Outcasts – Boring! The King’s Speech – Immense!

I like a good Sci-Fi series, really I do, so I was looking forward to Outcasts, but after two attempts I’ve given up.  Why? Because it’s boring. Boring, boring, boring. It shouldn’t have been boring, with those actors, with those special effects, with that story, but somehow the screen writers have managed to conspire to turn what could have been a classic into a drudge…

A friend of mine from Ridgian , where I work, said he felt the same.  He hit the nail on the head I think, when he said he couldn’t give a monkey’s about any of the characters.  That’s the problem.   They’re crying on screen, lamenting, shouting and I’m sitting there thinking “So what?”.  

On the other hand I went to see The King’s Speech last weekend with my lovely wife. I’m not ashamed to say I shed some tears but I laughed too.  No special effects, but superior actors and an amazing script.  From the word go you were in there with the characters, you felt for Bertie, and you suffered with him.  Geoffrey Rush and Colin Firth were the greatest duo on screen, in my humble opinion, since Jack Nickelson and Helen Hunt in ‘As Good As It Gets’. 

So … good luck with Outcasts if you watch it, let me know how that works out for you. Treat yourself though and see The King’s Speech.  You’ll measure everything other film or series you watch by it, you mark my words. It’s that good.

Cheers

Dave Mc

Advertisements

About davemcmahon81
Software Developer & Architect, User Group Leader, Speaker, Writer, Blogger, Occasional Guitarist, Man-made Global Warming Sceptic, Climate Change Believer, General Optimist but most of all proud Husband and Dad ...

103 Responses to Outcasts – Boring! The King’s Speech – Immense!

  1. khananel says:

    Yes, I agree with you, sadly. Sadly because all the things you mention were there, but the scriptwriters forgot two essential ingredients; chemistry and empathy. chemistry makes the thing ‘zing’, and empathy makes you feel and cry for them. Unfortunately, these two attributes of any good drama, including real life dramas, attributes that we used to call ’emotion’, are increasingly missing from modern drama. everyone says the lines, moves the moves and the story unfolds, but increasingly the audience response, our response is, ‘who cares’…?

    the last modern (ie not period) production I watched that was good was I think it was called ‘the Deep’. It had Minnie Driver, James Nesbitt, Orla Brady, Sinead Cusack and some good east european actors. I thought it was a really good story, not a classic, but really good for TV. Nesbitt was on cracking form, and where Nesbitt goes, others seem to follow…

    Compared with that, Outcasts barely registers, even though I really like the lady from Spooks…

    I shall look out for tthe Kings Speech. Thanks for the heads up on that.

    • Anti-Skub says:

      Multi award winning movie in “better than TV drama” shocker!

      Next up, why Black Swan is better than Eastenders :O

  2. Dave says:

    You are spot on. I was excited about this show that, seemingly, had bags of potential. All ruined by one dimensional characters, an unbelievably poor script and wooden acting from a cast of actors who are capable of so much more. I am amazed that the BBC decided not to make the final series of Survivors yet are airing this in the slot just vacated by Silent Witness. Unfortunately, I can’t see this getting any better. If Sky can produce something as good as Mad Dogs (at least on the evidence of an intriguing first episode) then the BBC have got to do better than this. Time to reconsider bringing back Survivors for that third series.

    • bill says:

      i agree very disapointing. poor acting no feeling , no script .nothing to whant you to watch the next episode.
      been looking forward to this for weeks .will give the rest a miss thanks

    • T says:

      While I agree with many of the comments posted here I can’t believe you mention Survivors – surely its wooden acting and horrendous script was far worse (and yes, I did manage to sit through most of series one and some of series two) – Outcasts has already proven itself to be superior in that sense and in my opinion has gotten better with perseverence but alas, I feel that one shouldn’t have to “persevere” and for that reason I am inclined to agree with everything that has been said so far.

  3. jrice73 says:

    Hilarious. You Brits are so damn jaded. Outcasts, boring? Not snorting enough cocaine while you’re watching? WTF? Go back to watching those three stooges on Top Gear driving cars that you will never be able to afford or stop posting reviews about things you obviously have no clue about. Outcasts is solid science fiction that proves you DO NOT have to have spaceships zooming around, going down cgi representations of the Death Star trench every bloody week. Outcasts doesn’t need set pieces with giant Michael Bay explosions every other minute. It’s got characters who have depth and are still being developed and a story that is wild, full of mystery and dare I say it, a story that’s bold. Nobody here is a Jack Shepard do gooder. Everybody’s got baggage and backstory. Crying or weepy characters? No, not really. Just characters who are at each others’ throats because they haven’t figured it out yet that they are doomed to extinction. And characters who would probably kick an idiot blogger like yourself to the curb. This series is doing exactly what AMC’s The Walking Dead is doing–the survivors of the apocalypse haven’t figured out that they are all dead men and women walking. And like that great series here in the states that is constantly being maligned by idiot bloggers who want more zombie action and don’t care for the characters or their story, it seems that The Walking Dead and Outcasts share more than just story points. It’s so good to see that idiot bloggers who have no idea what the hell they are talking about exist on both sides of the Atlantic. Warms the cockles of my heart and makes me want to kick their asses even more.

    • I love that Jack Shepard …

    • Outcast says:

      Outcasts is a steaming pile of shite. You lot are used to having crap television anyway, so it is no surprise that you think this abortion is good drama. You wouldn’t know good drama if it kicked you in the bollox.

      • Tanith says:

        Outcasts is miles better than the BS sci-fi (Or should I say lack of sci-fi) coming out of the US nowadays.

      • Dale says:

        … I beg to differ…. The fact is the more intelligent section of the human race can tell a good drama when we see one. Outcasts is not episodic, it is a series, and you cant judge it in just one or two weeks. It is one continous storyline that links together. The american guy is quite correct, we dont need flashy special effects to produce a good sci-fi program when the storyline is good and those of you who think it was boring should stick to watching glossy shallow hollywood tripe.
        The characters are not shallow and the interaction beween them is deep and personal, but then if you have the attention span of a goldfish you wont see that.
        Outcasts is one of the best dram series to come out of the beeb in the last year and it is a shame it has been axed because all we have to watch now is pratts on ice, pratts in the jungle, bigger pratts who think they can sing being judged by even bigger pratts who cant. And finally enormous pratts prattling around on a dance floor in silly pratting costumes! Is this what we pay our pratting licence for?

    • Jamie says:

      Woah, chill man, everyone is entitled to an opinion. 😀 Now about to watch it myself and see what its like 😀 I would like to make the point that I’m sick to death of Top Gear and that I hope this show is good and doesn’t end up getting canned for the same reason that Stargate universe was, which i really enjoyed .

      • Karalou says:

        Trust an American to get on his high horse about British TV! I feel the point here is that we’ve had a bit of a drought on good sci-fi, and this was well looked forward to, but it’s just not working. It’sa brilliant idea but it IS boring. Nothing seems to come of any of the story lines. The new ‘leader’ arriving was so predictable ~ of course he was going to lock horns with the President. It’s all been done so many times before. The ‘Lost’ mood music is embarrassing ~ but I am persevering! Every week I hope something exciting might happen, but it hasn’t happened yet. It’s all so random. A random baby gets sent to the place for treatment to the place all the children had died in! A random man turns up, takes a few folk with him to the seaside, then dies and they don’t know the way home! I totally agree with the folk on here who have been disappointed by it ~ it’sa huge opportunity wasted x

    • Craig says:

      Whats with all the negative comments – I don’t get

      Outcasts is asking all the best Science Fiction questions about mortality, what it means to be human, religion, etc.

