Oh Dear! The Americans have Purchased Outcasts! - Outcasts (2011) Discussion

[–] lwarner2005 13 years ago

Well, I'm in the US, and based on the limited amount that I've read about this show, you guys would be doing us a favor by keeping that mess over there. It seems as though the producers of this series had the same craptastic idea that the show runners for SGU had. "Hey, let's create a ridiculous soap opera with characters that no one will like and make a show that's sci-fi flavored. It doesn't have to have any actual science fiction. It just has to be placed in that type of setting." Is that about right?

reply

[–] Valjean24601 13 years ago

The show was actually co-produced by BBC America, not sold to them. So for better or worse, America is partly responsible for this show. Personally, I liked it so I'm quite grateful to America for helping to make it.

What you've said corresponds to what a lot people have said on the forum. However, I don't really understand what they say it. The series has science fiction storylines but they are slow burn so they don't begin to develop until the second or third episode. The actors are good and there is nothing wrong with the characters. There are problems with the show, but I don't think that's where they lie.

My guess is this won't go down well with American audiences because of it's slow pace and lack of good action. However, whenever I see how Americans react to a BBC show, their reaction is never what I expected it to be. Maybe if BBC America has had input into making this show, it may have been made with American audiences in mind to some extent.

reply

[–] lwarner2005 13 years ago

What you've said corresponds to what a lot people have said on the forum.

Well, if that's how it's being described by a lot of others, then it's pretty much a lock that I won't like it.

The show was actually co-produced by BBC America, not sold to them. So for better or worse, America is partly responsible for this show.

That possibly could explain some of it then. Perhaps, those people and the SGU people run in the same circles. 'Cause, I'm sorry, this sounds very much like SGU on another planet instead of in space.

If you like it, more power to you. SGU had a few fans as well, but that didn't make it a better show. If this show is even remotely like SGU, as I think it is, then it will not go down well here. SGU was just cancelled. The ratings for it were awful. I'm not sure, but I think that more people have the Syfy channel than have BBCA.

Maybe if BBC America has had input into making this show, it may have been made with American audiences in mind to some extent.

That's a mistake, imo, because they would be creating something to fit some stereotypical American audience, which doesn't exist, particularly for the sci-fi genre. I watch Being Human (UK). I love that show. They've taken it and redone it for US television with different actors. I refuse to watch it. The bits of it that I have seen look ridiculous. So, having American producers potentially involved with this show would not be to its benefit, imo.

reply

[–] Valjean24601 13 years ago

I can't compare it to SGU because I never got into Stargate and didn't watch that series. However British and Americans audience often react differently to characters and so I wouldn't pay too much attention to whether we think they are likable or not.

What the show doesn't have is a dynamic action hero type character. Instead it has an average guy who uses common sense and doesn't overreact to situations. While his female partner is very attractive but morally uncompromising and in your face and some people don't seem to like her.

I agree about having American co-producers and sort of suspect it would have been better in some ways if the show hadn't had them, although obviously I don't know what influence they had. Unfortunately the economics will probably dictate the co-productions will become more common. On the other hand, the show wouldn't have had nearly such a good look as it does without American money.

reply

[–] lwarner2005 13 years ago

However British and Americans audience often react differently to characters and so I wouldn't pay too much attention to whether we think they are likable or not.

When you say differently, what exactly do you mean? I wouldn't think that it would be too different. For example, Being Human (UK) has four highly relatable main characters. That show has US as well as UK fans. I wouldn't think that I like them or relate to them any more or less just because I'm not from the UK.

The likability/relatability factor of characters is not something that I can really ignore. Whether it's a movie, a television show or even a book, I'm all about the characters. I'm capable of ignoring a completely piss poor plot if I care about the characters. Character relatability comes first; dialogue comes a very close second. From what I can tell from the reviews, this show has neither of those things going for it. Humor comes in at a not too distant third. From what I'm gathering, the only humor in this show is found in the absurdity of the dialogue and character behavior.

I understand that as someone who seems to enjoy the show you probably don't see things this way. However, I'm pretty good at being able to determine in advance whether or not I'll enjoy a particular show or movie. Everything that I've seen up until now points to all the markers of something that I will not enjoy.

What the show doesn't have is a dynamic action hero type character.

That's never part of my criteria.

Unfortunately the economics will probably dictate the co-productions will become more common.

Well, I'm not familiar with what the overall television landscape looks like over in the UK, but it's pretty bleak here in the US right now, at least to my tastes. If television is even remotely decent on that side of the pond, then more collaboration does not bode well for your viewing pleasure.

reply

[–] Valjean24601 13 years ago

When you say differently, what exactly do you mean?

