Talk:Survivors (2008 TV series)

Birmingham
Hospital was the old ATV/ITV Central studios on Bridge Street--94.172.136.32 (talk) 21:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Filming of inside hospital was done at Birmingham City University - Edgbaston campus on 08/06/09, present was Max Beesley {Ucebaggie (talk) 20:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)}
 * Sources please. :) -- Deadly&forall;ssassin 23:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

It's Jenny Walsh not Jenny Collins
I have made an edit of Jenny Collins to Jenny Walsh in the differences with the book section. Even though it was first reported the character's name to be Jenny Collins, the end credits of the first episode clearly credits the character as Jenny Walsh. So please don't revert Walsh back to Collins. --The Shadow Treasurer (talk) 19:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Just corrected Collins into Walsh in the Anya description. --The Shadow Treasurer (talk) 04:47, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Fiction
I edited a sentence claiming the subject matter of the series has moved out of the realm of pure fiction, removing that statement. Viruses capable of wiping out mankind have never been pure fiction and become arguably less plausible as the population of the human race grows, not more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.67.129 (talk) 06:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * "Viruses capable of wiping out mankind have never been pure fiction and become arguably less plausible as the population of the human race grows, not more." Actually there are arguments both ways on this one.  Larger popualtion may be more suspetable because as population size rises so does density, contact instances and transmission speed as well as the opportunity of zoonosis to adapt to humans, etc.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.205.123.105 (talk) 18:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Motorway Scene
Although the interview with Paterson Joesph cites the Jaguar test track at Nuneaton, the actual location is the MIRA test track - the specific location being the western perimeter road  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haydn1971 (talk • contribs) 16:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Episode list template
Shouldn't the episode list be using the Episode list template? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It probably should, but that template appears to require a title for each episode, and as far as I can tell from the promotional material, there aren't episode titles for this series. -- Deadly&forall;ssassin 03:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * In which case, I think the usual method is to use titles of "Episode 1", "Episode 2", etc. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Based on a novel according to the credits?
Originally, Terry Nation created the TV show. He later wrote a novelization of it. Interestingly, the credits for the show cite that the series is based on the novel, and the BBC websites make little mention of the original production. I'm not sure what this means for the article itself - I suspect we should probably wait for or acquire clarification from the BBC on this. LinaMishima (talk) 02:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The Radio Times also said it was based on the novel, IIRC, but I no longer have that copy. I think that's what they had the rights to do - i.e. no rights to (remake) the work others did on the original series (characters, plots etc.). The novel diverges considerably from the original series by its end. Stephenb (Talk) 08:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * That's probably related to the case that Brian Clements brought in the 70s. -- Deadly&forall;ssassin 11:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, I tracked down a bibliographic database entry for the original novel, and it's now included in the final section, including a list of differences between the seventies and contemporary versions of Survivors, and the novelisation. Incidentally, was it screened in the United States?

Calibanu (talk) 00:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)User Calibanu


 * Having had a chance to read the episode summaries, there are now several divergences apparent from the novelisation and the original series:
 * (a) Jenny Richards survives, whereas Jenny Collins does not;
 * (b) Greg and Jenny fall in love and have a child together;
 * (c) In the novelisation and original series, Tom Price is a middle-aged Welsh vagramt;
 * (d) Sarah Boyer is as mercenary as her counterpart was, though;
 * (e) There are no surviving enclaves of civilisation either in the original series or the novelisation, unlike the remade series;
 * (f) Peter Grant accidentally shoots and kills Abby at the end of the novelisation, whereas this version of Peter has apparently been already discovered;
 * (g) like Ruth Anderson in Survivors 1.02, Anya Raczynski is a newly qualified doctor, although Ruth is straight. There is no counterpart to either character in the novelisation;
 * (h) Jimmy Garland appears in the novelisation, original series and the current series, and in Survivors 1.02, it is mentioned that he is searching for Abby and Peter. He dies in the novelisation;
 * (i)There are no counterparts to Charles Vaughan or Agnes Carlson (as yet) in the original series, neither of whom appeared in the novelisation;
 * (j) Abby left her original community to look for Peter after receiving news that he was still alive from Ruth after she arrived there, and was absent from the rest of the original series. She stays with her community in the novelisation and remade series, until her kidnapping;
 * (k) Arthur Wormley and Samantha Willis both share a ruthless and authoritarian streak in the original series, novelisation and new series, as well as paramilitary organisations that surround them to enforce their will;


