on broadcast) but the first one is apparently a fairly straightforward reworking of the origin but with a big new twist at the end. As the twist is likely to be recaped at the start of the second epsiode you [Cliffy that is, anyone else will need to have seen the original] can probably jump in with part 2.

As for the ethnicity, IIRC from what I've read they are London based surrvivors so they being a very mixed bunch is more likely than it might seem. As long as the Welsh are still tramps and killers are will be well with the World.

More seriously though, the upper class tendencis of the non-evil original cast never bothered me as much as it does some as I thought that was rather the point, putting the people least suited to surrviving in that situation. The new one does have some big shoes to fill, especially as the original was somewhat ahead of its time whilst this version is going to struggle not to seem like a 28 Days Later rip off.

EDIT: Is there a particular spate of BBC remakes I've missed on at the moment?

Cliffjumper · Post by **Cliffjumper** » Tue Nov 25, 2008 9:05 pm

Doctor Who, Robin Hood, Merlin - while it's all been of varying quality, they seem to be low on inspiration for anything slightly fantastical.

Erm, yeh... Totally agree with you on the class stuff from the original. A bunch of farmers wouldn't have found things so hard (see Paul, who knows exactly what he's doing from the start). The original series contrasts the despairing posh types with more organised, savvy out-of-city types (Arthur Wormley and his mob... and I never remember the character name, but Peter Jeffrey's character). There's just more drama, especially when you consider Abby was especially pampered...

I also feel the whole concept possibly works in the 1970s that bit better... not so much because it wouldn't happen now, but basically because 30 years later people would probably be even less equipped to survive the aftermath of something like that. As a general thing, I felt Survivors lost a lot of impetus after the first series, with frequent implausible devices thrown in to keep them on the back foot (the massive, cold, stone mansion burning down for no apparent reason being my personal favourite).

I get the rationale for the ethnicity of the cast, but it's just amazing it manages to tick every box, isn't it? Very cookie cutter. Still, I am mildly interested to see how Johnson handles one of my personal heroes, assuming they haven't just grabbed the name at random.

Post by **inflatable dalek** » Tue Nov 25, 2008 9:22 pm

I also feel the whole concept possibly works in the 1970s that bit better... not so much because it wouldn't happen now, but basically because 30 years later people would probably be even less equipped to survive the aftermath of something like that.

Yep, the irony is the point Nation was trying to make is probably even more pertinent now but the characters lasting more than five minuets seems even less likely. I wonder if they’ll follow his original intent of having them all go to France for warmer territory?

As a general thing, I felt Survivors lost a lot of impetus after the first series, with frequent implausible devices thrown in to keep them on the back foot (the massive, cold, stone mansion burning down for no apparent reason being my personal favourite).

I still haven’t seen anything past season 1, and it was years before I saw all of that thanks to no attempt to release it on video getting past the first year. My Mother has the first two on DVD (but didn’t bother with the third as she says it’s not very good) I keep meaning to borrow them. I do think the loss of Abby/Seymour must have hurt the show very hard though, she and Greg were the souls of the show.

I get the rationale for the ethnicity of the cast, but it's just amazing it manages to tick every box, isn't it? Very cookie cutter. Still, I am mildly interested to see how Johnson handles one of my personal heroes, assuming they haven't just grabbed the name at random.

Do you mean Joseph? I understand Abby is supposed to be a fairly different character (though I’m not sure if they mean background or personality) so Greg may be as well. Christ, Max Beesley as Tom?!?!

Cliffjumper · Post by **Cliffjumper** » Tue Nov 25, 2008 9:45 pm

inflatable dalek wrote:I still haven’t seen anything past season 1, and it was years before I saw all of that thanks to no attempt to release it on video getting past the first year. My Mother has the first two on DVD (but didn’t bother with the third as she says it’s not very good) I keep meaning to borrow them. I do think the loss of Abby/Seymour must have hurt the show very hard though, she and Greg were the souls of the show.[//quote]

Plus Greg is first elbowed over by Charles Vaughan, and then basically fades altogether (the third series is worth seeing for the Greg solo episode, "The Last Laugh", however) and, avoiding spoilers, most the the Season 1 cast are shoved out of the way one way or another, whether they're written out or just relegated. Season 2 especially has something of a surfeit of new regulars who just don't really add anything. It's basically a demolition job.