      The dialogue is drip feeding us the back story and giving us hints about the future of the planet.

      If you like classic sci-fi then you will love outcasts.

      • Craig says:

        Julius Berger thats the name I was looking for.

      • UTR says:

        Why should sci-fi be about morality and what it means to be human? Anyone else sick of that star trek bs boring view of the futrure? Best star trek was the new eterprise season 3 where they didn’t have that pious bs view of the future where man kind was all goody goody and dull….

    • Finch3451 says:

      At last someone who actually likes Outcast. I am quite enjoying it. I love the fact that there is lots still unexplained. The characters are just developing and I like the unfolding mystery of the planet. You should’t judge a book by it’s cover and you should at least give a series chance to develop and not judge it purely on the first few episodes.

      • keithyd says:

        Wrong. You should judge it on the first few episodes when there are only 8 and they’ve spent four years and £55m on it. We all know that plots and characters develop over the course of a series – that’s not the point. The point is that Outcasts signally failed to engage on an emotional, rational or dramatic level from episode 1, and is still doing so through episode 5. We’re now into a sequence that series watchers are used to – more or less standalone episodes involving a guest star who comes into the show with the episode plot built around him or her (aerial-fixing-man, Elijah, Pak have been the last three), accompanied by a slow-reveal of more ‘important’ facts about the larger story-arc. You see it in practically every show now – X-Files did it, The Mentalist does it, Spooks has started doing it.

        The thing about that kind of structure is that your episode plot has got to be interesting and involving in its own right so that you’re intrigued enough to find out What Happens Next while watching your ‘favourite’ characters interact with the guest star, or solve the Problem. Then, your slow-reveal has to deepen the mystery and add more information, even though it might be initially confusing.

        In Outcasts what we’ve had in the last three episodes is three dull episode-plots that didn’t enlighten us about the characters, and a couple of reveals that essentially said the same thing twice – a fossil in one, a set of skeletons in another. It’s like sitting in a bath and watching it slowly fill with sand around you. You’re mesmerised by the banality even as you begin to slip underneath …

        I made some suggestions elsewhere for some ‘solid science fiction’ stories that would have been better used as the basis for a TV show. For example, Thomas M. Disch’s Camp Concentration (not a spaceship in sight); Ballard’s The Drowned World; Keith Roberts’ Pavane (a kind of proto-steam-punk alternative future). @jrice73 Please don’t tell me I don’t know anything about science fiction – I’ve been reading it probably longer than you’ve been alive and wrote a Masters dissertation on 3 sf writers. That’s probably why I’m still watching – the desperate urge to find some sf on the TV. This isn’t about science fiction – it’s about drama, or lack of it in this case.

  4. David says:

    If you don’t like plot building sci-fi then perhaps you should stick to Dr Who as that probably moves at the pace your brains need. Some of us appreciate the depth of the plot. We don’t need to compare a television budget production with blockbuster movies or should we start comparing it to Ghandi next?
    Perhaps we would have had more love for the characters had we seen them leave Earth instead of dropping us into it but last night watching Tipper remembering his lost sisters was moving. Ask yourselves where is the true danger coming from…the planet, the AC’s or is it the insidous Julius as he slowly builds a religious cult and works his way to the top? Give me more please!

    • Hi David, firstly apologies for only approving your comment now, for some reason it ended up in me spam and I’ve just dug it out! Secondly, chill! It’s just my opinion. You have one, so do I. You don’t do yourself any favours by getting personal … moving on …

      I think describing The Kings Speech as a blockbuster is a bit … well … off the mark. I think it only cost about £10M, Outcasts probably cost in the same order of magnitude. The Kings Speech could easily have been aired as a TV movie and would have been just as good.

      You have a point, if we’d seen the characters early on, it might have been different. I recall watching Band of Brothers (possibly the greatest TV series ever made, in my opinion again :-)), and they began that with the company training together. You didn’t get thrown all kinds of personal tragedy to try to gain sympathy or empathy, you just got the guys working together, bantering, helping each other, growing together. By the end of episode one, you were hooked and you really started relating to the people. At that time I didn’t know that these were real people being portrayed I thought it was fiction, so I use that as a comparison. There were no special effects in episode one of Band of Brothers, just actors portaying people under stress, coming together to overcome adversity. Sound familiar? One of the things missing from Outcasts, as one of the comments mentions is humour. Believe you me, in that situation, there would be humour, probably to us outside looking in, inappropriate humour, but it would be there – else they’d have all gone stark staring bonkers years before the first episode!

      I hope you do enjoy watching Outcasts, personally I found it boring, but don’t get bent out of shape David, that’s just my opinion …

      … and sorry, I haven’t asked myself anything about that Julius bloke, don’t intend to either, I just can’t get interested enough …

      Cheers

      Dave Mc

      • James D says:

        Wow that is really pedantic. What I think David was getting at is that Outcasts is a BBC production, that had nowhere near as much development/ directing skill as The Kings Speech. I personally think that Outcasts is excellent and the script is alot more engaging that that of other BBc sci-fis that have been churned out in the past

  5. David Maidstone says:

    This is written before watching last night’s 3rd episode but the overall theme of the comments above certainly runs through the first two.
    What was an excellent cast list with flavour of the month Jamie Bamber and the classic Hermione Norris was watered down with some very poor acting from more minor cast members. You could be excused in thinking that several were portraying emotionless clones rather than humans with intelligence!
    The story line and the style (think Lost, think Survivors etc etc) are worth a series but you are left wondering if it is the acting or the direction that makes this a chore to watch.
    On the story the death of a key character in episode one was a waste as surely the story could have been so much better. I am hoping for a Lost style flash back strand to this to liven it up.

  6. mikey says:

    outcasts is amazing

  7. Tony Fort says:

    Just read the summary notes for Episode 5, where it says that President Tate’s dead children turn up.

    If they’re just in Ms Isen’s memory machine or Tate’s own hallucinating mind, then I’ll give up on the series. But if they’re any kind of reincarnation/reconstruct/clone by planet Carpathia, then this is where it will kick off for me, and no doubt for fans of Jamie Bamber who’ll be expecting Mad Mitchell back. Pity about the first three episodes (at least) though.

    I’ve got tickets to see the King’s Speech this week. Thanks for the tip about taking a hankie.

    • Craig says:

      I think President Tate’s children won’t turn out to be dead at all. The virus that killed them will have altered their DNA and transported them to a different dimension of the planet.

      This will throw up more questions about Religion etc. The virus created a ‘Halo’ around the childrens head before they died. This will be pounced upon by the religious guy, what ever his name is and will split fort haven into 2 camps causing more tension.

  8. wee jeannie says:

    Outcasts is not a patch on Lost or Spooks for drama . However it is a pleasant change from medical, historical and cop stories. Not to mention the total dross that is everynight soaps. In fact I found it entertaining and it reminded me a bit of early star trek films. I will keep watching and hope the best is still to come. Outcast who has such a low opinion of british tv watches it none the less. Has a hard neck to accuse anyone else of ignorance when using language that hardly displays intellegence.

  9. Claire says:

    @Tony–you will want that hankie! It’s a lovely, stirring film, and I’ve never seen Helena Bonham Carter look more…normal.
    @Dave–Outcasts is dreck. But it’s better than the American version of Skins, which I made the mistake of watching last week.

  10. richard warner says:

    mmmmnnn might be better if you could hear all of the characters speech! Why do program makers think its ok to have inaudible comments or passages of speech ? even when watching the program that has been recorded and playing it back two or three times I stillcouldn’t get it. Dont think Outcasts is going to make it.

    • martin_humby says:

      Hi Richard

      If you are watching digitally turning on subtitles fixes this problem and you get some amusing mismatches and descriptions of music / noises off from time to time.

  11. Ginger says:

    Like the programme. Like the fact it is not all cowboys and indians in space and shows the reality of trying to set up a new culture from scratch but the sound is abysmal. I spend half my time asking my partner what someone said. Whoever recorded the sound needs to go back to school – a decent programme ruined by lousy sound quality. Everyone sounds like they are mumbling or talking in a cupoboard. It is not my TV as very other programme is fine.

    Thanks a bunch for ruining what is one of the few watchable programmes on at the moment.

  12. Pingback: 5 Reasons to Watch Outcasts | keepitscifi

  13. khananel says:

    I just watched episode 3. The CGI for the ‘Whiteout’ was so cheap and shoddy and everyone looked really ‘scared’ (i.e. bored…)…I’m mean there’s no atmosphere other than what they are breathing, and no sort of emotional reaction to ‘oh God we left Earth for good, how will we make out in this place’. ‘Oh what was Earth? Oh just some placewe lived before we came here…’They all look like they are acting in a cross between Primeval, a latter day Spooks-by-numbers and a reality game show. Is it a generational thing?

    I’m 55 so maybe I’m well beyond its reach. I’m really only watching it for Hermione Norris and Liam Cunnigham. The rest I don’t know about and by now don’t much care about. Everything is individualised, disconnected, contrived, no history or background, no character development, no interconnections. Dialogues sound more like reports. Emotions sound contrived. It feels like the same production team that made the last series of Spooks that I abandoned after many years of enjoyment.
    Maybe I should give up modern 21C TV and stick to ‘oldy stuff’ i.e. anything before 2000…! I’m not of this era and do not understand this kind of TV.

    • Karalou says:

      Mmm ~ so agree about Spooks ~ it’s just not the same any more. I don’t know if it’s just the production team that ruined Spooks, but it was always going to be hard to follow a writer who was so brilliant and totally understood the politics involved. I feel they should show the first few series again, then close the door on it…

  14. Spider says:

    I just figured it out, the colonists were on the B-Ark, thats why they are such a bunch of telephone sanitation engineers. Seriously though, the BBC just can’t do SciFi because they dont understand it, as usual they think they are making it “accessible” by having purile plots which could have been set anywhere on earth. Nothing happens, might as well be watching Lost . Do some research, read the SciFi classics with an open mind and maybe one day you can produce something worthy of the name.

  15. ElleF says:

    I was so looking forward to a good sci-fi drama but this certainly is not it. Such a pity with a good cast but the script is appalling and the story going no where. The idea is sound and potentially it could have been good but is failing to deliver…

  16. qwerty says:

    Normally I don’t post comments about anything on the Internet, nor do I get involved in arguments, but, I must say, I hope this series continues. I was going to abandon it after the second episode, but I’m glad I watched the third and fourth. I can’t wait for the fifth one now!

    While nothing was all that exciting so far, it is doing a nice job of setting up the world and situation these characters are in–and what’s to come…

    If the series does continue, I just hope it doesn’t suffer the same fate as Lost and Battlestar Galatica.

    I absolutely LOATHE Stargate Universe. Just when you think the characters are going to evolve into ones with some depth, they regress and start arguing with each other again–because yelling equals drama, right? Then they introduced a few new characters to compliment the original characters and show some insight into who they were, are now, and are possibly–BAM!… They’re dead. Killing off newly introduced characters that are important to the story is shocking because shocking equals drama, right?… Back to yelling at each other…

  17. Pingback: Outcasts and The Kings Speech … blimey! « Dave Mc's Blog

  18. Gman says:

    I have to admit, the first few episodes were a bit tedious. But I’m starting to come around, the story is developing into something that “could” be epic. Problem is that it’s on BBC – only 8 episodes. Some earlier posted about the characters not panicking about their situation, well aren’t they supposed to have been there for about 10 years. I’m hoping there will be some insight to what went on in the earlier days. I have to agree about the lack of empathy for the characters, you can’t feel for them because they don’t feel much. However, this may be part of the plot, i.e they have been directed to act like that.

    With all the AC’s and experiments etc, maybe its possible for there to be an actual reason for the wooden acting, maybe they are all clones/dead/whatever. The concept of this show is so good that I don’t want to give up on it so quickly. The hook for me definitely was the thing they found in episode 4(no spoilers here).

  19. Moobs says:

    Number me amongst the disappointed. It is pretty clear that the writers have spent a good long time watching boxsets of BSG.There are some familiar themes: Colonists striving for survival as the population dwindles, threatened by their own technological “offspring”, etc. The problem here is the characters barely qualify as one dimensional. I disagree with the suggestion that one does not care about their fate – I find myself positively wanting them to die.

    The show is a series of anti-climaxes set to dramatic music. One minute the chirpy Irish rogue is weeping at the thought of the colony’s imminent destruction and mooning about his lost sisters. The next minute a five second long storm blows through resulting in .. gasp .. “superficial damage to all buildings”

    There are a number of minor matters which simply don’t make sense. For instance, they seem to have arrived to colonise a planet without bringing any kind of vehicle with them, That does seem a baffling decision.

  20. dramaking says:

    I agree with jrice 73. I thought ‘Outcasts’ is a very good sci-fi drama. and the BBC should be proud of coming up with something that connects with people in these trying times.

    I thought that the programme treated us with intelligence, and did not try to emotionally manipulate use into liking one character or another.

    I could acutally empathize with anof the characters who I felt was serving the greater good in the context of the plot. Everyone in ‘Outcasts’ did an exemplery job potraying there characters.

    I did not get the vibe of being patronised in any way.

    For those who are looking for something different to there intelligent psychological drama, but not a great fan of Sci-Fi, give it a go. It is very good and very relevent in these changing times.

    For those Si-Fi fans who like contemperay, intelligent drama with great characters and great plots, ie Bladerunner, the updated version of BattleStar Galactica, Children of Men or Solaris. Sci- Fi that makes you think about other people and about the world we live in. Watch ‘Outcasts’

    For those who didn’t like it, great drama in any form makes us think about the world we’re in, it inspires us to strive for a better world.

    I have seen the comments that have derided ‘Outcasts’, and to be frank with them, I think they expect this drama to spoon feed them like babies.

    ‘Oucasts’ is not x-factor or some melodramatic soap opera, where you have the ready made characters displayed before you every week.

    In ‘Outcasts’ you must develop a relationship with those characters, I like the freedom of deciding which character, I like and not like.

    If anyone’s looking for instant gratification and inuendo go and watch reruns of big brother or something or watch x-factor.

    If you want to think and appreciate the good drama, watch ‘Outcasts’.

    P.S.

    I will not watch the ‘kings speech’ because, it is fundementally about one royal who sherked his responsability and left it to someone who could damaged the moral of the people at a very dark period in history. I am sick to death of dramas and a films that portay the royals as a good force when half of them were nazis.

    Why wasn’t Made in Daghenham nominated at the Baftas ?…….