 * Given the list of divergences, and that they outnumber the similarities, it is safe to say that apart from the original episode and the one set at Waterhouse, the remade series is only loosely based on either the original series and/or novelisation. Calibanu (talk) 23:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)User Calibanu


 * It has been stated that for copyrioht reasons, the new series is "based" on the novel, although some of the episodes do broadly cover similar themes to episodes in the original series, whether written by Nation or not. I don't think we can take Jenny Collins as a reinterpretation of Jenny Richards, as to a certain degree Anya is an amalgamation of both the latter and the male doctor from the original series, i.e. she is the surviving flatmate who ends up intially wandering the countryside alone, and the first other person she meets is Tom Price. The biggest difference with the new series is that while in the original is was known to the viewer that the virus was man-made, it wasn't raised as an "issue" subsequentlt. In the new series, it is strongly hinted that the scientists trying to find a vaccine had created the virus in the first place. In addition, originally people were either immune to the virus, were ill but survived, or died. The apparent split of survivors between the first two categories were fairly even, yet in the new series it seems that Abby uniquely was in the second. Nick Cooper (talk) 11:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Obviously, given the conclusion of Season Two, there is now an additional major divergence from the novelisation 'source' (if one can still call it that). This is Abby and Peter's reunion, and Abby's survival, which diverges significantly from the end of the novel, where she abandoned her search, stayed with her community and died in an armed confrontation and accidental shooting by her son, who had joined a nomadic gang of feral adolescents. I've also edited the article to provide an update based on the events of the end of the second series.

Incidentally, if there is a third series, it will no doubt focus on the "Search for Tom," akin to the original series third season "Search for Greg" by Jenny Richards, Charles Vaughan and others. This may suggest closer correspondence with the original series than first thought. Calibanu (talk) 04:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)User Calibanu

Cleanup
I've done some cleanup to the article to reflect the fact that we know more about things now that the series is running.

-- Deadly&forall;ssassin 04:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Added title sequence image and more credits to the infobox
 * 2) Removed character bios from the cast list, these only really refer to the characters as they are prior/during episode 1, there's probably scope to add a sub-section with recurring characters like Dexter, Samantha Willis and the lab guys, but I haven't tackled this yet as it would make more sense to see more of the series first
 * 3) Created separate production section to collect information about the making of the series
 * 4) Added a synopsis section which gives the basic gyst of what the series is about
 * 5) Added more guest cast information to the episode list
 * 6) Added director column to the episode list
 * 7) Rewrote the episode synopses to be a bit less wordy so they don't overwhelm the table
 * 8) Moved reviews section up to form the initial reception section, although this could do with some more work.
 * 9) Cleaned up references to use cite tags

Trivia
Im watching the first episode, and at 32:53 I noticed a copy of a Stephen King novel on the prisoner's night stand. I presume this is a copy of The Stand, in which a prisoner found him self in exactly the same position as the character on screen. If anybody ever makes a Trivia section, this might be worth including. Made me grin, anyway. Iowaseven (talk) 23:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Literary Parallels
I think it a good idea to note all of the literary parallels and references within the series, the significance of which provides a springboard into the moral dilemmas faced in the plot. For instance, the reflection of Lord of the Flies, and the Stephen King parallel detailed immediately above, under the section, 'Trivia'. Oliverbeatson (not logged in) 149.254.58.1 (talk) 22:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Although one should bear in mind that The Stand was published three years after the first BBC series. 15:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I dont really see how that is relevant... --90.202.14.78 (talk) 01:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Jenny as Anya's lover
This article makes several mentions to the character of Jenny Collin's being Anya's lover, however I am led to believe from episode 1 that her lover was Patricia, the woman who Anya kissed as she was dying when Jenny brought her in.

This might require a quick check on iPlayer to confirm, if anyone has the time, the BBC website seems rather ambiguous, referring to Patricia as Anya's "friend". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.217.197 (talk) 22:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Anya has been widely confirmed to be lesbian. Patricia seems to have been her former lover, although involved with a man at the time that she died from the virus. From what I've read about Episode 5, though, apparently Anya was too traumatised by Jenny's death, as her current lover, to continue to practice medicine after the Death. Calibanu (talk) 03:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)User Calibanu


 * Actually, she wasn't "confirmed" as such at all. She spoke of having "fallen in love with a woman," singular, having previously slept with men, plural. That makes her bisexual. Nick Cooper (talk) 15:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Removed sentence
I removed the following sentence from the shooting paragraph of production. I looked for any sources that supported this, and couldn't come up with any, while there is a source for this shooting to have taken place in Nuneaton.

