When the original (1975-77) "Survivors" came out, it was very much of its time, given the first flush of global ecological concerns (Stockholm 1972), Cold War fears, Doomwatch (a 1970-72 series itself connected with Dr Who, whose Terry Nation developed "The Survivors" in the first place) and even the interest in self-sufficiency encapsulated by the excellent and also thoughtful sitcom "The Good Life" (which ran from 1975-1978).
The "Survivors" series of the 70s were patchy, in the sense that 1,2 and 3 revolved around somewhat different people, with different emphases; if of course in the same post-apocalyptic (post-plague) Britain (and Norway); but there can be no doubt of the impact it exerted on we original viewers back in the day. Given that we now have "The Walking Dead" as a post-apocalyptic dystopia with oodles of raw violence and gore, and an astronomical body count, it is hard to imagine how radical the routine depiction of death and suffering in the original "Survivors" was. It seemed incredibly gritty and no holds-barred back then.
Fast forward to 2008 and the ostensibly welcome decision to come back to the story, presumably in a still-more gritty and realistic way given that this is now the trendy 2000s as opposed to the silly 70s. Many of the characters are back too - though Tom Price is no longer a wily though often ineffectual Welshman (Talfryn Thomas), but a somewhat psychopathic - if effective - Mancunian ex-con (played by Max Beesley), while Greg Preston is still somewhat distant and inclined to want to do his own thing, but has now (rightly and realistically) assumed a different skin colour (as played by Patterson Joseph, as opposed to Ian McCulloch back then). Abby Grant holds the whole thing together, this time played by Julie Graham, as opposed to the original's superb Carolyn Seymour.
Many of the stories are also retold too, at times in detailed recreations, but in most cases - it has to be said - the original is not improved upon. More of a problem is to try and work out why that is so.
The first episode in which the deadly plague develops is probably done better now, given that we learn more about the government's attempts to do something, and that's interesting enough, as well as shocking, naturally. However, we also learn that, in line with realistic 21st century capabilities, a lock-down facility has been established to weather the storm and try and do something to pick up the pieces in a Britain whose population has (presumably) gone down to hundreds of thousands, where tens of millions had lived a few weeks (literally a few weeks) previously.
Given that fear of nuclear war made sealed bunkers a daily issue in the 1970s, it is perhaps surprising that the original series did not cotton on to that idea. So this is a fun new development, though it might be seen to compromise the finality with which the old world has been bidden farewell to. And that was the finality that prompted the 1970s Survivors to start their farming existence at a rather early stage. In contrast, the new crop are (understandably) shell-shocked by what has happened and do nothing more than talk about farming.
And here we perhaps get to the nub of the problem with the new version, realistic portrayal of today's people as it may be - that we often seem to have the impression that the characters of the 2008 series are really just off in the country somewhere facing some minor difficulties at a weekend house-party. Only rarely is the sense of urgency present here. Only rarely do we really FEEL that something terrible and final has happened. It's hard to imagine how that can be so, bearing in mind the key premise of the series. But it is the case, and is added to by the strong impression that many "survivors" have MORE luxurious lives than before, with MORE freedom to do exactly what they like! Now is that an interesting premise, or a totally implausible one?
The new series does better at the level of the fine detail - when it asks how the disabled cope in the new world, or the lazy, or those who need a constant supply of medicines, or those who lived a gay lifestyle before and now wonder if that was something that the old times permitted while the new times don't. Plenty of questions are also asked about how God's plan can anticipate the loss of most of his people, though the new series emulates - and probably even surpasses - its predecessor in stressing that nature is getting on just fine now, in suburbs and countryside alike. Those in the know will hear the chirping of sparrows, the alarm calls of blackbirds, the calls of wood warblers, swifts, buzzards and so on, as well as crows cawing and sheep bleating. It's very probably the new series's most powerful single impact - that things will go on just fine without us (well until the nuclear power stations start going critical, anyway, though perhaps even then, given the ongoing Chernobyl story out here in the real world).
But if the fine-grained stuff looks interesting in the new series, it also did so in the old, and that series did seem to convey the calamity properly. Somehow the new one just can't put over that message in the same way.
