PDA

View Full Version : UK Timeline Outcasts


alferret
07-02-2011, 22:46
Really struggling with this, poor direction & story with little promise in the acting department either.

Stuart
07-02-2011, 23:02
Same here. Even the special effects are not that good. OK, the model work/computer GFX are good, but the actual physical effects and sets lack imagination, and don't actually look convincing.

Tezcatlipoca
07-02-2011, 23:24
I forgot all about this. Is it the "epic new SciFi" which sounds like a re-hash of Earth 2?

SmartMart
08-02-2011, 09:54
Really struggling with this, poor direction & story with little promise in the acting department either.Yep, have to agree and I was really looking forward to it. I'll be watching the second episode this evening but if the acting's as poor as it was last night, I won't be watching any further episodes :(

Regards .....

Chris
08-02-2011, 10:01
On the other hand, Mrs T and I really enjoyed it ...

dilli-theclaw
08-02-2011, 10:02
I have it taped and am going to watch it later on - Hope it lives up to my expectations :)

Peter_
08-02-2011, 11:04
It is not bad much better than that poor underwater "epic" The Deep that was out last year.

MovedGoalPosts
08-02-2011, 11:43
I thought it was adequate. Hopefully it will improve and the first episode was all about setting things up.

I have it taped and am going to watch it later on - Hope it lives up to my expectations :)

A man like you with all your technical gadjets still tapes stuff?

dilli-theclaw
08-02-2011, 11:45
I thought it was adequate. Hopefully it will improve and the first episode was all about setting things up.



A man like you with all your technical gadjets still tapes stuff?Yeah - I still have my old piano key betamax vcr set up :) ;)

MovedGoalPosts
08-02-2011, 12:10
I can see we need to bring you into the 21st Century :p:

dilli-theclaw
08-02-2011, 14:15
I just watched it and I thought it was ok.

Mick Fisher
08-02-2011, 15:56
I thought it disappointing. :( Seemed to have a 'B' movie feel to it.

I'll watch tonight's Ep but really have low expectations. Would love to be pleasantly surprised though.

Peter_
08-02-2011, 15:58
I thought it disappointing. :( Seemed to have a 'B' movie feel to it.

I'll watch tonight's Ep but really have low expectations. Would love to be pleasantly surprised though.
It is decidedly better than "The Deep" with James Nesbitt, it is in 3 parts I think so will give it a chance to improve.

Chris
08-02-2011, 17:09
It's in 8 parts, 2 episodes a week.

Peter_
08-02-2011, 17:48
It's in 8 parts, 2 episodes a week.
At least it is on series link.;)

Chris
09-02-2011, 10:00
I enjoyed this again last night. There were definite echoes of BSG in one or two places ... enough to make me start comparing the two, such as noticing that the camerawork on Outcasts isn't shaky like BSG. :D Julius Berger is shaping up as some sort of Gaius Baltar figure.

They have gone for a technique that was very heavily used in JJ Abrams' Star Trek - lots of bright light straight into the lens. I'm not sure I like it very much but at least it shows the BBC is prepared to consider the American approach of giving big-budget drama a distinctive style and feel rather than just planting the camera and making it all about the performances.

I think I would have liked it if they had kept the ACs a bit more mysterious for a bit longer, rather than explaining exactly who they are and what they want in part 2, but on the other hand they have given themselves an awful lot to establish ... if this were a US series they would be planning for 20+ eps, whereas this is following a typical British approach and going for 6-8.

Mick Fisher
09-02-2011, 11:10
I still think it's disappointing.

A worn out cardboard scenario starring cardboard characters. :(

Glad to hear others are enjoying it though.

Stuart
09-02-2011, 13:11
I enjoyed this again last night. There were definite echoes of BSG in one or two places ... enough to make me start comparing the two, such as noticing that the camerawork on Outcasts isn't shaky like BSG. :D Julius Berger is shaping up as some sort of Gaius Baltar figure.


That shaky camera thing is supposed to be atmospheric. It's meant to make you feel like you are in the scene. It's never felt that way to me though. All it did in my case was to irritate me.


They have gone for a technique that was very heavily used in JJ Abrams' Star Trek - lots of bright light straight into the lens. I'm not sure I like it very much but at least it shows the BBC is prepared to consider the American approach of giving big-budget drama a distinctive style and feel rather than just planting the camera and making it all about the performances.


TBH, it didn't look big budget to me. I don't know if the series was big budget (although Kudos TV, who produced it, do have a reputation for producing big budget shows). I have to admit, I don't think if something is small budget, or even if it looks cheap, that it is necessarily bad. A good story costs very little. Most of the classic series Doctor Who stories looked cheap, but there were some absolutely brilliant ones. Sadly, the story for this didn't seem that interesting (or was badly told).


I think I would have liked it if they had kept the ACs a bit more mysterious for a bit longer, rather than explaining exactly who they are and what they want in part 2, but on the other hand they have given themselves an awful lot to establish ... if this were a US series they would be planning for 20+ eps, whereas this is following a typical British approach and going for 6-8.

