Talk:Survivors (1975 TV series)

Last episode and other thoughts
I just finished watching the last episode of the third series. I didn't like the way that it was suggested that there were something like 150,000 poeple left in Scotland north of the Tay; out of an original population in that area of 1,500,000 (note that for the whole of Scotland the population in the 1970s was around 5,000,000). I think that 150,000 is quite a sustainable number of people. Norway, with a very similar demographic to Scotland would have likely have had a similar number of survivors. This 1:10 (or if you include the whole of Scotland 1:33) survivial rate just doesn't work in with the struggles for survivial suggested by episodes earlier in the series. For me I just didn't buy it. It had all gone too cosy. In England (and Wales ?) there were supposed to be something like 10,000 people out of perhaps 50,000,000 original inhabitants; meaning a survivial rate of 1:5000. I would call this a continuity problem. Similarly, regarding continuity, originally it was suggested that the chances of any survivor having a personal connection to any other survivors was extremely unlikely, and then later on we get various people connected by blood turning up, and even, with Edith Walter and her three sons, a whole family of survivors. Jooler 23:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * By coincidence, I just watched the last episode today. And I agree with you about the Scottish survival rate, but I don't think its notable enough to put in the article as a controversy, if that's what your suggesting.  It may have been that the Laird was lying, in order to scare the "English" (the fact Denis Lill was playing a Welshman amusingly seemed to have escaped the writer!), or simply mistaken or course.  We saw no evidence of the survival rate there, or, crucially, south of there, where you think they might have visited or been noticed!  As to the survival of people connected by blood - it may be that they had some kind of inherited immunity? Even in the early days, there was a suggestion that Abby's son Peter survived; then there was John's mother later. Stephenb (Talk) 19:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Random Ponder Two factors that could possibly affect survival are population density and genetics.

People in highly populated areas risk repeated exposure and re-exposure. This would be particularly important if the plague was made up of many different strains. So, you would expect rural areas to have a higher survival rate.

If there is a genetic component to survival, then you would expect to see some family patterns. Again, this would be more likely in rural areas because (during the 70's) there was less immigration into these areas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.150.177.249 (talk) 10:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

First Episode and Worcestershire
At the time of broadcast I lived in rural Worcestershire and was an avid fan of the series. The section on the first episode locations in Worcestershire is both vague and misleading. Three scenes take place in the village of Elmley Castle - A shot of bodies in a church was from St Mary's Church in that village, and one of the bodies was my brother working as an extra. The Doctor's house is Brook House, halfway up the main village street. The shot of Abby leaving her house by the front door is also in the main village street on the other side of the road. The garden and rear of Abby's house was shot in the nearby village of Little Comberton - the house used is the opposite side of the road from the church there. The article mentions use of the railway station in Great Malvern. I don't recall any scene there, but the scene where Abby collects her husband from the London train was shot at the railway station in Evesham, also in Worcestershire and a few hundred yards from where I went to school. Sadly I have no documentary references for any of this - just that I was there. Abivor (talk) 13:43, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

External links - fansites etc..
To the person who controls these pages... Who made you God and deleted Rich Cross's websites and why oh why do you keep insisting on adding the word 'fan' to my site when the other sites that were listed are fan sites too and weren't listed in that way? The h2g2 site is a fan site too by the way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.34.120 (talk • contribs)
 * Well it wasn't God but User:Stephenb who made the changes. He is following the guidelines in External links which says that "Fan sites: On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite is appropriate" - Well I think perhaps Stephen is misinterpreting this guide (and it is only a guide not a hard and fast rule). I think the text is referring to things like Star Trek or Doctor Who where there are thousands and thousands of fansites. There are not many fan-sites for Survivors and I don't think it inappropriate to have them here. Although I think only one link to the Mad Dog site is required. Jooler 16:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * In retrospect, I think I was a little harsh following the guidelines so closely. Hence, I have restored most of the links, but all clearly marked. The Mad Dog site still only gets one, though. Stephenb (Talk) 08:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Well that doesn't reflect the fact that Rich's two sites have a totally diffrent and separate Survivors focus. Just because a site has the same opening URL doesn't mean it can't contain pages on entirely different subjects. I run my Secret Army site from the same URL as my Survivors one for example. I just don't understand this unnecessary officiousness in a wiki/'information for all' environment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.34.135 (talk • contribs)
 * Wikipedia is not about providing lists of links to other sites. Stephenb (Talk) 11:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

That's as maybe but I don't remember reading in the guidelines that editors should be power-tripping bureaucrats either. To not include the link to the Mad Dog site following our discussion, given that its content is directly relevant to this wiki, is simply fatuously stubborn and can serve no other purpose than for you to demonstrate that you have power. I prepare to bow down before you - all powerful one.