None of this means that the new Survivors is a waste of time - indeed far from it. But those with long memories cannot avoid making comparisons, and is doubtful whether they will be especially favourable ones. When it comes to the younger viewer, well, just enjoy...
The "Survivors" series of the 70s were patchy, in the sense that 1,2 and 3 revolved around somewhat different people, with different emphases; if of course in the same post-apocalyptic (post-plague) Britain (and Norway); but there can be no doubt of the impact it exerted on we original viewers back in the day. Given that we now have "The Walking Dead" as a post-apocalyptic dystopia with oodles of raw violence and gore, and an astronomical body count, it is hard to imagine how radical the routine depiction of death and suffering in the original "Survivors" was. It seemed incredibly gritty and no holds-barred back then.
Fast forward to 2008 and the ostensibly welcome decision to come back to the story, presumably in a still-more gritty and realistic way given that this is now the trendy 2000s as opposed to the silly 70s. Many of the characters are back too - though Tom Price is no longer a wily though often ineffectual Welshman (Talfryn Thomas), but a somewhat psychopathic - if effective - Mancunian ex-con (played by Max Beesley), while Greg Preston is still somewhat distant and inclined to want to do his own thing, but has now (rightly and realistically) assumed a different skin colour (as played by Patterson Joseph, as opposed to Ian McCulloch back then). Abby Grant holds the whole thing together, this time played by Julie Graham, as opposed to the original's superb Carolyn Seymour.
Many of the stories are also retold too, at times in detailed recreations, but in most cases - it has to be said - the original is not improved upon. More of a problem is to try and work out why that is so.
The first episode in which the deadly plague develops is probably done better now, given that we learn more about the government's attempts to do something, and that's interesting enough, as well as shocking, naturally. However, we also learn that, in line with realistic 21st century capabilities, a lock-down facility has been established to weather the storm and try and do something to pick up the pieces in a Britain whose population has (presumably) gone down to hundreds of thousands, where tens of millions had lived a few weeks (literally a few weeks) previously.
Given that fear of nuclear war made sealed bunkers a daily issue in the 1970s, it is perhaps surprising that the original series did not cotton on to that idea. So this is a fun new development, though it might be seen to compromise the finality with which the old world has been bidden farewell to. And that was the finality that prompted the 1970s Survivors to start their farming existence at a rather early stage. In contrast, the new crop are (understandably) shell-shocked by what has happened and do nothing more than talk about farming.
And here we perhaps get to the nub of the problem with the new version, realistic portrayal of today's people as it may be - that we often seem to have the impression that the characters of the 2008 series are really just off in the country somewhere facing some minor difficulties at a weekend house-party. Only rarely is the sense of urgency present here. Only rarely do we really FEEL that something terrible and final has happened. It's hard to imagine how that can be so, bearing in mind the key premise of the series. But it is the case, and is added to by the strong impression that many "survivors" have MORE luxurious lives than before, with MORE freedom to do exactly what they like! Now is that an interesting premise, or a totally implausible one?
The new series does better at the level of the fine detail - when it asks how the disabled cope in the new world, or the lazy, or those who need a constant supply of medicines, or those who lived a gay lifestyle before and now wonder if that was something that the old times permitted while the new times don't. Plenty of questions are also asked about how God's plan can anticipate the loss of most of his people, though the new series emulates - and probably even surpasses - its predecessor in stressing that nature is getting on just fine now, in suburbs and countryside alike. Those in the know will hear the chirping of sparrows, the alarm calls of blackbirds, the calls of wood warblers, swifts, buzzards and so on, as well as crows cawing and sheep bleating. It's very probably the new series's most powerful single impact - that things will go on just fine without us (well until the nuclear power stations start going critical, anyway, though perhaps even then, given the ongoing Chernobyl story out here in the real world).
But if the fine-grained stuff looks interesting in the new series, it also did so in the old, and that series did seem to convey the calamity properly. Somehow the new one just can't put over that message in the same way.
None of this means that the new Survivors is a waste of time - indeed far from it. But those with long memories cannot avoid making comparisons, and is doubtful whether they will be especially favourable ones. When it comes to the younger viewer, well, just enjoy...