If this were a US series and was in a run of 20+ episodes, I would hope they would employ a better scriptwriter.

Paul
09-02-2011, 14:05
I seem to have missed out on any promoting of this as its the first I've heard of it.

Seems like I'm not missing much tho .... :erm:

Chris
22-02-2011, 20:59
Outcasts cast out:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/feb/16/outcasts-bbc1?INTCMP=SRCH

Looks like Mrs T and I are the only ones actually enjoying it ...

Mal
22-02-2011, 22:48
I am sticking with it, but I don't know why. The acting is rubbish and wooden. The only decent character was killed in the first episode.

There is potential for a good story, but it's frustrating that I have to put up with the annoying characters of Cas and the "emotional" Stella.

It has got me curious to see what happens though...

dilli-theclaw
22-02-2011, 22:50
Outcasts cast out:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/feb/16/outcasts-bbc1?INTCMP=SRCH

Looks like Mrs T and I are the only ones actually enjoying it ...No, I'm enjoying it as well :)

Hugh
22-02-2011, 23:06
I have all so far on V+ - just need a chance to watch them.

Scary
22-02-2011, 23:21
the thing is the americans will get hold of this and make it a hundred times better

Mick Fisher
23-02-2011, 01:14
the thing is the americans will get hold of this and make it a hundred times better
Rubbish x 100 = OMG!

I just hope the Yanks keep it for themselves. :D

---------- Post added at 00:14 ---------- Previous post was at 00:12 ----------

I have all so far on V+ - just need a chance to watch them.
Good luck with that. :erm: :D

Peter_
23-02-2011, 09:19
I watched the first 2 and decided t delete the second 2 episodes as I decided that watching paint dry would be more productive, I wondered where this weeks episodes had gone and cannot say that I was surprised.

The only way it could have been worse was to have James Nesbitt in it.

Mick Fisher
23-02-2011, 18:57
I watched the first 2 and decided t delete the second 2 episodes as I decided that watching paint dry would be more productive, I wondered where this weeks episodes had gone and cannot say that I was surprised.

The only way it could have been worse was to have James Nesbitt in it.
:Yes: :D

Peter_
23-02-2011, 20:07
:Yes: :D
It is not bad much better than that poor underwater "epic" The Deep that was out last year.
I was wrong and I still want those hours back from the BBC for watching that rubbish.:D

Scary
24-02-2011, 12:37
Rubbish x 100 = OMG!

I just hope the Yanks keep it for themselves. :D

---------- Post added at 00:14 ---------- Previous post was at 00:12 ----------


Good luck with that. :erm: :D

are you serious anything we make they make better they have better actors and more money for effects i would love it if they did an american version coz are's sucks its boring and predictable and the acting is so poor my two year old could do better

Graham M
24-02-2011, 12:44
are you serious anything we make they make better they have better actors and more money for effects i would love it if they did an american version coz are's sucks its boring and predictable and the acting is so poor my two year old could do better

Wrong. Comedies they don't :p:

Stuart
24-02-2011, 13:02
are you serious anything we make they make better they have better actors and more money for effects i would love it if they did an american version coz are's sucks its boring and predictable and the acting is so poor my two year old could do better

The do have more money. As for better actors, I don't think that's the case. The Americans have some excellent actors. They also have a lot of crap actors.

We have both excellent and crap actors as well.

I have seen cast members in Outcasts that, in other stuff, have been good. Oddly, in this, they seemed wooden which is what makes me think there is something else lacking, like the direction.

Then there is the story which when I last saw it had made no real attempt to explain why these humans were stuck on this planet.

Chris
24-02-2011, 13:18
I think the writer and the director have been struggling to convey what is at heart an intriguing proposition. What are they doing on Carpathia? What drove them away from Earth? What are the reasons for the state of the relationships between the key characters?

In the absence of any real inspiration, they have fallen back on dialogue as narrative and as a means of conveying tension. The result is leaden, cliched lines like "be careful out there" whenever someone goes on a mission and endless discussions about the dangers of radiation hotspots, failing crops and dying children. Alfred Hitchcock always insisted that it is fundamental, if you want your audience to feel the tension arising from a ticking time bomb under the table, you must occasionally show them the thing. Had any American TV studio made this series we would have seen at least one stillborn child by now, and possibly a lab full of scientists sweating over the failure of yet another one of their precious, limited seed bank. But all we get is endless discussion of the issue between a jaw-clenching Hermione Norris and Liam Cunningham, who treats everything as if it's the latest turn of events in a Sid Meyer God game.

It's as if the production team has decided that in selecting an unusual South African location they have done their job - so once you get past the impressive backdrop, there is absolutely no sparkle or inspiration in the camerawork or the scene-setting, apart from the irritating and over-used direct light and lens-flare effects.

In Lost, some of the interesting back-story questions were tackled very effectively (for the most part) via the flashback device. It would be difficult for Outcasts to do the same thing because it would be accused of copying. But it desperately needs some other narrative device to help answer these questions (and others). Actually I think it had a potential answer in that dream memory monitoring machine they have. That's a great piece of sci-fi imagnineering but it has been under-used so far.