    • Regarding the King’s Speech and the royals being nazis you are speaking out of turn and out of ignorance. Appeasement at the time was supported by a good percentage of the British public at the start of the war, not only some of the royals and a good many politicians, simply because many people could just not face a re-run of the slaughter of WW1. That doesn’t make them nazis. You were not there, things were not black and white, they never are. It’s very easy to cast swift judgement on events after the fact. People forget that George VI served as a naval officer at the Battle of Jutland and saw the carnage first hand. As for him damaging the morale of the nation, I’m afraid you are well off the mark. It’s generally accepted that the King and Queen were a key factor in maintaining morale of the UK during much of WWII, especially during the Blitz. You are right though about Edward VIII shirking his responsibilities, and the film portrays this fact very well, and you can well understand the Queen mother forever after resenting Simpson, for the unenviable situation she placed the then Duke of York in.

      • dramaking says:

        To davemcmahon81, from you other previous comments, I think you keep missing the point about the context of Outcasts.

        Lets look at the context of the plot.

        1) Human colonists have left an Earth devastated by human indifference and stupidtiy.

        2) Because of this, they have selfishly and brought Sentinent Beings into life, because of their own selfish desire not to face the consequences of their own actions, through their own exctintion.
        The cruel treament of The Advanced Cultivars (A.C.s) or genetically engineered humans are a reflection of the embodiment of human indifference and cruelty in the face of not dealing with the consequences of those actions.

        3) Outcasts showed the the honest truth of what would happen if human colonies ever settled on other world.

        And since you are such great historian when people settled in th Americas, this what probably happened. To go from a familar place to an unfamiliar place, can be quite stressful, as the turbulent and bloody histories of former colonies like the USA and Australia will atest.

        It is Ironic that you tell me that I was not there but you write as if you were. Here is a question on WW1

        1) Is it or is it not true that the royal who who started WW1, kaiser whilheilm 2, was the grandson of queen victoria ?……..

        2)Was one of prince phillip’s Uncles, a nazi officer in WW 2?…….

        I don’t think it is complex to understand that it seems historically, that every time this Royal family have internal spats, it is always ordinary working class people are emotionally manipulated, then suffer the worse, through wars and oppression.

        The British Empire was no different in philosophical basis from the growing Nazi empire during the 30’s and 40’s. the idea of divide and rule and reigning over inferior races is come to both right ?

        It is no historical accident that some of the most powerful people in business and manufacturing in the British Empire, and who believed in the racist ideaology of the British Empire and therefore laid theIr sympathies with hitler, were from the aristocracy and upper classes.

        While the majority ordinary British people fought for Democracy, Multiculturism and Socialism against mosely’s blackshirts.

        And I think this is what bores you, is the fact that ordinary people (and these are who the characters in ‘Outcasts’ are), can actually start again and continue to solve their mistakes of the past and make a real go of building a better world fit for everyone to live in everyone, without being greedy, power-hungry or cruel.

        Mr Mahon, I say that I was not off the mark when I say that george vi the last resort in a desperate situation for the British people. He didn’t even want the crown.

        And edward vii and mrs simpson, both new what they were doing.

        If you want to watch films or programmes about princesses and castles, go and watch a Disney film.

        What you keep missing the point on is, that ‘Outcasts’ is fundamentally about a universe that is constantly changing and the ability for us human beings to make sense of that change and adapt to it the best way we can.

        For you Mr Mahon ‘Outcasts’ might be a pile.

        For the Makers and Cast of ‘Outcasts’ it is an interesting challenge ,about portraying the different aspects of the Human Psyche in a changing Universe.

        For me it is a great programme to watch, and I will be very disappointed if it fails.

        The Colonists on Carapathia are always ready to face the challenges that life throws at them.

        This is why I like Outcasts.

      • … Godwin’s Law strikes again … somehow we’ve gone from a harmless comment from me about me finding Outcasts boring to an excellent commentary about social justice, the British Empire and the Nazi’s. Dramaking… please … loosen up … it’s just a TV series … don’t get bent out of shape because somebody else doesn’t like it … you’ll have a coronary if you carry on like this. Enjoy Outcasts!

      • David Walter says:

        That may well be, but you haven’t really answered any of my questions. Goodwin’s law or none.

        It’s called having imagination. it ‘s called passion. something that’s missing in today’s entertainment.

        I have never said in my comment that your opinion was not of any value, or invalid. it’s just that I get tired of this counter-cultural atitude, that if something does not fulfil all our expectations, and does not immediately gratfy us, then somehow, something is rubbish.

        I think some of the Critisim of ‘Outcasts’ is unfair, and people really have not given it a chance to grow.

      • Hi David, I think of all the comments against the original post the on Submitted on 2011/02/18 at 1:01 am by keithyd is the best and the one that probably answers best the charge of those of us who don’t like it must have short attention spans and need instant gratification. I recommend you read that comment. He pretty much mirrors my opinion. I did say I really wanted to like Outcast and I did watch two episodes, thats two hours of TV. I watch TV for two reasons, education and entertainment. Outcasts is the latter and I’m afraid I have much better things to do than to sit through a series trying to like it. I’m afraid I found nothing worthwhile to hold my attention. I’ve posted on MadDogs over the weekend and if you read that entry, you ‘ll see that again I found it slow, but there was sufficient in there to hold my attention and a great cliff-hanger to make me watch again.

        As for the other stuff, I didn’t comment on it as I have no idea what relevance the Kaiser has to the Nazis, and if Prince Philip had an uncle in the SS, what relevance does that have to his late parents in law or his wife? I think I know where you’re coming from though, but appeasement which most of the royals supported, does not equate to being a Nazi. If you study the period, you will find that many (not all) people felt Churchill was an aggressive warmonger, and that Chamberlain was the voice of reason and peace, probably they were the period’s equivalent to George Bush Junior and Jaques Chirac. History has proved Churchill right, but if the German’s had been more competent in their execution of the war, we might all be lamenting the lost opportunities for peace that Chamberlain offered by appeasement rather than the abyss of occupation by the Nazis.

        As for the stuff about the British Empire, I again don’t see much relevance in what you say, so I’m not going to respond. Don’t judge the actions of people from history by the standards and beliefs of today or judge them with the 100% clear vision of hindsight. In your own venacular , it’s unfair.

        Please, enjoy Outcasts and give yourself a treat, put aside your preconceptions, and go watch the King’s Speech, it’s pure class.

      • James D says:

        Again Pedantic

  21. khananel says:

    This will probably be my last comment on this. Apart from empathy and emotion that are lacking from charcters who have no charcter or personality, the other thing lacking is any sense of humour, even of the kind that people in the most desperate of circumstances develop.

    Personality begets humour, even at the expense of itself. Asides, one liners, facial expressions etc. Its not about robotic people and sci-fi, though there is precious little imaginative sci-fi either to intrigue the intelligence. The people development in this so-called community is non-existent. The personality of the group, and the individuals within it, is non-existent. That’s why it so hard to love them or hate them…Or anything in between, like care about them. that’s both bad script and bad directing.

    A firm called Kudos are in charge. They made Spooks go downhill at the end, from 15 million some years ago, to about 7 million viewrs for the last series. Apparently this ‘show’ had just 2.6 million… that’s why they’re moving it to 10.30 on Sunday.

    Shame on you, BBC, you can do better…

    • Karalou says:

      Where in heavens name did Dramaking (aptly named) get all that information about Outcasts and the story behind it? I feel he might be the one missing the point. It seems pretty clear that he has no sense of humour so maybe that’s why he enjoys Outcasts so much!