Being Human isn't a good example. However there was a BBC series called Survivors, in it there was a character called Tom. While some people liked him, the majority of people in the UK thought he was repellent. When the series came out on BBC America, none of the Americans who posted on IMDB had anything bad to say about him. There are cultural factors which mean people react to characters in slightly different ways.

There are characters in Outcasts who are likable. In particular, there is character called Cass who is a cockney with a sense of humor and quite intelligent and the character is well acted and can't see any reason why anyone can say he is unlikable. As far as I can tell people who say he isn't, dislike the show for other reasons and then have decided not to like any of the characters. I'm not saying you should ignore likability but you should make up your own mind.

You may still not like it. It's nothing like Being Human which is show I also like but don't regard as really being science fiction. There's little humor in it. It's much more in the vein of Battlestar Galactica in that sense which wasn't particularly humorous either.

reply

[–] lwarner2005 13 years ago

I'm not saying you should ignore likability but you should make up your own mind.

That's the point though. I have made up my own mind. Other people's opinions only serve to inform my general sense of things. They don't decide anything for me. As of earlier this evening, I confirmed everything that I already stated. I watched the first episode of this show. This is not a show that I can ever get into. There was not one single character that caught my interest, not one, and that little boy at the beginning was jaw dropingly annoying. I understand about cultural differences, but there is such a thing as relatability that supersedes cultural bias and expectations. The fact that I find the characters on this show to be in a range from uninteresting to highly irritating has nothing to do with the fact that they are British and everything to do with the fact that I just don't think that they are that interesting. IMO, they are not written well and for the most part not acted well or at least not performed in such a way as to make them more engaging.

There are characters in Outcasts who are likable.

That's the thing though. To a large extent, who is and isn't likable is highly subjective. To the extend that it isn't as subjective, is in the fact that so many people seem to find these characters either unlikable or uninteresting. Obviously, it's not a unanimous consensus, but there seems to be enough that it points to the idea that the way in which these characters are written and/or performed is just not reaching people, not enough people anyway.

As far as I can tell people who say he isn't, dislike the show for other reasons and then have decided not to like any of the characters.

Well, that's not how I function. Characters are key for me in any type of story. If I enjoy the characters, I'll follow everything else in the story. Otherwise there just isn't enough in it for me.

There's only one time in my recent viewing history where that wasn't the case. There's a show that airs here called Sanctuary. It's about a underground network set up as safe haven for "abnormals." I thought that show was dull as dirt when I first saw it. In fact, I was so bored for the first 3-4 episodes that I was practically crawling out of my chair to get away from the boredom. The reason that I stuck with it was because I really liked the overall concept of the show. I also found the fact that about 90% of the show was shot with green screen was fascinating. It's also a show that initially aired online. So, it had that novelty going for it. I wasn't overly interested in any of the characters at first, but I didn't dislike them either. I really enjoy the show now, but there was something to peak my interest and keep me going through the more difficult earlier episodes.

For my personal viewing tastes, Outcasts does not have any of that going for it. I really don't care about the concept of the show. So, there's really nothing there to hook me in - no relatable characters, no new and fascinating story concept, no humor, no great dialogue. Most of that can be perceived as subjective, of course. But I am talking about what I want to watch, not what anyone else may or may not want to watch.

It's nothing like Being Human which is show I also like but don't regard as really being science fiction. There's little humor in it. It's much more in the vein of Battlestar Galactica in that sense which wasn't particularly humorous either.

I don't consider Being Human to be scifi at all. It's more supernatural/urban fantasy. I only used it as example, because it's a UK based show which I watch that's currently airing. However, I wouldn't compare it to BSG. BH has tons of humor. Granted, a lot of it is very dark humor, but it's there nonetheless. This series has even stepped it up several notches in the humor department, and I'm loving that. BSG was very heavy handed with the drama. BH has developed a really great pace of being able to intersperse a lot of the heaviness with the humor without being distracting. BSG wasn't funny at all.

So, that's about it for me. Outcasts just won't be a show that I'll watch. That's fine. I still rather doubt that it will find an audience over here, but that's neither here nor there as far as I'm concerned.

reply

[–] Valjean24601 13 years ago

Okay, that's fair enough.

The problem I had was that you had decided the characters were not likeable when you hadn't seen them. To me, describing characters are not likeable suggests that the filmmakers have tried too hard to be clever that they’ve ended up with characters which are too far from normal people for us to able to relate to them, which isn't true of this show. I think saying the characters are uninteresting is a more reasonable criticism.

