Survivors - Not Surviving for a third series

**Larry** · 3rd Jan 2010, 5:32 PM

was taken by suprise when I saw the trailer for this the other day as I wasn't expecting it to be on this early in the year it looks like series 2 is going to be every bit as good as series 1.

**Paul Clement** · 3rd Jan 2010, 7:42 PM

I'm certainly hoping it's going to be as good.

**Andrew Curnow** · 3rd Jan 2010, 7:43 PM

Are all the cast returning? I don't think I spotted the younger of the two female leads (I've gone temporarily blank on her name) in the trailer I saw today.

**Andrew Curnow** · 3rd Jan 2010, 7:44 PM

The internet advises that I mean Zoe Tapper. Thank you Google!

**Paul Clement** · 3rd Jan 2010, 7:57 PM

Isn't she the one who's in bed with someone during the trailer?

**Andrew Curnow** · 3rd Jan 2010, 10:32 PM

And I missed that?! Good gracious!

**Dave Tudor** · 4th Jan 2010, 9:01 AM

This was an excellent series, and I'm looking forward to the new run, even though we missed the last episode - don't suppose there's any chance they're repeating it before the series starts? I imagine it followed the same storyline as the original Survivors, though?

**Larry** · 4th Jan 2010, 12:41 PM

Originally Posted by Dave Tudor

This was an excellent series, and I'm looking forward to the new run, even though we missed the last episode - don't suppose there's any chance they're repeating it before the series starts? I imagine it followed the same storyline as the original Survivors, though?

basicly the last episode ended with Greg, being shot and Abbey being kidnapped and taken prisoner by a hit squad working for the scientists/doctors we keep seeing throughout series 1.

**Perry Vale** · 4th Jan 2010, 1:44 PM

And was kidnapped because she survived the virus, and they want to understand why.

**Alex** · 12th Jan 2010, 10:48 PM

Hmmm, I struggled with this tonight. There were some interesting developments, but it felt like 20 minutes of plot / action stretched over an hour. I won't be impressed if we see less of Max Beesley too, as he's one of the main reasons that I'm watching it.

**Perry Vale** · 13th Jan 2010, 1:50 AM

That was very poor, I thought, a step back from gradual improvements made over the course of S1.

**duncan** · 13th Jan 2010, 7:59 AM

I'm the opposite. I thoroughly enjoyed the first episode last night. The collapse of the hospital was done really well, it it had me thinking that at least one of the main cast wouldn't make it to the end of the episode. Sarah is very irritating but I did feel sorry for her.

As for those that are waiting to "come home", could they be sitting pretty up in space?

**Larry** · 13th Jan 2010, 9:07 AM

Originally Posted by duncan

I'm the opposite. I thoroughly enjoyed the first episode last night. ?

I thought it was a fantastic episode I've been really looking forward to series 2 and I wasn't dissapointed/

**Si Hunt** · 13th Jan 2010, 10:08 AM

Watched this last night, it was ok, but the (over a ) year gap since the last series made getting back into it feel like a bit of a jolt. Also it stretched credibility a bit that the girl was trapped under rubble for hours, then went straight back home and performed life-saving heart surgery on Pattison Joseph! What a hero! And was he really supposed to survive with his chest cut open all day while she had her rubble episode? The other bloke joined in the survival act, clearly appearing to die under the collapsed hospital (suddenly stopping talking with your eyes open in a glazed stare is shorthand for TV death, right?) only to be revived by a bit of miracle CPR hours later. Survivors, indeed.

And none of them seem to get that a tough killer criminal who wants to make amends is EXACTLY the sort of person you want with you when trying to survive in a bleak, post-apocalyptic world.

Si.

**Perry Vale** · 13th Jan 2010, 1:07 PM

Originally Posted by Si Hunt

And none of them seem to get that a tough killer criminal who wants to make amends is EXACTLY the sort of person you want with you when trying to survive in a bleak, post-apocalyptic world.

Si.

Of course. That's because all the characters are walking cliches, and the writers were intent on shoe-horning in a lot of backstory guff about Greg beating up his wife's boyfriend. That scene (where he leaves) summed it up for me, as you say, Tom is exactly who they need (and the relationship worked fairly well for the whole of S1), and none of them managed to play that scene with any believability. Because it was ludicrous.

**SiHart** · 13th Jan 2010, 8:28 PM

It was illogically plotted and silly, but I still quite enjoyed it. There's just something about it that's got me hooked in a way the original series just didn't. Maybe it;s because it's more exciting than thought provoking?

It was silly- the hospital falling down just as they go in, the way they let Tom go at the end (I'm all for morality, but really, they do need him) and all the survival then the operation etc...

But I still want to find out what happens next.

Si xx

**Rob McCow** · 13th Jan 2010, 8:35 PM

I'm in the middle - I quite enjoyed it, but I was a bit bored by the collapsing building stuff which seemed to go on and on and go on you will.

The postcard with 'Hope Never Dies' and a series of numbers on it - does this mean that Survivors is going to tie in with Lost?

**Rob McCow** · 15th Mar 2010, 1:26 PM

We polished off Season 2 last night.

Overall it's been good stuff. In places it's been slow and frustrating, but it's remained compelling viewing. They keep the tension going pretty well in their little scenarios.

I'm expecting a Season 3 with an even-more reduced budget and half the cast gone!

**Andrew Curnow** · 15th Mar 2010, 6:15 PM

I really really enjoyed season 1.... but by the time season 2 came along I just didn't care, and somehow never got motivated or inclined to watch it. I think, personally, they left it off air too long. And the lukewarm reception to season 2 hasn't helped!

**Si Hunt** · 15th Mar 2010, 11:28 PM

I really enjoyed it. But showing the first episode then taking it off the air for a fortnight was a disgrace!

Si.

**duncan** · 13th Apr 2010, 2:17 PM

I really enjoyed both seies of Survivors, however I can enjoy it no more as the BBC has decided to cancel it.

http://totalscifionline.com/news/487...vors-cancelled

**SiHart** · 13th Apr 2010, 2:27 PM

That's a real shame. There was great potential for it to go on for a few more years. Sadly the way it was treated by the BBC didn't do it any favours. Why they brought it back and then didn't put the second episode on for a fortnight is beyond me. No wonder the ratings slipped.

Si xx

**Si Hunt** · 13th Apr 2010, 3:09 PM

A shame, but typical.

Si.

**Rob McCow** · 13th Apr 2010, 3:20 PM

It's a shame but not really a surprise. Though the second series was entertaining enough it lacked a punchy Radio-Times-attention-grabbing idea.

Now if the Daleks had turned up...

**Si Hunt** · 13th Apr 2010, 3:43 PM

There's enough dross on telly to make this a minor tragedy. If TV was awash with brilliant dramas this would probably be a victim of not trying hard enough, but in a world when you are more likely to switch on to Alan Carr, or Jonathan Ross speaking down at you as if you are a moron, the loss of a beautiful shot HD sci-fi drama is a dreadful shame. It wasn't A1 brilliant, but it was exciting and thought-provoking and interesting. And now we'll never see the place where all the people escaped to or find out what happened when they got Max Beesley as a surprise present.

And yes, it would have been an audacious move if the Daleks had appeared - crossed our minds too.

Si.

Thread: Survivors - Not Surviving for a third series

Thread Tools

Display

Survivors - Not Surviving for a third series

Similar Threads

Survivors - The Remake

BBC "acquires rights to develop" Survivors

Series 2 speculation (series 1 spoilers within!)

PSAudios 6.1. Bless You Doctor Who