Survivors - Series 2
- Thread starter NeilF
- Start date
Same issue stands surely? Doesn't matter how the fire started, accidentally or on purpose, the timing/outcome was so rediculously well/badly timed it was too far fetched...
Terry Nation must be spinning in his grave. Why introduce stuff like this, there plenty of drama to be had from more believable sources.
I agree about Terryspinning. Even my wife muttered "based very, very loosely on the book by Terry Nation" during the opening credits.
To be fair the original series is very similarly vague when compared to the book. The book is only similar for about the first 4ish episodes
Let's not forget there was sudden a fire in the original series, wiping out cast members, and even turning one of the characters into a different actor!
But that was a fire that just broke out in the house they were living in wasn't it? (If I recall)
It wasn't a building they just happened to need to visit, choosing the exact minute to be set on fire, and just the right minute to fall down on them... Seems writers these days don't seem to care so much about unlikely and unbelievable, as long as it gets some effects or people running around some airtime.
To be fair it will help when you watch the rest, as others do come along as say that they set it alite.
Yes, the fire was caused by a candle or something. I was more concern in the original how the actor suddenly changed! It confused me somewhat (the first actor had a breakdown iirc)
If you have read the original book, then 'Survivors: Genesis of a Hero' by John Eyers is a good read. It's basically what happened to Abby's son.
Yes, the fire was caused by a candle or something. I was more concern in the original how the actor suddenly changed! It confused me somewhat (the first actor had a breakdown iirc)
If you have read the original book, then 'Survivors: Genesis of a Hero' by John Eyers is a good read. It's basically what happened to Abby's son.
even with people setting the building on fire its still far fetched to think the building would just cave in like it did, it was almost like 2012 at that point.
the BBC cant make serious sci-fi its always CBEEBIES style rubbish.
i heard they are remaking tripods maybe that will be utter rubbish to
the BBC cant make serious sci-fi its always CBEEBIES style rubbish.
i heard they are remaking tripods maybe that will be utter rubbish to
even with people setting the building on fire its still far fetched to think the building would just cave in like it did, it was almost like 2012 at that point.
the BBC cant make serious sci-fi its always CBEEBIES style rubbish.
i heard they are remaking tripods maybe that will be utter rubbish to
It's the fact, it just happened to be the building they were in, at the exact time they were in, that collapsed. Not the one next door, or the one 200 miles away, and not the day before they went into it, or 2 months after they went in it. For crying out loud! Basically as daft as Izzard the chimney sweap in the Triffids remake...
I think the Tripods is going to be a trilogy of films (at the cinema) isn't it?
The BBC adaptation wasn't bad. Obviously the effects weren't great, and the acting was generally poor, but it got the message across. If ONLY they'd finished the third/final series instead of canning it
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 3,827
- Location
- Essex
Don
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 17,154
- Location
- In a house
Well, I liked the first series, and enjoyed the first episode of series 2!
I shall be adding it to my regulary viewed shows of... erm... Top Gear.............. and I think thats it!
I shall be adding it to my regulary viewed shows of... erm... Top Gear.............. and I think thats it!
It's the fact, it just happened to be the building they were in, at the exact time they were in, that collapsed. Not the one next door, or the one 200 miles away, and not the day before they went into it, or 2 months after they went in it. For crying out loud! Basically as daft as Izzard the chimney sweap in the Triffids remake...
We've seen them go into loads of buildings that haven't collapsed. Now they've gone into one that has. Doesn't seem hugely unreasonable.
How many buildings have you been into in the last three months (it's about three months I'm guessing for the Survivors) that have fallen down since?
Of those buildings that have fallen down in the those last three months, how many have fallen down even on the same day you were in them?
Of those buildings that have fallen down on the day you were in them, how many fell down within an hour of you being in them?
I expect none fell down while you were in them?
And I expect no buildings you've been in over the last ten years have fallen down ever?
Yes, the building they went into was on fire, but the same crazy odds apply - The building was set on fire the exact day/hour they decided to go in, and it fell down the exact minute they were in there
It didn't fall down any of the other nigh on 130,000 other minutes over the last three months...It's contrived and silly, and most importantly unnecessary... Meaning your brain rings little alarm bells for unbelievability/daftness and drags you further away from the drama (ie: It's all make-believe, rather than actually believable). In my case this alarm bell sounds like a loud groan...
What would have been more believable?:-
- A fire had previously ravaged some of the hospital (over the past 2-3 months), and when trying to access some of the upper floors, it caused the floor to collapse beneath them? So them being there caused it. Anytime they went in there over a month would have resulted in the same outcome.
- A group hoarding in the hospital, and a grenade being used stupidly or something, causing a floor to collapse? Again, so them being there caused it. Anytime they went in there over a month would have resulted in the same outcome.
- Or don't bother with buildings needing to fall down, and concentrate on the drama/characters in these horrible times?
Last edited:
Don
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 17,154
- Location
- In a house
Jeeze, bet you are great fun in the cinema!
Why defend abysmal writing? There's plenty of scope for good realistic drama, without the need for bad tempered buildings to take out vendettas on the characters?
Maybe Al and Anya should have dived into some fridges as the building collapsed, and these fridges could then have fallen out of the building with our characters intact?
Drama does not need to be this daft! In the case of survivors it needs to be kept in the realms of believable.
I've not watched the entire episode yet, but it seems people generally suggested it was slow, with the best bits being the character building aspects - ie: the intelligent drama?
Last edited: