http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2007/11_novembe r/22/survivors.shtml
shareThank god its not Russel T Davies and his Who Pals writing it, this show is potentially far too grown up for that lot.
http://stage6.divx.com/user/Human_Horror_Movie/video/1604270/Doctor-Who---The-Timewar
Well I hope he does a better job than that drivel 'Primeval', Im guessing its going to be full of photogenic types standing around posing for the camera .
share[deleted]
i'm not feeling the excitement here people!
I hope its not too 'PC', but i think gregs character could be "updated" a bit.
aside from that theres hundreds of new storylines they could explore that wernt done in the original, as well as redoing the best ones .
plus the production standards of TV have got better, plus it'd be nice to see the story carried out for my generation. well i mean the present day no matter what generation you are
so,
exciting eh?
gonna be about 2 a year wait I reckon.
I simply don't think they're capable of making it in a good way now - I have expectations of it being full of pc platitudes, a combination of actors with perfect teeth and no wrinkles and ex-soap actors, flashy camerawork, lots of shouting at each other before staring moodily into the middle distance.
I think what strenthens the old series is that (once you get past the first ep) all the actors look like people you would see in the street, and the lack of spinning camerawork or dramatic music etc gives it an everyday, almost mundane feel that helps convince.
Mind you, if they did get it right...
This is precisely why I don't watch live TV. By now I actually prefer to read — or, of course, watch my own DVDs. God it just never ends. We're going to see cheap special effects substituted for good writing — just wait.
The film industry is feeding pablum to an anesthetized public and they eat it up because THEY DON'T HAVE TO THINK. They can just sit there and watch explosions. There will be no character development and sh+t for writing.
The BBC insults my intelligence and this is a slap in the face to the original cast of SURVIVORS — incontrovertably the most important, relevant, and timeless drama ever placed on film.
God it makes me want to puke.
MC
The only way they should even CONSIDER this is to do a "sequel"; set it as many or few years later as they want, have a new cast by all means but get a few of the surviving cast as cameos at least, and above all keep in the spirit of the original!
If, however, they don't want to continue the story of the Survivors we know and love, or even their same world, and wish to start afresh with a plague wiping out mankind... well... don't be so insulting and lazy as to slap the Survivors nametag on it, and just make your own damn post-apocalypse series.
Of course, that's not what will happen at all. If this DOES get made, we will get rubbish writing, angsty young survivors (in a mix of PC-approved stereotypes), and about as much respect for the original as the attempts to revive Blake's 7 had for theirs.
Actually that's the main problem right there, is they'll cater/pander to the young crowd by making it a youthful cast which is done to make the audience relate to, ignoring that the fact that its older people in society that have experience and knowledge to lean on thus making the some of the ideas in the show believable.
plus its scheduling aswell, is it gonna be pre-watershed and soft, or are they going to put it on later and make it for the grown ups?
I have to agree with much of the unease expressed above regarding the mooted remake.
Back in the mid-70s, the main 'heroes' in the original series were for the most part white and middle class, while the villains were almost exclusively "working class".
But in 2008, I foresee endless nods to political correctness: aside from the inevitable "strong, feisty female lead" who can do everything much better than the blokes (to the point of making them look inept / foolish), I think that the inclusion of a token gay, a token Afro-Carribean and a token Muslim among the main cast is almost inevitable (multi-cultural and metrosexual survivors - all very "inclusive"!).
The casting will also lay greater emphasis on youth and photogeny than thespian prowess (mind you, the acting in the original wasn't always the best - look no further than Lucy Fleming), and no doubt the leads will all miraculously be able to maintain perfect hairdos and make-up even in a post-apocalyptic world.
Such is TV drama in the 21st century.
I possesss videos of most of the original series and believer that they should instead get as many of the original actors as possible and carry on thirty years later.Anyone else read the Survivors novels,which deviate from the series-in fact,the second one tells an entirely different story?
shareJust finished watching the remake. You were absolutely right. Anya the lesbian, Greg the Afro-Carribean and Ali and the boy whose name escapes me, Muslims.
shareOne of the best series (75 one) i have seen, and i didn't see until now, 2008.
And i have seen many:) I really hope Abby doesn't drop out the 2008 one, like in 1975.
As for the 2008 remake, i also like this one very much.
Translation: They put dirty brown people in the remake! WAAAAAHHHH
shareI don't think anyone is worried about 'dirty brown people' (your words); the point is that the BBC has a tiresomely predictably policy of including characters that represent their idea of 'diversity'; rather than simply attempting to tell a good story.
share[deleted]