This week's cliffhanger (the approaching starship that only Julius Berger seems to know anything about) was a welcome addition to the series, as is the President Tate's developing dark side (such as the ease with which he is prepared to treat humans as lab rats), but again, these are all ideas floating in an otherwise poorly-realised and somewhat 2-dimensional universe.

There is a story to be told there somewhere, and that's why I'm sticking with it. But I hope they had the good sense to record two endings to episode 8, and have dusted off the "we're not getting a second series" ending to use a fortnight on Sunday, because I can't see the BBC spending this kind of money on what it now knows is a core audience of well under 3 million.

Mick Fisher
24-02-2011, 15:28
are you serious anything we make they make better they have better actors and more money for effects i would love it if they did an american version coz are's sucks its boring and predictable and the acting is so poor my two year old could do better
Well they do have more money and of course that does lead to better FX. Unfortunately the reliance on spectacular FX is usually at the expense of a decent story line.

I agree they do have some very good actors but so do we. Unfortunately none of them were contracted to appear in Outcasts.

The problem with Outcasts, apart from the wooden performances, is the story. Whoever came up with the initial premise must have had an acute inspirational by-pass at some time. The 'group of people struggling to survive' in a hostile environment with limited or no technology has been absolutely done to death in a multitude of post apocolyptic and other guises over the years.

Producers love it because it only needs a disused quarry or desert as a location and so can be relatively inexpensive to make.

As for the yanks doing better? I expect they would find a way to introduce the slow moving Zombies they are so fond of :) but I fear the best script writers in the World would have difficulty revitalising this tired old genre.

Stuart
14-03-2011, 20:37
Well they do have more money and of course that does lead to better FX. Unfortunately the reliance on spectacular FX is usually at the expense of a decent story line.

I agree they do have some very good actors but so do we. Unfortunately none of them were contracted to appear in Outcasts.

The problem with Outcasts, apart from the wooden performances, is the story. Whoever came up with the initial premise must have had an acute inspirational by-pass at some time. The 'group of people struggling to survive' in a hostile environment with limited or no technology has been absolutely done to death in a multitude of post apocolyptic and other guises over the years.

Producers love it because it only needs a disused quarry or desert as a location and so can be relatively inexpensive to make.

As for the yanks doing better? I expect they would find a way to introduce the slow moving Zombies they are so fond of :) but I fear the best script writers in the World would have difficulty revitalising this tired old genre.


You don't necessarily need high budgets to do good scifi. Some of the original Dr Who stories were amazing, yet done on a shoestring. Also, the film "Moon" was shot on a tiny budget but made for a thoroughly absorbing film.

Anyhow, the thing I expected has happenned. Outcasts has been axed. (http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/tv/news/a308844/bbc-confirms-outcasts-axe.html)

I have mixed emotions about this. While I don't think it should have continued in it's current form, I would have liked it if the BBC had gone back for a second series and looked to see what they could improve.

Mick Fisher
15-03-2011, 15:21
You don't necessarily need high budgets to do good scifi. Some of the original Dr Who stories were amazing, yet done on a shoestring. Also, the film "Moon" was shot on a tiny budget but made for a thoroughly absorbing film.
I totally agree.

Check out Deuce Of Spades (http://www.deuceofspadesmovie.com/the_story.htm) an awesome movie, made almost entirely by the multi talented Ms Granger with (in her own words)no budget.

I guess it takes talent and enthusiasm. Two things conspicuous by their apparent absence on the set of Outcasts.
Anyhow, the thing I expected has happenned. Outcasts has been axed. (http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/tv/news/a308844/bbc-confirms-outcasts-axe.html)

I have mixed emotions about this. While I don't think it should have continued in it's current form, I would have liked it if the BBC had gone back for a second series and looked to see what they could improve.
Once again I totally agree but even if anything or anyone could be salvaged from this wreck of a TV show a second series would always be tainted. Much better to throw it away and start with a clean slate and BRING BACK BLAKE'S SEVEN. :)

MovedGoalPosts
15-03-2011, 15:55
Once they moved it to a later Sunday slot you just knew it was finished.

Peter_
15-03-2011, 15:59
It was finished after 2 episodes with nowhere to go and the sets looked worse than any 1960's Dr Who set which is pretty bad to say the least.

Chris
22-03-2011, 21:46
Well, mrs T and I enjoyed this ... Unfortunately iplayer somehow failed to download the last episode for us, and the BBC seems to be so embarrassed about the show that they have already removed the whole lot, so I can't download it again.

Dont suppose anyone made a DVD recording or a PVR recording they wouldnt mind archiving off and lending us? Even if it was a bit ropey, we spent 7 hours of our lives on it so we'd like to finish it off properly ... :)

dilli-theclaw
22-03-2011, 21:50
I still have it on my sky+ and not watched it all yet so I could record it to dvd for you if you like. But I wasn't plan on watching it 'till the weekend.

Chris
22-03-2011, 21:57
Well that would be veery kind of you ... No hurry, this evening was the first time since it was broadcast that we actually had a chance to sit down to try to watch it ... We can easily wait a while. :)