Den of Geek

Survivors series 2 episode 6 review: series finale

Robert McLaughlin


As the second series of the BBC's Survivors comes to an end, are we going to lose another cast member? Rob finds out.

Published on Feb 24, 2010

Why is it that the bad guys are always so much more intelligent than the good guys? This rings so true with this week's season finale of Survivors as it seems the nasty Whittaker and the even more cunning Landry have between them a whole pocketful of cunning plans and that it doesn't take a lot to outwit out survivor heroes.

For the entire season they have had a bit of forethought, forward planning and have been pulling the strings, trying to clean up the mess they have created and to make the best of it. It seems they are the ones that hold the proverbial best hand in the game, able to position and bargain for the things they desire (such as an anti-viral for the pandemic), while the ‘goodies' of the show, the hapless survivors, are just doing that - surviving, going from crisis to crisis fumbling along and ‘winning' out of pure luck rather than judgement. All while showing they are, quite frankly, rubbish at the majority of the situations they are in. The A-Team they are not and for this finale a pep talk from Hannibal and Co could have really helped them.

Last week we saw the Family return to the labs in which Whittaker and the rest of the science team experimented on Abby back in episodes two and three. However, said lab is now desolate and nearly abandoned thanks (it seems) to Whittaker's own hand as, by smuggling in his wife, Jill, onto the base and her eventual assist and rescue of Abby, she became a carrier for a virus. That led to her contracting and spreading the virus in the base, killing all but one member of the research team.

With no trace of Peter and a lab full of answers, each of the team spend time ploughing through to see what they can find and, in turn, tying up certain plot threads. So, while Tom and Abby search for Peter, Greg hits the computers, trying to find out about the pharmaceutical company that Landry and Whittaker work for, while Anya and Whittaker's second in command (the only remaining member of the science team still alive) try working on the vaccine for the virus.

With half the team busy, it's only Al and Naj that have nothing to do. However, when it's time to try the vaccine, Al volunteers, still grieving for his loss last week, causing he and Naj to fall out. Understandable, as Naj, in all likelihood, is about to lose another member of the family he loves.

With so much going on you would think that this episode would be clogged, clunky and really badly put together but, apart from a slight niggle or two (which I will come to in a minute), the conclusions all come together very well. Al survives the process of the anti-virus and the team are eventually reunited with Abby's son, Peter, and Greg finds out what happens to everyone, all of which leads to some of the more drawn out arcing stories being resolved.

We also get some of the more personal issues cleared up, most significantly the unresolved relationship between Anya and Tom. Last week I got a little lambasted by stating that Tom was regressing into a caveman. On reflection, this may have been wrong, as this episode actually discusses the need for a change, an evolution if you will, to the outlook for this new world. Tom is embracing the new structure, becoming a hunter, a savage and willing to do anything to survive, while Anya the healer is unwilling to take the steps needed to kill or be killed. Tom also tries as much as he can to instil his outlook in Naj, for right or wrong , by teaching him to shoot - a questionable action, but one that could help in the future.

The culmination of the episode and the season as a whole comes in the form of a Mexican standoff on the airfield Greg and Abby found last week. Played out with various sides - the family with the anti-virus, Whittaker with Peter as a hostage and Landry with a way out  - everyone has something somebody else wants and is a great way to finish off things as a climactic finale. It's just a shame that the Family are just so stupid, with Tom the only one with a bit of guile.

With Whittaker and Landry both showing that they cannot be trusted, it would have been stupid for the Family to confront them directly without a back-up. But guess what they do, all pinned down in the middle of an airfield with no real way to bargain and two gun-men on them?

Now, this, while daft, is really the only way the series could have gone. However, there are some really botched bits. Landry is guarded by two black-clad guards as he leaves the plane, then by one, with the other disappearing onto a building to suddenly become a sniper. How did that happen?

Added to this the fact that it was so very easy for Greg to solve the puzzle of the postcards, and for Greg to guess the password on the computer, it looks as though time or plotting were put to the side by the writers or directors to get us to the stand-off point. Which is a shame, as these blaringly large plot holes and the fact that Tom seems to be indestructible really let down what was set up to be quite a gripping conclusion.

Finishing off with the death of Whittaker (yay) and Abby reunited with her son (double yay) the Family get what they want and have been after since season one,  and the plots and ideas of the show for the majority are concluded in a satisfactory manner.

Landry, however, escapes, but everything might not be sunshine and flowers for him and the ‘chosen few' as the Family do, indeed, lose a member as Tom, bleeding to death, has one last surprise for the bad guys of the show.

A little rushed and at times head-smackingly dumb, the finale of Survivors does work, providing a solid conclusion to events, but it seems that editorial judgement overran good writing and explanation at times. Maybe it's the six episode format or maybe just too many things going on, but the show was spoilt a little by these things. Hopefully, for the inevitable next season some of these issues will be resolved...

Check out our review of episode 5 here.