I agree there is some bad dialogue and the little boy in the first episode was annoying. Obviously, I think there are good things about it as well but I won't try to sell it to you anymore.

reply

[–] cb-114 13 years ago

"While his female partner is very attractive but morally uncompromising and in your face and some people don't seem to like her."

Very attractive female partner? In all the MDF acting, I must have missed her.

So which stunning babe am I missing out on? (and I hope you don't mean Hermione, lol)

reply

[–] Valjean24601 13 years ago

No I mean Amy Mason, particularly when she pulled out the gun and shot Jamie Bamber. I don't care upset people were about Apollo being killed, she looked hot.

reply

[–] mpadpy 11 years ago

That was the only intresting scene in the entire show. The old guy who lived by the sea dying in the end was also another intresting scene. But it seems they do not have many such scenes and tend to get tedious and long. Now Dr Who was never tedious like this, I thought it was stupid to take a tin can bread box and make it be a dog and make it do tricks but hey it was not boring and it was cheaply made. The poster above said it right, the only intresting character is Julius Berger. So you can have a cheaply made show if the premis is good and the actors can carry it off. Fleur Morgan might be hot looking but shes a bimbo and doing a Kiera Cameron without the training or body armor makes her look like a hot head who just does things with her emotions.

reply

[–] cosmic_quest 13 years ago

Speaking of SGU, maybe this can be the Americans punishment for producing the crap-fest that was SGU! Although, I have to admit that they've given us so many other decent shows that we should protect them from this rubbish.

"I always pretend to root for Gryffindors but, secretly, I love my Slytherin boys."~ Karen, W&G

reply

[–] lwarner2005 13 years ago

maybe this can be the Americans punishment for producing the crap-fest that was SGU!

See, that's not really fair though. We had some rogue producers over here who decided to create that piece of tripe against the wishes of the fans. We fought and argued pretty hard against it on our end. Besides, it's been cancelled already. So, it's not as though you had to suffer for very long.

Oh, also SGU was filmed up in Canada. So, the Canadians should get at least some of the blame.

reply

[–] magness2 13 years ago

I like SGU and I love Outcats, so you are probably right. I like slow paced SF shows with more drama than action.

reply

[–] Fellatio_Del_Toro 13 years ago

SGU and outcasts are nothing alike. SGU was for the most part good but it had one thing outcasts killed off in the first episode....a likeable character!

reply

[–] Judger 13 years ago

I've watched the first three episodes from BBC America.
Petty good, so far.

I can't help comparing it to Spielberg's Falling Skies, which I found unwatchable. In both stories you have the survivors of a holocaust dealing with the aftermath. In Falling Skies the characters often act like nothing has happened. The kids look and act like their on a school field trip, not struggling for survival.

Even though the colony on Outcast has been on Carpathia for 10 years there is an appropriate grimness. They are still struggling to survive, as would surely be the case, and still dealing with the loss of loved ones back on Earth.

The new Battlestar Gallactica was sometimes criticized for being dark. I think a story about the last few humans struggling to survive while being hunted to extinction should be a little dark.

In that sense, Outcasts is like Battlestar Gallactica without the Cylons. Conflict is important to any story and I think they have established a few conflicts in the premise to keep it interesting for a while.

Then again, it would be cool if they found some Cylons on the planet!

I was born in the house my father built

reply

[–] Rowena83 13 years ago

I am glad someone finally mentioned Falling Skies!

Whatever problems Outcasts had, and there were plenty, it was still ten times better than that insufferable crap. FS was the tv disappointment of the year for me. Can't believe it was renewed.

reply

[–] xystophoros 10 years ago

If you like it, more power to you. SGU had a few fans as well, but that didn't make it a better show. If this show is even remotely like SGU, as I think it is, then it will not go down well here. SGU was just cancelled. The ratings for it were awful. I'm not sure, but I think that more people have the Syfy channel than have BBCA.

Way too much hate for SGU. The only problem with that show was the word "Stargate" attached to it.

The hardcore Stargate fans got their panties in a twist because SGU was supposedly "dark," meaning it didn't have the lame jokes, dumb-looking aliens, and cartoonish plots of the previous Stargate shows.

And other people who may have watched the show for its premise decided to pass it up because the previous Stargates were awful.

Lose-lose, unfortunately, because SGU had legitimately great acting from Robert Carlyle and Louis Ferreira, a great premise, a compelling central mystery and a unique setting. Most of the people who hate the show have never really watched it, which is a shame because you're missing out.

reply

[–] LocoHero 13 years ago

You gave us McDonalds, the least we can do is give you Outcasts in return.