 * Please sign your talk page contributions. Please adhere to wikipedia's civility policy WP:CIVIL. Please dry your eyes.--feline1 16:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I quite agree that he should adhere to the civility policy, but I'm afraid the power has gone to his head. My eyes couldn't be drier thanks. AndyP

Wish there was a Science of
Does anyone know of the right forum for discussing the science of this series ? It is a thought provoking scenario - but I can't help thinking it unrealistic. PeterGrecian 14:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC) Not so unrealistic now in the Covid age86.8.144.235 (talk) 21:40, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to add to the trivia section about people who went on to be famous, as it neglects to ention Roger Lloyd Pack who played 'Trigger' for all those years on only fools and horses. He appeared in the 'Lights of London' episodes.--Turkeyplucker 20:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Such an article should probably be at WikiVersity -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 04:25, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Survivors.jpg
Image:Survivors.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 13:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Separate New Series Article
I just wanted to kick-start a discussion about when everyone thought would be an appropriate time to create a separate article for the up-coming new series. --Deadly&forall;ssassin 04:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * When there is significantly more information! Nobody can say exactly when that will be, but I'd expect (say) cast details, director/producer credits and so forth. Stephenb (Talk) 06:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Cast and character details released by BBC . Assuming the main characters of the original series remain central to the plot we have Patterson Joseph as Greg Preston, Julie Graham as Abby Grant and Freema Agyeman as Jenny Collins (was Jenny Richards in TOS) leading the cast. But I'd imagine that the Tom Price character as portrayed by Talfryn Thomas has undergone some "re-imagining" for Max Beesley. Jooler (talk) 15:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The BBC seem to have picked up marketing ideas from the selling of 'Heroes' and my feeling is that this programme will be much bigger and more widely received than the original series, possibly even with a worldwide audience. If the time for hiving off 'Survivors 2008' to its own article is not yet upon us, that time will will arrive VERY soon. People will be coming here now for information (the BBC's Survivors' website even links here) and many will feel cheated and disappointed by what information is currently included, most of which is historical and innapropriate for the current generation of viewers. 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 22:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You're commenting on this rather late: see Survivors (2008 TV series). Cheers, Stephenb (Talk) 11:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well obviously the BBC haven't spotted this either. I followed the BBC link to here. And there is no direct link at the top of this article to the new page, only a link to a disambiguation page. Could be clearer. 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 13:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Er.... it's in the "Remake" section, and has been for some time! Nick Cooper (talk) 14:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Intentional or accidental?
It concerned the plight of a group of people who had survived an accidentally released plague that had killed nearly the entire population of the planet.

I took the credit sequence as ambiguous, while a friend believed the release was deliberate. Is there any consensus on this or even indication in creator's statements or novelisations? MartinSFSA (talk) 09:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced material
The following is unsourced: Please provide sources before incorporating back into the main article. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 22:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * After playing a central role in Survivors during series one, Carolyn Seymour (Abby Grant) was not invited to return to the production for the second series. Rumours suggest that this was the result of a personality clash behind the scenes between Seymour and series producer Terence Dudley. Abby's storyline, involving her search for her son Peter, was concluded in the Terry Nation novelisation of the series.
 * It has been claimed that Denis Lill (Charles Vaughan) and Ian McCulloch (Greg Preston) fell out with each other during the filming of the second season, leading to the departure of McCulloch's character. However McCulloch has denied having anything against Lill personally, although he was apparently unhappy that a new male lead had been added to the show, when he had built up a strong character during the first season. He did return for two episodes during the third series, both of which he wrote himself.
 * Ian McCulloch wrote a fourth season of Survivors during the 1990s to try and get the programme back on television. BBC Scotland were interested in the idea but did not approve of the idea of an uninfected African nation colonising Britain.
 * The yellow Volvo estate car used in the series also appeared as Jerry Leadbetter's car in The Good Life.
 * There are parallels between 'Survivors' and the 2002 movie, '28 Days Later', including an accidental release of a virus and - in the acclaimed episode, 'Mad Dog' - images of a rabies-sufferer with the urge to infect others. As in the movie, anyone suspected of being infected (as Denis Lill's Charles Vaughan is at one point) will be killed immediately to contain the disease.

