Survivors – Series 1 Review
The first series of the new Survivors finished yesterday, the day after the BBC announced series two. So how did this latest remake do?
When I first heard that the classic 1970s series was being revived I was doubtful. Could a zombie movie without zombies really be exciting in the 21st century? I have to say I was pleasantly surprised.
The characterisation was strong – perhaps too strong for some tastes – and the stories interesting. Most importantly it was welll written. Adrian Hodges did a good job keeping the individual stories tightly paced whilst slowly revealing the larger plot arc. Individual stories and ethical dilemmas were played out alongside the bigger picture. In particular the brave (and very unpleasant) new world being created by Samatha Willis (the excellent Nikki Amuka-Bird) raised questions about the values and structure of society.
It was all going so well and I’d become quite a fan. Until the final episode.
The final episode was quite simply awful. It started well with the conflict between Samantha’s goons and the main characters. However by about half way through it became obvious that there simply wasn’t enough time left to resolve all the storylines. In fact the episode resolved none orf them.
I don’t mind some loose ends left open for a second series, however to leave everything unresolved like this was totally unacceptable. We’d been led along by the implicit promise of a series-long plot arc only to be left dangling with a whole bunch of cliff-hangers. Not a single storyline came to anything like a satisfying dramatic conclusion.
It felt like the worst style of American television, refusing to finish anything in order to keep a show going for as long as possible, That works sometimes – for example with Lost – however it’s not a style I like. Even Lost promises there is a defined story arc already planned much like Babylon Five. Shows like Buffy worked well because as well as the individual episodes each series had its own storyline and Big Bad.
Compare this with The X Files, a show that started with much promise but eventually collapsed under the weight of loose ends and a refusal to commit to anything. It looks as if this might be the model that Hodges and the BBC are adopting with Survivors.
The original 1970s Survivors had an excellent first series but then dropped into tedious pointlessness. I had hoped that the research centre storyline would stop that happening with the new show, but judging by the last episode I fear that it’s heading the same way.
Possibly related posts:
•Survivors Series Two
Follow on Twitter
Yeah, it sucked
Comment by Greg | December 24, 2008
As an American viewer, I do not take offense of characterization of modern-day American thriller-dramas. However, the comments I have read from the British blogs have been awful, under-stating plot quality, while over-dramatizing flaws. Clearly, very “un-American”. We (Americans) look at a product according to the sum of its parts, rather than the individual components. Survivors is a top-notch, excellent series. One, I argue, could translate directly to American television. The fact that writer Adrian Hodges created and weaved of a world of the unimaginable with gritty realism carrying human characters discovering their true humanity while fighting for survival as a human species and (at times) against each other is worthy of a Peabody Award. A British genius at work, please appreciate him..with his talent, he can go elsewhere (to America).
Comment by Tommy Ates | December 26, 2008