Being Human is very good tho.

reply

[–] jamstar52 12 years ago

Ouch. That hurts. :D

I never got into BH. It just seems to be more 'Let's ride this vampire craze for as long as it lasts, gimme more money!' to me.

reply

[–] Prismark10 12 years ago

It looks like the Americans have something similar, its called Terra Nova!

Its that man again!!

reply

[–] wuffern11 13 years ago

I would compare it to sgu, but with even less scifi and action. Even a low budget production cant excuse the bad writing, acting and lack of anything intressting.

reply

[–] Prismark10 13 years ago

Maybe BBC America will re-edit it.
Get rid of the first two episodes and the rest improves a lot!!

Its that man again!!

reply

[–] cb-114 13 years ago

That's a rather good point. If the original 8 hours was re-edited, you could probably get a nice, tight 45 minute show that wouldn't be that bad.

reply

[–] tvbuff-7 13 years ago

Like ValJean said BBCAmerica forked over money from the beginning. That doesn't surprise me because BBC America makes some pretty piss poor decisions routinely. The one good thing is that they seemed to be trying to establish Saturday nights as the scifi night. To make up for the loss of Torchwood, they are countering with Doctor Who, Primeval, Being Human and Outcasts. They would really like to show more X-Files and Star Trek NG but people are catching on that they aren't Brit shows.

reply

[–] orlanthrex 13 years ago

Give this show a chance.

Battlestar Galactica it is not, it moves slowly but is surely picking up pace.

This has the grounding for a very good series, the making of a cult classic. It has its faults but none are insurmountable.

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] tvbuff-7 13 years ago

Do you have any specifics about the social commentary it is making? People who think the show is lacking in every respect, I count myself among them, have brought up specific points to illustrate our problems with the show. Really, I think these posts have only scratched the surface of how the show fails. Granted, it is difficult to champion such an unpopular show, but isn't that the purpose of a discussion board? Sure, there are some nitwits who will try to insult you, it happened to me here, but you can't worry about nitwits.

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Prismark10 13 years ago

Somewhere in their is a good thrilling drama waiting to get out. Its lost in the weight of clunky dialogue, too many bad characters and two opening episodes that made its audience dessert the show.

Too many writers have serials with a cracking finale and forget that you need the audience with you from the opening episodes onwards.

As to the social commentary I doubt we will know until it finishes although sci fi buffs have a good idea.

Its that man again!!

reply

[–] jbaddock 13 years ago

One aspect about Forthaven's society that is potentially interesting is that the system on Carpathia seems to be based on a secular approach - no religion at all, apparently. Berger, who so far seems to be the bad guy (I have no real belief that this is going to change) and appears to represent religion (which is being embraced with almost indecent haste by a society that is supposedly secular). So far, at least, it seems that religion = bad, while secularism = good, which is a bit unusual, if nothing else.

Jim

reply

[–] steveojh83 13 years ago

Am I the only one that liked the show? I just discovered it the other day and I'm 5 episodes in and I like the story so far. It's a bit slow at times but what show isn't?

reply

[–] tvbuff-7 13 years ago

There's a thriving black market in all sorts of goods, so there is no doubt some income discrepancy. Tate was keen on enforcing the current economic means of exchange, so there is something he was trying to protect.

Most of the main characters are involved with law enforcement in some manner, but we don't know anything about the setup. There's the mysterious council, but who knows how they came into power or how they justify holding onto it. For all we know, the council is made up of descendants of England's royal family.

There doesn't seem to be any established justice system. Fleur executed Mitchell and no one seems to care, definitely Fleur doesn't care. There's a "psych report" saying that Mitchell is depressed and possibly suffering from a multiple personality disorder, but no one does anything about it. So when he flips out, they hunt him down and kill him. Fleur will probably say that Stella convinced her that men harm their children and she had to kill Mitchell to protect tiger boy. There's a lot there to explore, if they want to hold a mirror up to modern society.

I would be impressed if they did anything with the religious angle. Many scifi shows touch on it because just the possibility of life on other planets throws quite a few devout religious people into a tizzy. Think how closely some religions are tied to a physical place on Earth. Whenever you have to do too much reinterpreting and reexplaining of religious tenets, it's a problem. Outcasts so far hasn't raised any issues beyond the fact that they prefer a secular society.

Just dropping crumbs and hoping your audience imagines they see a story in your random mess doesn't make a show good, it does just the opposite. Finding the skull and later the skeletons, is significant, they should care. They should drop everything and figure out what's up. Stella said the family should stay together. That's just an idiotic response. How does she know they are a family, how does she know they want to be together? She wanted tiger boy taken away from Mitchell, but if Mitchell killed the kid and himself and they later discovered the bones, would she wax poetic about family?

