Survivors 1.02
Nov. 26th, 2008 09:46 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
purplecatMuch like the first episode this came across as a competent and watchable piece of TV but still missing that vital spark. If it weren't for my fondness for the original and my interest in playing compare and contrast with this new version I'm not one hundred per cent sure I'd still be watching.
I was surprised to find that Max Beesley's Tom Price was easily the most compelling thing about the episode. The character re-make from feckless chancer to a more fixed and calculating amorality makes him both more interesting and turns him into a bit of a mystery. In the original we knew Tom Price was hanging around the survivor group almost entirely because they would have him and he wasn't making a successful go of it on his own. It's much harder to work out what is motivating the new Tom Price though a form of loyalty to Anye clearly plays a part in it. And, like Greg, it's possible he recognises the validity of Abby's stance and so perceives a vested interest in making the set up work. Given I'm fairly sure this Survivors run is going to cover the "Law and Order" episode of the original (IIUC that was the last episode Terry Nation had a strong hand in) and that (again IIUC) Jenny was originally supposed to take Wendy's role in that episode and Anye is something of a Jenny replacement... well let's just say I can't see this set up ending well.
In general this episode appeared much less in thrall to the original (although I have to caveat that with noting that I haven't read Nation's book) than the previous one and I think it benefitted from that. It resulted in making Tom Price a much more interesting character and benefitted from suggesting that, even integrated as he is into the "nice" crowd, Tom was nevertheless actually far more dangerous than the ill-disciplined Dexter and his gang (and was I the only one who thought Dexter's girlfriend was being deliberately portrayed as a kind of dumbed-down Rose gone bad?). I was in two minds about the changes to the Vic/Bob plotline. Sarah struck me as a considerably less interesting character than Anne, coming across as simply self-centred and dim where Anne always appeared more intelligently manipulative. Bob was made to seem creepier and less sympathetic than Vic but, again, less intelligent. The story was reduced to being about two rather thick people being unpleasant to each other leaving me, at least, with relatively little interest in either. However, given Bob's direct encounter with Dexter, it will be interesting to see how that all pans out in later plotlines and portrayed, as it was, it fitted in well with the episode's themes of ownership and securing supply.
The persistent use of the sound of distant dogs barking was a clever way to increase tension in several places though one that was probably only working for those of us who have watched the original. I kept expecting our foragers to suddenly come face to face with a pack of feral dogs.
Al and Najid's run-in with the old man in the sweet shop was, I thought, surprisingly effective and Al's delayed reaction to the events was well portrayed. I didn't think I'd like Al much, it looked like he was going to be portrayed as the "superficial" one on the team - the modern day equivalent of the dumb blonde, but in relatively few scenes here he was given more depth and made into a more interesting and sympathetic person.
Going into nit-pick mode our survivors seem to be being quite slow to grasp the necessity of securing livestock quickly. Farmed animals don't feed themselves you know! I would also note that they seem to be being slow to grasp the necessity of not only stockpiling supplies but subsequently defending that stockpile. But it may be that, following on from the events here, we will see them turn their minds to defense next time. The trailer certainly suggested direct confrontation of some kind.
Talking of trailers....
I was a little surprised that all the sex we were promised last week failed to materialise. I realise you want your trailer to act as a hook in for viewers but if you go down the "sex sells" route I vaguely feel you should deliver on your promises otherwise surely you fail to maintain your viewer base? or do I misunderstand marketing. Based on this week's trailer it looks like my original guess that our government minister would turn out to be the new Wormley may have been more accurate than I thought. But we'll see whether next week really does deliver the action-packed episode the trailer was attempting to suggest.
I was surprised to find that Max Beesley's Tom Price was easily the most compelling thing about the episode. The character re-make from feckless chancer to a more fixed and calculating amorality makes him both more interesting and turns him into a bit of a mystery. In the original we knew Tom Price was hanging around the survivor group almost entirely because they would have him and he wasn't making a successful go of it on his own. It's much harder to work out what is motivating the new Tom Price though a form of loyalty to Anye clearly plays a part in it. And, like Greg, it's possible he recognises the validity of Abby's stance and so perceives a vested interest in making the set up work. Given I'm fairly sure this Survivors run is going to cover the "Law and Order" episode of the original (IIUC that was the last episode Terry Nation had a strong hand in) and that (again IIUC) Jenny was originally supposed to take Wendy's role in that episode and Anye is something of a Jenny replacement... well let's just say I can't see this set up ending well.
In general this episode appeared much less in thrall to the original (although I have to caveat that with noting that I haven't read Nation's book) than the previous one and I think it benefitted from that. It resulted in making Tom Price a much more interesting character and benefitted from suggesting that, even integrated as he is into the "nice" crowd, Tom was nevertheless actually far more dangerous than the ill-disciplined Dexter and his gang (and was I the only one who thought Dexter's girlfriend was being deliberately portrayed as a kind of dumbed-down Rose gone bad?). I was in two minds about the changes to the Vic/Bob plotline. Sarah struck me as a considerably less interesting character than Anne, coming across as simply self-centred and dim where Anne always appeared more intelligently manipulative. Bob was made to seem creepier and less sympathetic than Vic but, again, less intelligent. The story was reduced to being about two rather thick people being unpleasant to each other leaving me, at least, with relatively little interest in either. However, given Bob's direct encounter with Dexter, it will be interesting to see how that all pans out in later plotlines and portrayed, as it was, it fitted in well with the episode's themes of ownership and securing supply.
The persistent use of the sound of distant dogs barking was a clever way to increase tension in several places though one that was probably only working for those of us who have watched the original. I kept expecting our foragers to suddenly come face to face with a pack of feral dogs.
Al and Najid's run-in with the old man in the sweet shop was, I thought, surprisingly effective and Al's delayed reaction to the events was well portrayed. I didn't think I'd like Al much, it looked like he was going to be portrayed as the "superficial" one on the team - the modern day equivalent of the dumb blonde, but in relatively few scenes here he was given more depth and made into a more interesting and sympathetic person.
Going into nit-pick mode our survivors seem to be being quite slow to grasp the necessity of securing livestock quickly. Farmed animals don't feed themselves you know! I would also note that they seem to be being slow to grasp the necessity of not only stockpiling supplies but subsequently defending that stockpile. But it may be that, following on from the events here, we will see them turn their minds to defense next time. The trailer certainly suggested direct confrontation of some kind.
Talking of trailers....
I was a little surprised that all the sex we were promised last week failed to materialise. I realise you want your trailer to act as a hook in for viewers but if you go down the "sex sells" route I vaguely feel you should deliver on your promises otherwise surely you fail to maintain your viewer base? or do I misunderstand marketing. Based on this week's trailer it looks like my original guess that our government minister would turn out to be the new Wormley may have been more accurate than I thought. But we'll see whether next week really does deliver the action-packed episode the trailer was attempting to suggest.