  22. David Brown says:

    Ok I have to say I am shamed to be represented by this post.
    I am a Brit yes, jaded no..
    Outcasts Is science fiction in its truest most beliveable and humanistically possible way.
    The posters who say they feel no empathy with the characters come on..really? I dread to think
    what rocks you do your socialising under.
    There are some very strong characters reflecting social traits in a way that is refeshing for sci fi.
    Cass and fluer are great and are you telling me you dont want to know what’s with Julius Berger?
    I notice OP that among your fanfare of accolades you mention software developer.that should suggest some kind of media savvy in order to stay current produced the desired article..Note please I say should..
    I truely belive that Outcasts will take it’s place for those who see stars wars and buck rogers in the same vein as a truely realistic study of humanity in a post apocolytic state.
    If you want to be a high profile critic I suggest you get a good grounding in the subject, first start with mise en scene and then progress to audience participation and social commentary.
    Those that are knocking down the walls are the ones not in possesion of the keys.
    Study Digest comment.
    As far as the Kings speech is concerned there is no comparision either in genre nor production type style budget …… the list is endless. Kind of like saying Ferrari exciting and horse and cart boring.
    Normally I rant to vent then hit delete, but this time.

    • David … please … loosen up, you’ll have a heart attack going on like that! It’s just my opinion, that’s all … and yes the more I think about it, I’m pretty sure I really don’t give a monkey’s about Julius Berger …

      • David Brown says:

        I’ll Give you that one, because there I agree with you which is why I am intrigued he seems a complete misfit.anyway my apologies for a hot head posting.

      • No apologies necessary, I’m just chuffed that people are actually visiting my blog :-). My 15 mins of fame! This posting even made it onto the BBC Outcasts Buzz!! WTF???

        Ah well, back into the land of obscurity next week no doubt …

        … unless you know of another series you think I’ll dislike enough to blog about 🙂

        Cheers

        Dave Mc

  23. David Brown says:

    Grammar and spelling corrections welcomed but not a sign of intelligence.

  24. Andy Maggs says:

    As with Stargate Universe Dave you are just plain wrong on this one, yes the acting could be better but there is not a damn thing wrong with the story, which is developing very nicely (I’ve only seen 3 of the 4 episodes aired so far). I think the problem with modern society these days is that we have the attention span of 5 year olds and expect everything to be simplified, summarised and delivered quickly on a plate otherwise we get bored . I just finished reading The Girl With The Dragon Tatoo where hardly anything happened in the first half of the book but man did it kick off in the second and what an excellent book it turned out to be. If it had been you on the other hand you would have stopped reading at chapter 2 and missed the best part and my bet is you will do the same with Outcasts as you did with Stargate.

    Keep going to the end of Outcasts is my view and if at the end of the series having given it a fair hearing you still feel the same then fair enough!

    • I gave Stargate Universe six episodes … more than enough time considering I was hooked on Stargate SG-1 in about 20 mins during episode 1. I’m prepared to give any series a good chance, but I’m afraid it’s not my role in life to dedicate hours of my life to try to like a series I just find boring. Sorry to be so shallow 🙂 Cheers for the comments mate

    • Dave Thomas says:

      I’ve given it 4 hours of my life now – I think that’s enough. The only thing that will make me watch next week is if all the other channels decide to have a “Loose Women” marathon! In the words of the “Why Don’t You” theme tune I guess I could just “switch off the TV set and go and do something useful instead”!!!!

      • Dave Thomas says:

        OK, so Loose Women wasn’t the only other thing on the other channels but there was a load of cr@p on so I ended up watching Outcasts yet again! And against all odds it has begun to get a bit better!!!

  25. Ray says:

    I purposely set out to find somewhere I could rant about Outcasts and found your blog. I think quite a few people are fed up with it. Especially considering the BBC have axed Survivors which, although not high drama, at least had characters that were distinctive and a storyline that was much more interesting.

    My problem with Outcasts is that it looks like they’re in some part of the US/Australian outback. Now either the twist in the tale is that they’ve never left earth and are all deluded or suffering from amnesia or the BBC couldn’t be bothered to dress up the set.

    But what’s unforgivable is the lack of plot. So far we’ve seen the colony make contact with those they expelled many years ago. That potentially could be interesting but it actually involved a few scenes of macho posturing on both sides straight out of a Guy Ritchie film and then a couple of the outcasts from the colony were killed in the most unconvincing last minute reversal of fortunes since the last Steven Seagal film.

    I suppose the dreary leader of the colony is meant to be portraying gravitas like Captain Adama in BSG but it just comes off as miserablism. Here is a man who has had to kill his kids and lead a colony on the edge of extinction yet it never seems like any of this raises his level of emotion at any point. I’m not expecting histrionics here just an acknowledgement of what this man is going through.

    Was anyone else totally unconcerned about the couple having the wedding? I must have missed when this was first set up but it just seemed to appear out of nowhere during the dust storm episode. It reminded me of how East Enders throws in quite significant events in characters lives and does little with them. As for the dust storm the least said about that the better. With such a vast expanse of landscape as the set it’s incredible that the director has done so very little with it.

    I’m all for slow burners in drama but after watching 3 episodes it’s a disgrace that what’s at stake remains so undeveloped. When you think that a play or a film has to do everything in an hour and a half it is mind boggling that in 3 hours the biggest threat on an alien planet has been a 5 minute dust storm. Even the threat of the expelled colonists has been squandered with the return of the baby. And how unrealistic was it that the outcasts were so accommodating to the woman who returned the baby after her friends had murdered one of the outcasts the previous episode. By episode 5 they’ll all be having a love in at the colony while a bit of wind whips up the sand outside.

    I think some on this blog defending this hodge podge of a drama are confusing name actors and the international reputation of the BBC with good acting and exciting drama. If it looks like a steaming pile of turgid superficiality on the sole of the shoe of drama then that’s because it probably is.

  26. bob norris says:

    absolute rubbish – wooden acting I bet bbc will not make another series

  27. bob norris says:

    rubbish wooden acting garbage

  28. bob norris says:

    i don’t understand outcasts – hermoine norris is top security – but what security – the few i’ve seen do as they wish – cant bbc afford a few more actors, maybe a proper police force or army – not just 1 guy and 1 girl
    absolute rubbish BBC will not make another series – even better take it of the air now

  29. keithyd says:

    To all those posters pleading that those who don’t like Outcasts have short attention-spans – please, do me a favour. I’ve read War and Peace. It grips you on page 1. Television is generally a populist medium, and BBC1 is a populist channel. Its drama should enthuse and excite you from the beginning and lead you through a trajectory whereby the characters’ secrets and the plot’s outcomes are inevitably revealed. I’m sorry, but Outcasts just doesn’t do that.

    Many people have commented on the lack of a true sci-fi pedigree in the show – I’m not going to do that, even though I’m an old fan of science fiction going back to when I was 14 and read Dune for the first time. Whether or not it’s good science fiction isn’t really the point. The point is that it’s not good drama. The motivations of the characters remain unclear after 4 episodes. The society of Forthaven remains unexplored. The storylines involve a lot of fake drama but no real tension (for example, the issue of Lily giving Tipper official documents – ‘dramatic’ at one level, because a secret is revealed to the populace; but completely without tension because there’s no sense of what punishment or sanction there might be for revealing – essentially – a state secret; but it’s OK because she’s Stella’s daughter … so there’s no punishment).