Do you mean Joseph? I understand Abby is supposed to be a fairly different character (though I’m not sure if they mean background or personality) so Greg may be as well. Christ, Max Beesley as Tom?!?!

It's impossible for me to call him anything but Johnson... But yeh, I'm guessing it's in name only. I'm not sure you'd get away with a show now with such an unconventional male lead as Greg (who's fantastic because he's a pretty ordinary bloke... the comparison between him at the heroic Jimmy Garland is interesting).

optimusskids · Post by **optimusskids** » Tue Nov 25, 2008 10:58 pm

Have just seen part 2 of the new series and even when 99% of the population is dead they all seem to be driving 4x4 .

While I understand that they might want the opportunity to drive something that would be unobtainable normally you'd think that a nice white van would be much more practical for looting, plus the ex asian playboy who'd you think would want some nice wheels seems to be driving some boring silver 4 door.

Does anyone remember the vaguely similar one they had on a few years back I think it was on ITV where they al got stuck in a tunnel in a train on the way to sheffield and got accidentally cryogenically frozen or something.

Grufflock · Post by **Grufflock** » Tue Nov 25, 2008 11:18 pm

Does anyone remember the vaguely similar one they had on a few years back I think it was on ITV where they al got stuck in a tunnel in a train on the way to sheffield and got accidentally cryogenically frozen or something.

The Last Train? It was really good for it's time, but has dated horribly in the 14 or so years. Still fun to watch, but it's so very very ....90's... early..90's...

Post by **inflatable dalek** » Wed Nov 26, 2008 8:16 am

Which, considering the fact it was a late 90’s (in fact as late 90’s as it’s possible to get) shows a big part of the problem. The Last Train started off very well and had a interesting premise but it all fell apart about half way through. Not unlike Invasion: Earth only that fell apart after a good opening even faster.

Cliffjumper wrote: Plus Greg is first elbowed over by Charles Vaughan, and then basically fades altogether (the third series is worth seeing for the Greg solo episode, "The Last Laugh", however) and, avoiding spoilers, most the the Season 1 cast are shoved out of the way one way or another, whether they're written out or just relegated. Season 2 especially has something of a surfeit of new regulars who just don't really add anything. It's basically a demolition job.

Part of the perils of putting Terrance Dudley in charge of anything. Nation was lucky with Blake’s 7 in getting a producer and a script editor who really got the material and improved upon it once he left the show. I’ll say this for El Tel, he wasn’t the best or most original script writer ever (though he learnt his trade in a era with no home video or repeats where you could reuse and recycle ideas and plots constantly. Thehome entertainment age hasn’t been kind to him) he was a damn good ideas man. Even if in the case of Survivors it was Brian Clements idea (I wonder if the remains of that legal struggle is why they only got the rights to the book?). He just needed support from people who could make it work better than he could.

Though to fair, assuming there wasn’t a Chris Boucher behind the scenes rewriting him heavily his Survivors scripts are possibly the best he ever wrote. He was good at strong female leads across all his stuff as well (though was changing Servalan to a woman his idea or Bouchers?).

It's impossible for me to call him anything but Johnson... But yeh, I'm guessing it's in name only. I'm not sure you'd get away with a show now with such an unconventional male lead as Greg (who's fantastic because he's a pretty ordinary bloke... the comparison between him at the heroic Jimmy Garland is interesting).

I take it Johnson is his Peep Show character? The word back from my Mother is that it’s very dull and suffers from having no likeable characters whatsoever. She didn't even realise Beesley was playing dear old Taff's role till I told her, so I guess resembelance to the originals is minimal.