Class bias
I'm going through this series for the first time and can't help but notice there's a class bias. Anyone who is poor, is either a murderer, useless, a thief or incredibly stupid. There is also a union leader turned fascist leader in the first season of the show. The second season has the characters loving a child murderer who has useful skills over a shepherd who lives in a leaky house, drinks and 'spreads rumours'. Has anyone noticed this class bias? I think I saw one thread on IMDb but I think something should be added to the article to address this. Surely somewhere someone of note has addressed this because its strikingly obvious to me. TurtleMelody (talk) 06:25, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * This is not a discussion forum. If you can find a reliable, citable reference that has the same opinion, you might be able to add it somewhere. (I have to say, I've never noticed, but then this was a 70s show!) Stephenb (Talk) 08:21, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, TurtleMelody raises a valid point, that has in fact been noticed and remarked upon by critics in the past. Roger Fulton's Encyclopedia of TV Science Fiction, and The Guinnes Book of Classic British Television by Paul Cornell, Martin Day, & Keith Topping, both mention this issue. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:05, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I didn't say the point wasn't valid, but without a citation it's only a single opinion which doesn't belong in the article. Fulton refers to "contemporary critics" with no examples, and Cornell/Day/Topping refers to "much criticism" without any specific examples too; but if you feel that these are valid, feel free to add a "Reception" section or something (although some actual criticism would obviously be better!). Stephenb (Talk) 15:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * That seem to imply that you think they're not "valid" references. I'm also not sure of the suggestion that somehow neither constitute "actual criticism." Nick Cooper (talk) 17:24, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, yes and no. They are reporting criticism, not actually criticising. If their book entries were Wikipedia entries, they'd be tagged as 'citation needed'! (I got it slightly wrong: "A criticism often levelled at Survivors...", C/D/T writes - but where and by whom? And they do say this is a little unfair, too!) But I guess it would be valid to add to this article that they reported such criticism. It would still be better to get a contemporary or even non-contemporary criticism. Stephenb (Talk) 18:06, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Just watching this show through again now. At the very start, a woman leaves a chap to die after he breaks his legs in an accident of his causing. This storyline continues later on in the first series. And the woman is upper class. The child murderer in the second series leaves in the same episode he arrives as they are unable to resolve how they feel about his crimes. The shepherd hounds a woman and her child almost to the point of death with unfounded allegations of witchcraft (after she refuses his sexual advances). There are definitely issues of class and they are examined in the show as indeed they try to examine many issues, but the examples cited don't really support the hypothesis. It may be worth including a section on criticism of the show, but I would suggest it covers a ranges of issues and not just focus on the one and be able to point to properly cited sources, not just 'someone says that someone else said'. With the show being so old, it's likely that none of the criticism from the time is available online. Kodabar (talk) 18:33, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

disease eradicated 95pc of people 97.5pc of lower class people. maybe the middle classes occupying the serial were healthier to start with. 81.132.98.99 (talk)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Moved. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:57, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Please fix links before moving the disambiguation page. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:59, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

– This television series should not be the primary topic for a term with so many other uses. In particular, the article for the 2008 remake gets as many visits as this article, despite being at a dabbed title. The title of the article for the 1975 series should be fully disambiguated and the dab page moved to the plain title. Shelf Skewed  Talk  22:08, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Survivors → Survivors (1975 TV series)
 * Survivors (disambiguation) → Survivors


 * I concur. There is a lengthy list of books and movies with that same (o similar) title--see the disambig list.  So it is undue weight to have the 1970s TV series get top billing.  The title should belong to a generic disambig page SoTotallyAwesome (talk) 22:43, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Support I was a fan of this series, but I'm afraid it hasn't had the long term fame to treat it as primary. PatGallacher (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Support looking at the dab page, there is no WP:PRIMARYTOPIC In ictu oculi (talk) 00:52, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong support no primary topic -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 06:28, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Support agree no primary topic.--KTo288 (talk) 20:24, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Support. No evidence of primary topic. Zarcadia (talk) 06:39, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

S2E13 Lethal Injection?
Doesn't fit the plot as there was only Streptomycin and Penicillin available. The children were near the barn when Ruth went in but at a party when the bonfire was lit and lethal injections take seconds, not hours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.190.203.0 (talk) 20:50, 11 October 2019 (UTC)