    Of course one shouldn’t hold light entertainment drama to the same standards as Shakespeare … but ye gods, this is dire. One doesn’t even go looking for fakery, it just hits you in the face. Another example: the scene where Fleur brings Rudi into Forthaven in order to take Elijah back with him (first, how did she smuggle him in … ?). There’s a moment where Fleur and Cass are in close-up near the camera discussing whether it’s a good idea or not. Meanwhile, in the background, Rudi and Elijah just stand and stare at each other, like characters in a video game who don’t have anything to do or say, so just stand there until the programming tells them they have to interact. Now it wouldn’t have been beyond the wit of the director to have given them a bit of ‘business’ – a handshake, a hug, Rudi taking Elijah to one side to talk to him … but no, they stand there and look at each other without speaking. All so that the scene can segue into Fleur and Cass moving towards them with their decision, and the director doesn’t have to have another set-up showing Rudi and Elijah in conversation. This is pure bad direction, and this combined with clunky scripts (Tate: ‘Be careful out there … ‘) slowly accumulates like fat in your arteries, leading to a failure of the will-to-live.

    That’s why some of us don’t like Outcasts.

    • Andy Maggs says:

      Keith, this is by far the most compelling and dare I say least hysterical review I have read on this blog and tells me exactly why you (and Dave) don’t like it. Like you I have been a long standing science fiction fan and have stuck with Outcasts because I like the story but I cannot fault you for any of your criticism (even of me) both acting and direction leave a great deal to desire.

    • Bob says:

      I love it when people come on the internet and tell people they are worng on a subjective matter then make wild assumptions about the age of the person they are replying to with no evidence of that fact…

  30. Ray says:

    The sad part is that scifi drama rarely gets an airing on TV and the lacklustre Outcasts is going to make sure it stays that way.

  31. cheapthrills says:

    On the one hand I really like the visual direction, the setting and the set design. But the character direction as someone pointed out is awful.

    The script again is fairly stilted and beyond the wooden acting the dialogue is fairly awful and it’s full of exposition; stories should be implicitly shown not explicitly told.

  32. Martin says:

    One of the many issues I have with Outcasts is that they have set the story past the interesting events.

    I would have liked to have seen the characters being rushed onto the first transport amid confusion about whether there would be any subsequent launches.

    I would have liked to have seen the power struggle within the transport as they head towards an unknown future.

    I would have liked to seen the first landing of scouts and the first white out.

    I would have liked to have seen the reentry of the transporter and a decent reason why they wouldn’t establish an orbital facility first.

    I would have liked to see those first limited settlers come to the realisation if they were the only ones to make it then they would need to create AC’s to give them a fighting chance of establishing a long term settlement.

    I would have liked to see the C23 ravage the community and the AC’s being suspected as the cause.

    I would have liked to see the fatigue and fear of not hearing any communication from Earth.

    I would have liked to see the joy and expectation as the signal of another transport is picked up. Only to be lost on reentry.

    There, each ‘would have liked to see…’ worthy of an episode. And certainly eight episode of more immediate entertainment than what I’ve had to sit through so far. Poor science, mediocre and baffling characterisation and all the cliches you could hope to shake a stick at.

    But the biggest worry is that the BBC will view this as a dislike of mature Sci-Fi.

  33. Jan says:

    Personally I like Outcasts. It’s grown up. Instead of letting you “see” all the past action, we are learning about it as we go along, and let’s face it, other programmes have covered this sort of action. I like the challenge the people of Carpathia have – trying to make a better life than they had on Earth, but learning ever more about what it is to be human through their struggle. I love the religious input now – how religion comes along and puts a wedge in between people. The characters are solid – not boring. And lacking in humour? Difficult to put humour in a storyline as serious as this – irony, perhaps. And for those who think it is boring, perhaps you should stick to programmes where you don’t need to use your own imagination.

    • Ray says:

      I think it’s one thing to use the imagination but quite another to suspend disbelief when faced with a corny storyline and very patchy acting. That’s been the central criticism of Outcasts in this thread. You can characterise this as lacking imagination if it helps you ignore this. As you rightly claim such a serious situation would not bring too many laughs but unfortunately some of the corny lines and bad acting in this show are. The irony is that Outcasts is short on the very thing you value – imagination.

  34. Ray says:

    Even if they had devoted the first two episodes to the issues Martin has outlined it would have kick started the drama and shown what was at stake. As cheapthrills points out – show don’t tell. How are we supposed to feel any ambivalence about the characters when they just tell us about the dubious choices they’ve had to make?

    Episode 4 was as pitiful as expected. A confused AC manchild going on the rampage while the colonists wrestle with their consciences. The leader of the AC’s wandering around the colony as if the conflict of the previous episodes had never happened. One colonist betraying another and then kissing and making up as if the death of an AC was just one of those things. The characters behave is such inconsistent ways that it’s hard to believe that they could ever have had the guts to create the AC’s and kill their infected children. With so many sugar coated clichés it’s enough to cause hyperglycaemia.

    The only hope of some actual sci to go with the dull fi is the discovery of the fossilised jawbone. But no one except the head of security seems bothered by it. When she showed it to the colony leader he didn’t react. The guy who found it just handed it over without comment. You’d think that the discovery of a human jaw bone on an alien planet might raise a bit more emotion among the characters who know about it yet the writers of this mess assume we, the audience, will make up for their lack of interest. Right now I’m only watching it to see how bad it can get. It’s like a scifi Big Brother. You know you shouldn’t watch because it’s dross but the fascination is how low can the dross go?

  35. KP says:

    I’m in the ranks of the disappointed sadly!
    Outcasts is almost like a soap-in-space to me .. and I half expected the unfortunate cast of Survivors to come over the horizon and join in!
    Why soap you say?
    Well , lets see .. there’s a lot of male posturing .. with some silly girlish stuff between time .. and , oh yes .. people killing each other!!
    Very imaginative sci-fi .. not.

  36. Pingback: Mad Dogs … I like it … I think … « Dave Mc's Blog

  37. henry says:

    Outcasts seems to me to be among that most irritating branch of science fiction. The sort that pretends it isn’t science fiction, buti instead is really about deep questions on human relationships and feelings. It ends up pleasing neither SF geeks or lovers of drama. I’m not saying you can’t have both, but the makes of Outcasts, don’t seem to think so, and consequently we are left with this dreary thing in the middle.

  38. Teshka says:

    I love Outcasts. Well done BBC for doing something a bit different and realistic. Can’t understand the negative reaction on this blog. Maybe we have all been lulled into a world where everything must be Dr Who or those awful American Sci Fi series that are just silly. Nice to see they have preserved egg sandwiches in the future.

    • Andy Maggs says:

      Silly American Sci-Fi series – dare you name even one? In my opinion the Americans (and I am a Brit) make by far and away the most awesome Sci-Fi in the world with such excellent series as:
      1. Battlestar Galactica (new version)
      2. V (new version)
      3. Star Trek (all series)
      4. Stargate (all series)
      5. X-Files
      6. Firefly
      7. Heroes
      And the list goes on and on…

      • Ray says:

        I completely agree that some of the US sci-fi shows have a level of dramatic and visual sophistication that leaves Outcasts in the dust. Especially BSG which really gave an impression of what might be at stake when the survival of a small group is paramount. When a character in BSG divulged secrets or betrayed the colonists they were either imprisoned or sent straight out of the airlock even if they were related to those in power. In Outcasts they kiss and make up on the spot. If Outcasts is going to sell us this story of tough colonists who’ve had to sacrifice their loved ones to survive then it has to live up to this premise.

      • Teshka says:

        I’ll give you StarTrek original series, Heroes and X Files, and I have not seen Firefly but I maintain the rest are rather silly.