Halfshell · Post by **Halfshell** » Wed Nov 26, 2008 10:11 am

inflatable dalek wrote:I take it Johnson is his Peep Show character? The word back from my Mother is that it’s very dull and suffers from having no likeable characters whatsoever.

Bobbins.

The genius of Peep Show is that neither of the two central characters are particularly likeable. Meaning you can recognise/empathise-with the comments and behaviour, without identifying fully. Safe distance.

The supporting characters are likeable/awesome. Johnson, Suze, Nancy. It probably comes from not being able to hear their thoughts. It's the old thing of it being impossible to get inside somebody else's head without automatically being horrified.

Cliffjumper · Post by **Cliffjumper** » Wed Nov 26, 2008 1:31 pm

I think the latter part was directed at Newvivors

Halfshell · Post by **Halfshell** » Wed Nov 26, 2008 1:47 pm

Oh.

Personally I think all these shitty remakes are the price we have to pay for the undiluted awesome that is new Galactica.

Post by **inflatable dalek** » Wed Nov 26, 2008 8:46 pm

Cliffjumper wrote:I think the latter part was directed at Newvivors

He's right you know. Unless the bloke from Hotel Babylon also plays a character once played by Wales greatest actor in Peep Show as well...

Post by **inflatable dalek** » Thu Nov 27, 2008 9:24 pm

Cliffjumper wrote: Seriously, is the world actually this low on ideas? Is the BBC's basic plan to just remake its' entire output?

Could be:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/no ... iffids-bbc

A new generation is set to be terrified by giant plants following the BBC's decision to remake The Day of the Triffids.

Adapted from the 1951 novel by John Wyndham, the modern day version for BBC1 will be penned by ER and Law & Order writer Patrick Harbinson.

Whereas the BBC's 1981 version was set in the late 20th century, the new Day of the Triffids will take place in 2011. A film version, starring Howard Keel, was released in 1962.

Updating the sci-fi tale for modern audiences, the two-part drama revolves around a hunt for alternative sources of energy after the world's fossil fuel supply runs out.

Triffids are found to be a good replacement fuel, but a reign of terror begins when the lethal plants escape following a solar storm that blinds most of the world's population.

The Day of the Triffids has been commissioned by outgoing BBC Fiction chief Jane Tranter.

Casting has yet to be confirmed.

BBC Vision director Jana Bennett announced the commission at the Media Festival in Manchester today.

"The new series will be a combination of the familiar and the new," Bennett said.

Bringing a further terrifying dimension to the drama, the Triffids will also be recreated in high definition for viewers with HD televisions.

The Day of the Triffids is being produced by independent producer and distributor Power and will air next year.

BBC1's new adaptation will be executive produced by Power's Justin Bodle and the BBC Wales head of drama, Julie Gardner.

Gardner said: "The Day of the Triffids is a classic title. I'm excited that its powerful story is being remade for television. We're hoping to attract a legion of fans as well as give nightmares to a new generation of viewers."

There have been a number of adaptations of The Day of the Triffids before. The BBC made versions for radio in 1953, 1957 and 1968.

BBC television productions followed in 1971, 1973, 1980 and 1981 starring John Duttine as Doctor Bill Masen, one of the few survivors of the solar storm who has not been left blind.

There have been calls by sci-fans for a new version of The Day of the Triffids following the success of remakes of Doctor Who and new apocalyptic BBC1 drama Survivors.

I don't actually think modern effects technology will help it that much, the Triffid is just such a damn hard concept to create, be it by CGI or costumes or models. They've got to look like the sort of things people would want growing in their gardens yet be sinister at the same time. Not to mention the difficulty of having walking plants that don’t look daft.

And for anyone unfamiliar with the story, Triffid's as a new fuel source is from the book rather than a attempt to make it cool and 21st Century relevant. It was way ahead of its time in many respects (is it to late for the Wyndham estate to sue the 28 Days Later people?).

Oh, and the 1981 version is definative. And worth the DVD price just for having the 2.4 Children bloke playing Eccleston's 28 Days... role.