We have no idea if they wanted to start a new society or if they are trying to recreate the one they left. We know Berger was in charge of deciding who left on the ships, but he's the bad guy. Did he purposely populate the new colony with dimwits and dingbats?

reply

[–] True_blue_1878 13 years ago

Lol I could see it was gunna be awful the moment I noticed this piece of artwork @ 12:00 mins into episode 1..
http://i55.tinypic.com/idynfa.jpg

I mean COME ON... even the crappiest TV company can afford better than a rickety old milk crate with a portable TV and an old PC PSU shoved in the side. I didn't know whether to laugh or cry..

reply

[–] RbSnedlap 13 years ago

I mean COME ON... even the crappiest TV company can afford better than a rickety old milk crate with a portable TV and an old PC PSU shoved in the side. I didn't know whether to laugh or cry..

So, its a home-made TV set thrown together from bits and pieces the guy who built it could find.
That`s the whole point, stores where you can just go out and by electronic hardware just don`t exist where they are!
But the people have plenty of scientific and technical knowledge to draw on so they can "Make do and Mend".

"Any plan that involves losing your hat is a BAD plan.""

reply

[–] SteveResin 13 years ago

Yanks love Eastenders, right? Then they'll lap this *beep* up!

--------------------
The memories of a man in his old age are the deeds of a man in his prime

reply

[–] Gary-161 13 years ago

>>Yanks love Eastenders, right? Then they'll lap this *beep* up!

The producers appear to want to cater to the great unwashed with lovely-jubbly characters like Cass and anachronisms like "get in!" (cringe.) But I doubt the Eastender's brigade will be interested in it.

I'm really puzzled with the Beebs drama policy. Wouldn't we have prefered to know if Max Beesley bled to death on that plane or whether the slightly creepy scientist guy really died in Paradox? Instead, they've financed another bunch of cardboard characters which will be left on yet another unresolved cliffhanger.

Being Human struck me as a horribly dated self mocking Buffy type programme. But audiences seem to prefer the familiar.

reply

[–] ncoleystowecroft 13 years ago

Actually I like it.

reply

[–] Gary-161 13 years ago

Do you have a permit?

reply

[–] snowqueen51 13 years ago

As an American I was really excited for this show. I'm at episode 6 now, and I more interested in the AC's and the planet than the Forthavians. Most of the problems of the show have already been stated by other users. Life, for me, in Forthaven is a little to nice and pleasant (other than the problem of the week that goes away the next episode).

I admit that Forthaven has problems, like the black market, Dictator Tate, and secret council, but I am surprised that they haven't shown societal problems such as prostitution and rape that are bound to show up in any type society, even a non religious ones. This show doesn't have to become Law and Order: Carpathia (technically it would just be Law), but I would like the show to address that these societal problems will exist and continue to exist. It's unrealistic to think that magically all of Earth's societal problems can be erased with a change in scenery and no religion.

I was, also, expecting to see the struggle of rebuilding a civilization. I'm not saying the producers should have gone the BSG route, but at least the producers should have had the colonists have the most basic supplies and technology. It would then force the colonists to go and explore and learn about the planet.

I feel I am over analyzing the show...

reply

[–] zombiehax 13 years ago

I'm an American and I love this show! Just be glad they're not doing a U.S remake!

Fact: 31.5% of IMDb users wanted Avatar to win Best Picture.
Fact: 31.5% of IMDb users are idiots.

reply

[–] Fellatio_Del_Toro 13 years ago

I'm an American and I love this show! Just be glad they're not doing a U.S remake!

Give it a week or two....

reply

[–] tvbuff-7 13 years ago

This is already a remake of Earth2. That didn't last either, and it was a better show.

reply

[–] Brainwave68 13 years ago

I live in Texas and I have really enjoyed watching season 1. It seems to be an intelligent show rather than just something with nothing but big explosions. I cannot wait for season 2.

reply

[–] SteveResin 13 years ago

I cannot wait for season 2.

It'll be a long wait... better stock up on health bars.

--------------------
The memories of a man in his old age are the deeds of a man in his prime

reply

[–] wgriffing 13 years ago

I really like this show too! Watched all 8 episodes and thought it was good, better than most crap! So is there a Season 2? I have read both yes and no... which is it?

reply

[–] Thradar 13 years ago

Can it be any worse than the vampire/urban fantasy garbage that is saturating our airwaves now?

Doubtful.

reply

[–] sad-989-416571 13 years ago

Good point!

All rain dances are appreciated.

reply