The location for the motorway scene was the western perimeter road at the Motor Industry Research Association's site, with the help of CGI to create the opposite carriageway and signs on the nearby bridge.

If someone finds a source you're welcome to put it back in. -- Deadly&forall;ssassin 02:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

FA Suggestions
asked me, following this article's successful GA review, to comment on and suggest how the article can be raised to FA standard. The best way to see improvements is to suggest the article at WP:FAC. However, you may want to improve it a bit first. Here I shall present some general FA advice, some article-specific advice, and some additional free stuff. Enjoy!

The following sections are organised by the FA criteria order. For this, see WP:FA?.

1a
"It is well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard"

This is by far the hardest criterion to satisfy (but don't worry!). Normal, flowing writing will not do; it has to be "brilliant". Leave this until last, as it is a continuous process otherwise. The Synopsis section here is an area for improvement, being composed of only two sentences. The series lasted for 6 episodes; there will be more to the synopsis than just the bare bones of the story. Breaking up the article with short paragraphs like this one will not please the people at FAC, and just interrupts the flow of the article. Ideally, this section would be two, full length paragraphs, but one big paragraph will do. Another little point is the Other characters section, as one paragraph is just a sentence. If it can be expanded, expand it; if it can't, merge it; if that doesn't work, scrap it. All paragraphs in the article need to be at least 4 proper-length sentences long. The bit about Dexter is also ever-so-slightly in an in-universe style, something that would get noticed very quickly. Don't worry about the Series Two - 2009 bit for length, as that will be expanded when the series airs. When the article is submitted, some reviewers will offer advice and tips of how to improve the prose; some will just say its rubbish. Listen to the former. FAC is an improvement process as much as it is a review process. Oh, and lose the weasel words (for example, "Sarah Boyer is probably the closest...".

1b
"It is comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context"

The first bit here looks pretty much done; the difficulty is the "in context" bit. The main thing here are reviews; they show how the programme was percieved, and allow the reader a chance to emerge from the story of the article, with no danger of being in-universe. Plus, it builds up references. An ample reference list can only be positive. The media section also provides more context-improvement-bits.

1c
"It is well-researched: it is characterized by a thorough and representative survey of relevant literature on the topic. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported with citations; this requires a "References" section in which sources are listed, complemented by inline citations where appropriate"

The book will be very important here, as well as any making-of books they choose to produce. Websites are nice references, but the best are books.

1d
"It is neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias"

Be careful with reviews; the two you mention at the moment are dealt with well. The Differences from the source material section needs a careful read over, as that kind of section is a fertile breeding ground for OR. It must be well-referenced before going before FAC.

1e
"It is stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process"

An elementary criterion; just be careful you do not prevent any changes taking place other than yours; remember, you do not own the article. Because of this criterion, I suggest postponing any FAC attempt until after the second series has aired, as FAC can last a long time and any big changes from the 2nd series would appear to contravene this criterion.

2a
"...including the provision of a lead—a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections"

This is the biggest failing point for the article at the moment. The lead is fine for GA, but nearly all FA leads are at least 2 paragraphs long. The best information about it can be found at WP:LEAD. Remember, tohugh, that the lead should say what impact the series has had; otherwise, a snarky little editor could complain that there is no assertion of notability. Anything in the lead must be expanded upon, and the lead must summerise the whole article. The best way of expanding it that I can see is to add an 'Impact' bit, touching upon reviews and the like. The bigger the better!

2b (or not 2b)
"...including the provision of appropriate structure—a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents"

Isn't this criterion random? Just make sure any big improvements you make are categorised neatly.

2c
"...including the provision of consistent citations—where required by Criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1) (see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended)"

*yawn* Go through and ensure all the templates match the medium, for example. We all like a bit of consistency, don't we?

3
"Images. It has images that follow the image use policies and other media where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly"

You know this already.

4
"Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)"

The article needs to be a bit longer. You know the subject material better than I - is there any way you could add another section perhaps, or really expand the existing bits? A =Reception= bit never goes amiss.

