I too hated the way characters would be introduced then just disappear or get killed offscreen because the writers either tired of them or the actors couldn't come back. Vic was a huge shame but understandable as the health issue was unexpected, but the others just annoy me. A certain longtime major character is so ignobly killed off (offscreen, even!) in season 2 that I was enraged!
However, the show is definitely worth taking the bad for the good.
Like Terry Nation's Blakes 7 (and the best of Doctor Who), Survivors is a product of its tome and place, when continuity was hardly considered, budgets were shoestring and the BBC either didn't care or actively hated their own program.
Also, all those shows are cult favourites justifiably for their best episodes, when the writing puts most modern shows to shame, and the acting is superb. While there will be rubbish episodes, laughable "effects" and slipshod continuity, there are also extremely powerful and effective stories. Modern viewers have expectations these old shows won't meet (pacing alone may put some younger viewers off!), but there can be no doubt that when these shows are at their best, they are incredible and deserving of their reputations.
For the record, Donny is confirmed dead after the fire (along with two female main cast and Vic). Pete puzzled me, as there was another minor character who joined but never appeared again with a different name, but later I learned that indeed the character could have been the boy who they met with his father in a previous episode... in the book, they joined the group rather than just passing them by as in the series.
reply
share