      • Ray says:

        “The Trouble with Tribbles” less silly than BSG v2? I think your opinion is a matter of taste rather than a measure of sci-fi quality. You might enjoy Outcasts but that doesn’t put it in the category of good sci-fi. There’s a lot of sci-fi I enjoy but I’m the first to admit its inconsistencies, bad acting and cheesy dialogue. Outcasts is just one of those shows that, for me, doesn’t transcend these bad qualities.

  39. Dodge says:

    I disagree with some of the negative comments that have been posted about Outcasts. I’m really enjoying it and I hope that the BBC gives the green light for another series. I agree that episode 1 and 2 were disappointing but after episodes 3 and 4 I’m looking forward to tonights offering. There are some real opportunities to develop this story and I do hope the BBC will see past all the negativity.

  40. Adrian says:

    Now I understand. Outcasts isn’t about serious colonizers on a new world after all. All the characters are misfits from the militant wing of the Ramblers Association who have been kicked off Earth because they obviously can’t intergrate ino a cilivised society and are to dim to notice. They must WALK everywhere with only a light day knapsack. They like getting lost. On no account must they bring maps, radios, gps etc. They then find piles of CUT diamonds on a beach and think this is normal, no really!

    An old man who is a total stranger!!! walks into a bar, pays with CUT diamonds and the locals instead of barraging him with questions on the lines of “We thought we were the only settlement on this planet, where have you come from?” instead try to beat him up! This might explain why they were kicked off Earth in the first place.

    Yes of course there is some terrible disaster story that has occured on Earth so they can’t contact Earth or go back, which is quite obviously some fiction which the gullible Ramblers all believe.

    The whole series is now begining to make sense, perhaps in the last episode they will all decide to take an extra long walk off a cliff and never come back, which will be a great relief to us all.

    • UTR says:

      The thing that struck me about all those diamonds is how useless they would be on an alien world with nothing to do with they would have absolutely no value whatsoever.

      • Ray says:

        I think even the Ramblers Association would be more organised than these colonists. It’s as if they are Bladerunner replicants who’ve just been activated with a vague memory of the planet implanted in their brains but very little actual experience of the planet. It reminds me of the film “Moon” where the lead slowly realises he’s a replaceable cloned drone.

        Why would a black market trade in diamonds develop if, as you rightly point out, they have little value on a planet where food and shelter are the most important things and there are few other commodities to trade. It seems quite an egalitarian community in so far as resources are concerned. How they’ve survived without any obvious sources of protein such as animals or crops is questionable unless they’ve resorted to cannibalism and in order to suppress this horror have invented various elaborate ruses in the form of a child killing plague and the threat of AV attack to justify killing their own.

        The skeletons on the beach were bizarre. How long would they have lasted with the sea ebbing and flowing over them? Either they’re fairly recent or they’re made of an unerodable material. Either way the discovery seemed unconvincing not to mention the actors responses to it.

        However, it has got me watching even if this is, like others here, to see how silly it gets, to offer up suggestions for improvement as well as a curiosity to find out what happens now that I’ve committed quite a few hours watching it.

      • Eddieboy says:

        The diamonds will have the same pecuniary value as the Golgafrinchams’ leaves in Hitchhikers!

  41. Peter M says:

    Outcasts is bad.
    I have a horrible facination to see what happens next.
    Im not a writer, but sure that I could retell the story in a more interesting way.

  42. UTR says:

    Caprica – Best Sci-fi show in a very very long time cancelled after 1 season to show more most haunted??? I wouldn’t exactly say that this show is boring but your right it doesn’t have that something the characters seem quite 2 dimensional and for me it just reminds me of an old sci-fi show called earth 2 (also cancelled after 1 season but unlike caprica e2 was dire again with a really good cast) with sprinklings of lost. Not very original and not very interesting.

    And top gear is awesome 😛

  43. UTR says:

    If the writers could go and throw their Earth 2 dvd’s in the bin and go and watch bablyon 5 or the remake of BSG/Caprica you might get some ideas of what good sci-fi looks like.

  44. KP says:

    Ah .. Babylon 5!!

    Now your talking .. it had it’s faults of course , but that is what I call SCI_FI ..

    I just wish I could afford to buy the box set ..

  45. Glo says:

    Did anyone realized that in the last episode -episode 4 I think it was- there was more commotion about the death of a man no one had even met until such episode, than about the poor soldier going with Stella and Jack to the ocean -and with whom, I imagine, everyone in Forthaven must have made some sort of bond or connection after so many years living in the closeted fort environment? That made zero sense to me… One of many emotional inconsistencies that almost made me weep, because I was really looking forward to this BBC drama.

    The best thing in it for me is Mabius, Cunningham (although his character is starting to grate) and the young Irish genius/drop-out. I would give a miss to Hermione and the rest of the cast. The story so far is fairly un-engaging, what a shame, what a waste.

    The fact that there were humans on Carpethia thousands, perhaps millions, of years before, that there is an illness that makes people have halos before they die, and that a preacher has joined the community in the planet make me think that, maybe, certain elements of the Bible echo the world of Carpethia… A little clever coincidence that I was quite picked about in episode 2, but that now I’ve almost lost interest in due to the crawling pace of this show.

    That ship coming to the planet at the end of the last episode makes me hope that we are going to see more Julius and Tate and less Scottish girl and London dude. I fancy more politics and religion in the claustrophobic compound setting than another of those absurd outdoor expeditions in which the irritating Scottish girl is invariably involved… Spare us BBC, give us a bit of quality, please.

  46. gary hamilton says:

    i just wish the bbc had spent the money buying up the rights to Defying Gravity, to me that would of made more sense! plus Cass does my brain in!!

    • Ray says:

      I completely agree. I thought that was a really interesting sci-fi drama with excellent acting, believable sets and a great story. The way they wove the story as the series went on was very well done. We’ll never know what those signals on Venus (if I remember correctly) were all about. Sigh…

    • LG O'Reilly says:

      What happened to Defying Gravity? I started to get into that.

  47. Surrey Puma says:

    It is a good stab at doing some thing serious and interesting. Yes, it is a little cliched and will take some time to get going – Star Trek NG, Deep Space Nine and Voyager. Unfortunately, being cast into the wastes of late night Sunday evening., would suggest that it is not going to get a second season.

    I rather liked London dude and Scottish girl as a budding romance of course, she might have grave doubts when his dubious past is revealed. Always a sucker for non requited or doomed romances.

    I’m sure we will find a bit more about Carparthia, but remember all those hints in Farscape about the relationship between Earth and the Peace Keepers. Probably, if there were a series 2, then human power struggle, season three – alien race from distance past turns up.

    Reminded me of Kim Stanley Robinson’s Martian trilogy.

  48. robertpriddy says:

    The character who is a kind of New Age ‘spiritual’ person or modern evangelical is one of the best (most realistic) depictions of this kind of person with the usual selfish agenda hiding amid fine words on selflessnes. They are found all over these days and are rather like mental clones of one another, living in a cognitive delusion and bolstering themselves up with what they (desperately) want to believe.
    The story is sluggish and the music fills too many gaps and doesn’t help. A lot better than US stuff, though. At least we are spared the American angle on everything (i.e. “Let’s get the hell outa here” talk).

  49. Alison says:

    Forthave or whatever should be called Dullsville. And not we find …they are not alone on the planet…Sound like Lost anyone? I cannot take another episode of the boriing pontification of the President and the Chief of Security. The sat attempt to step it up a gear by having that guy on his laptop communicating with some mystery person. The woman in it who played Lizzie Siddal in Desperate Romanticfs is shite. So bad it’s an embarassment to watch her. Go take some acting lessons hen. And I think a big opportunity for some romantic interest between her and Rudy has been chucked away. No wonder it’s been moved off a prime spot on Mondays. it’s pish.