 

Tags

Users Comments

Re: Survivors series 2 episode 6 review: series finale
Posted By cordas2 1 February 25, 2010 10:25:10 AM

I wouldn't credit the 'bad guys' with too much intelligence, they are as dumb as rocks... Its just that as you said the 'good guys' are thicker! I find it really disturbing that this series is actually making me hope that Anya and Abby get brutally raped and then kept locked up as breeding cows, but thats how their idiocy makes me feel. Tom isn't 'bad' because he recognises the need for force in the new world, it just makes him a realist. Guns aren't evil they are just tools, force is just one lever that can be applied.

Re: Survivors series 2 episode 6 review: series finale
Posted By bazellis 1 February 25, 2010 11:49:00 AM

I love this show and can forgive the odd slip in plot writing. You've got to remember they've only got 6 episodes to play with here, not like in the US were each season would be 22 episodes long.

Re: Survivors series 2 episode 6 review: series finale
Posted By illusion 1 February 25, 2010 02:02:19 PM

Hi guys. Firstly thanks for your reviews and funny comments (cordas2 and all). I laughed a lot at the "survival pack" joke with that crazy woman in that office building and Mr Stevens. Actually I didn't really mind that much at the lazyness regards Greg accessing the computer/ Tom being shot down and yet surviving after also falling down the stairs onto his back (ouch). What bothered me the most was how Tom brought his huge gun with him to the caravan site (?) and Abby couldn't have brought Al/Naj with her to help since they weren't doing anything at that point anyway. Also that Landry says "Don't come any closer," to Whittaker and yet has him standing much closer the next minute, even holding Peter right next to him. Regardless of all the flaws, I enjoyed this episode quite a lot. Will there really be another series though? (Series 3: Time to Rescue Tom Again) I'd like to think so and there's obvious material with Naj's cousin or brother (I can't remember) out there somewhere and will we meet Natalie Preston etc. But it's been two years since it was filmed and will the actors not be tied down by other commitments? I heard Abby is in the Bill now and a quick search of Survivors series 3 (and other varients) produces no results.... Oh well. Hope never dies?

Re: Survivors series 2 episode 6 review: series finale
Posted By cordas2 1 February 25, 2010 03:10:03 PM

I wasn't so bothered by Tom taking his gun with him when he and Abby went looking for Peter and Whittaker, what did confuse me was why Abby didn't think it was a good idea for her to be shouting for son, leaving Tom (a stranger) to do the shouting.... I dunno if I was looking for my child I would think that he would be more likely to come at the sound of my voice than that of a stranger carrying a gun. All I can say is that even if the team lost their muscle, they don't need to worry about their security with Dead Eye Pete on their team. I was really impressed with his shooting skills when he managed to shoot Tom in the shoulder by pointing his gun at the ground when he shot, nevermind the heart shot on the Dr through the window.

Re: Survivors series 2 episode 6 review: series finale
Posted By Dolphination 1 February 25, 2010 06:04:46 PM

I love Survivors and will miss it greatly for now. If it wasn't for programmes like this, the BBC would just be making Masterchef and The Apprentice.

Re: Survivors series 2 episode 6 review: series finale
Posted By illusion 1 February 25, 2010 07:50:37 PM

Don't get me wrong though. It's great to see what will happen in each episode. Really, I thoroughly enjoyed Survivors and would definitely like to see a third series if the BBC can make that possible. Thankfully, as I've just discovered, we'll see here: http://survivorsbbctv.wordpress.com/2010/02/23/no-news-yet-on-plans-for-a-third-series-of-survivors/

Re: Survivors series 2 episode 6 review: series finale
Posted By capt_1ntens0 1 March 2, 2010 01:41:43 PM

Loved the show, stupidity and all. One thing did amaze me which you didn't mention in your review: Peter was caught at the end of episode 4, the Family headed off for the coast then detoured after 1 night to the labs in episode 5, then episode 6 apparently it had been "weeks" since Peter was being used for the vaccine. Eh?! How far away is this coast they talk about? By my reckoning that's a minimum of 2-3 days to get from Manchester to the sea (whilst still being in close vicinity to Manchester at all times)- either Greg is the world's slowest Sunday driver or the writers clearly weren't on talking terms over that bit. Only a minor thing really but still shows that a good bit of script editing sometimes doesn't go amiss. Anyway, loved the show over all- bring on season 3!

Re: Survivors series 2 episode 6 review: series finale
Posted By squeekysmom 1 March 21, 2011 09:30:57 PM

This is typical of most TV-cancel a show that I like. They did the same to Primeval as well. I really liked this series. Where it could have gone from here we wern't given the choice to know. The characters developed along the way. I can't imagine what it would be really like it most people died-we would be chaos and anarchy abound in the fight to stay alive. This show to me just touched the fringe of the horror, but it was excellent. I will look forward to when Outcast starts on BBC America. Bring back Survivors PLEASE!!!
Post a Comment
Security Code* Get another image
 
 
Survivors series 2

Survivors

Untitled Document

Follow Den of Geek on

Related Articles

SEARCH

Coke Zero
Advertisement