Other
Of course, this is not the be all and end all. Check fully with the MoS, as all are assessed at FA stage, and the MoS offers the best advice for improvement. Before you submit the page at FAC, be sure to undergo another Peer Review, as well as asking numerous other people to read thorugh the article.

Good luck!

we eb il oo bi l ( talk ) 17:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow, that is far more than I expected.  Thank you very much for your advice and guidance. -- Deadly&forall;ssassin  08:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome :) Thanks very much for the barnstar - we eb il oo bi l  ( talk ) 12:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

As much as I've appreciated this series, the same thing worries me as worried me about the original. Despite the collapse of civilization, the appearance of the characters indicates that barbers, hairdressers, drycleaners, and laundrettes are still functioning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.128.124 (talk) 11:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * As the original series progressed, characters frequently wore the same clothes, and were not remotely as well-groomed as you suggest. Nick Cooper (talk) 11:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I have to say the 1994 The Stand miniseries was guilty of this. None of the men grow a beard. The hair stays groomed and tidy and the clothes remain clean. --Thunderbuster (talk) 23:35, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Series 1 DVD Easter Egg
In the selection menu, position the cursor on Episode Selection. When the grey corpuscle appears, press up and the corpuscle selects and you can get to the Easter Egg. -- Evertype·✆ 10:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * and the Easter egg is...what, exactly? - 207.181.235.214 (talk) 02:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

(Note: I undid Ukexpat's removal of the above section; if this is citable info, we can add it in the DVD release section. Qualifying it as forum chat is a tad unfair, I think. If there's a cite for the Easter Egg, we got something. If not, it will never make it into the article. - 207.181.235.214 (talk) 07:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * There is a reliable source for the existence of the Easter egg at http://press.bbcdvd.com/dvd.jsp?id=9424 There is also this BBC press announcement.


 * BBC does not say what disc the Easter Egg is on nor how to find it. BBC's Details page has:
 * Survivors bonus features
 * Making of featurette
 * Character profiles
 * Effects reel
 * Easter Egg
 * I have discs 3 and 4 handy
 * Making of featurette
 * Character profiles - On disc 3
 * Effects reel - On disc 3 as "Survivors FX"
 * Easter Egg
 * Disc 4 does not have any extras or bonus features. I'm pretty sure the making of featurette is on disc 2 but need to track the missing discs down. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 17:07, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Anonymous commentary
I was very disappointed in the quality of this show. It had so much potential yet did nothing to capture the audience in its events or characters. Too bad; BBC, you reap what you sow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.3.17.234 (talk) 15:53, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This is not a forum for general discussion of Survivors (2008 TV series). --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 17:07, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Gonna be any continuation? Season 3?
Any info on it? Drimidiri (talk) 20:02, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Survivors (2008 TV series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081219203337/http://www.orionbooks.co.uk:80/MP-44453/Survivors.htm to http://www.orionbooks.co.uk/MP-44453/Survivors.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 12:02, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Ruined by its over the top right-on /PC-ness
Should the quite widespread criticism of this for its almost laughable political correctness have a mention? It seems the BBC seem doomed to always have problems with 'Survivors' the 70's series being criticised for its seeming middle-class - good working-class - not so good feeling and the new millenium version seeming to be more about ticking PC boxes than any effort at realism.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Survivors (2008 TV series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081211081130/http://www.screenyorkshire.co.uk:80/news-events/news-archive/survivors-tuesday-nights-on-bbc-1 to http://www.screenyorkshire.co.uk/news-events/news-archive/survivors-tuesday-nights-on-bbc-1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 01:19, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Survivors (2008 TV series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090925120016/http://tv.sky.com/survivors-interview-julie-graham to http://tv.sky.com/survivors-interview-julie-graham
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090321210327/http://www.dwscifi.com/interviews/2896-adrian-hodges-you-ll-see-more-of-the-world-collapsing to http://www.dwscifi.com/interviews/2896-adrian-hodges-you-ll-see-more-of-the-world-collapsing
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081108151337/http://www.barb.co.uk/viewingsummary/weekreports.cfm?report=weeklyterrestrial&RequestTimeout=500 to http://www.barb.co.uk/viewingsummary/weekreports.cfm?report=weeklyterrestrial&RequestTimeout=500
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.orionbooks.co.uk/MP-44453/Survivors.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:03, 19 June 2017 (UTC)