  50. rotorblades2011 says:

    Outcasts is probably not the most original programme ever, but it’s certainly the brightest spark on British TV at the minute, that is well of course, still British. What else is there, other than endless soaps, Snooker, Darts, Gypsy Weddings, game shows, auctions, and more reality TV shows?

    What happened to good ole solid drama?

    Oh, the alternative to home-grown drama is more and more American TV which can show us all how to become expert vampires, werewolves, or even better, gun-slinging criminals, or serial killers.

    Do you think that American TV produced great shows like CSI, Without at Trace, The Wire at the first hurdle? No, the best shows came on the backs of years of some very bad TV, that just got better over time. Better writers, talent, production values etc.

    If you don’t believe me, look at the Australian soaps of the 70’s. They were truly dire. Now Australia exports its soaps like nobody’s business.

    Folks, if Outcast disappears without a trace, there will be nothing like it ever again. No British producer will have the Cojones to even think about pitching a project with special FX, big production values, etc.

    This is our chance folks, let’s give these guys at the Beeb a break. And even better things will come on the back of this.

    • Personally I love Hustle, British and funny! Spooks is great too. The BBC doesn’t need a break, it’s had years of experience in making good drama, this just isn’t one of them, in my opinion. I can see what they’re trying to do and as I said in my original post – I really wanted to like it, but it’s not my duty to sit down for hours to try to get into something, they just haven’t got it right, again my opinion. A shame, but there it is. Other people think differently.

  51. martin_humby says:

    Try again

    Thank’s Dave Mc for a blog entry with a link from the Outcasts page where I can moan about the Beeb’s efforts with SciFi, also the pointer to Mad Dogs.

    I too was sadly disappointed by Outcasts but suppose it should have come as no great surprise. How long ago was any decent British SciFi or fantasy on TV? From Gormengast to the deadly The Deep recent efforts have never failed to disappoint. This is all the more mysterious because there are some excellent British writers in the genre. Currently reading Ian McDonald: Cyberabad Days – might appeal to followers of this Blog. Ironically Ian also works in TV production. Perhaps the answer might be to select or commission a work from an established genre writer making sure of suitability for adaptation with at least a modicum of credibility.

    In Outcasts, leaving aside a similar level of schoolboy techno-farce to the submarine’s docking pool in The Deep or a typical episode of Doctor Who, presentation as a disjointed series of clips is no-way to do TV drama. Take out the CGI stuff and music over nothing-of-significance, the remaining blips make a scene from East Enders seem like Henry V act 2. Small wonder even the skilled actors find it difficult to establish any characterisation.

    Additionally must agree with all @keithyd’s points: the production team appear to have read the manual on how to maintain interest but their attempts to do so fail miserably making the appropriately titled Outcasts a pain to view. They could watch The Killing (BBC 4), all 20 episodes, as a guide to how to do it but somehow I get the feeling that there is no hope – the remedy for future productions being obvious.

    Anyone still want to know what happens? The best way to watch Outcasts is to download it for iPlayer Desktop to get sufficient control (by clicking upstream or downstream of the slider button) to emulate a skip facility. An episode can be compressed to about 20 minutes. Strangely downloaded picture quality is slightly worse that viewing online – any ideas?

    The message to come out of most critical postings here, one that I hope anyone from the BBC who bothers to look may take away, is that Outcasts is a flop because it is a poorly produced substandard drama not because it is poor SciFi on which the verdict is still open.

  52. keithyd says:

    @ Dale

    “and those of you who think it was boring should stick to watching glossy shallow hollywood tripe.
    The characters are not shallow and the interaction beween them is deep and personal, but then if you have the attention span of a goldfish you wont see that.”

    I wish people would give over with this idea that those of us who didn’t like Outcasts are shallow and only like Hollywood tripe. It’s precisely because we’re not shallow that we want something that’s more challenging and where the interpersonal relationships are more life-like. Cass and Fleur changed their characters each week, depending on what the plot demanded of them – first Fleur likes Cass, then (Joshua episode) she goes off him because he gets Joshua killed. Then – at the end of the episode – she’s friends with him again … it’s not shallow to see that this isn’t deep and meaningful and reflects real human life; it’s actually pathetically insulting to a watching audience that – not having the attention span of a goldfish – can remember what was said and done ten minutes earlier in the episode.

    Try watching Mad Men, Breaking Bad, The Wire – those are shows that expect you to stay with them as their storylines develop, but they reward you with wit, tension, interesting characterisation and a growing identification with people whose personalities are both mysterious and consistent. Unlike Outcasts, where the personalities were dull and changeable (which is a good trick to achieve), and whatever mysteries were revealed in the storyline just made your jaw drop with disbelief.

    So please, don’t presume that people who don’t like something you do are inferior in some way, easily bored, or can’t remember details from one week to the next. We might in fact be more discerning and less easily prey to the superficialities of below-standard television fare that happens to carry a BBC banner.

  53. mike schulze says:

    I agree outcasts started out slow but it never had a chance to fully mature I read most of the negative comments on the series and most people didn’t even stick with the series to see where it went most people only watching the first 3 episodes that’s like reading the first 15 pages of a book and stopping because its to slow just because a script is slow doesn’t mean there aint reasoning behind it going slow. if people would have realized that they would have understood that citizens of Carpathia were meant to seems 2d as a reflection of the battle they have to face as the survivors of the human race the battle to survive while holding on to humanity. then I see carp on here saying breaking bad is a better series I would like to call bullshit. I have watched all seasons of breaking bad and the shows is just another one if our f***ed up American shows meant to appeal to the audiences that’s brain doesn’t function on a higher level that would rather watch people cooking and smoking ice rather then actually thinking of how fucked up this world is becoming where instead of trying to change how we live our media is telling us to go sell and use meth that its okay. and its people who like this shitty ass dimwitted audience shows that is causing us to just encourage our kids to say fuck authority. and before anyone says that it doesn’t affect our kids don’t even try todays television influence is why our kids are as fucked up as they are. point stop fucking up everyone else shows because you would rather sit on your couch rotting away your body on a meth pipe watching stupid shit like breaking bad

    • Not sure I understand half of what you’ve written here. What’s meth got to do with me not liking outcasts and calling it boring? My original point still stands that I persevered for a couple of episodes, but there was nothing that really held my interest, the acting was crap, the story was a good idea, but just told in such a boring fashion. If I want to be informed and enlightened, I’ll watch David Attenborough, Simon Sharma watch University Challenge or follow a series on Discovery or, actually read a good book like “Vulcan 605” or Shackleton’s “South” or read about some historical figure such as Simon De Montfort or Henry II. I watched Outcasts as it was meant to be entertainment, ‘thoughtful’ entertainment perhaps, but nevertheless entertainment. I was not entertained. I was bored, therefore I switched off. Pretty simple really.

  54. Dave Thomas says:

    Wow, this thread is the gift that keeps on giving; I thought this was long dead, but it has been rekindled from the ashes (I might yet start trending on the BBC site again, Dave)!

    I stuck with Outcasts for 6 or 7 episodes (simply because there was nothing else on at the time) but still couldn’t bring myself to watch it to the end of the series – it was dull, dull. dull! Having been a recent convert to Breaking Bad (I’m currently half way through series 2) – it’s holding my attention far better. @Mike Schultz – you’re analysing it WAY too much!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: