'Survivors' by Terry Nation British TV series 1975-19

[Chu]

Ive just got to the bit where "Price" is killed. I liked his character until he raped and killed that women. Was rather gobsmacked that they kept them in their circle, but i understood that they needed as many people as possible to survive.

Actually, considering they had just executed someone without any proof at all that he had murdered the girl, I thought it was totally illogical that they would keep Price around. If they were so hard up for people to do chores, why were they so willing to kill the young man? And if they were willing to do that, why would they all of a sudden allow Price to stay once they realized what he had done? It didn't make any sense.

Not only that, it was a serious example of ponerization. Price was always taking credit for the work and skills of the kid. So, they end up stupidly killing the one who was doing more work and keeping Price? That's due to NOT networking and paying attention and doing due diligence!!!

This is a great example of what NOT to do. I got real upset watching that part. Not networking, lots of assumptions, and lots of filling in the blanks and negative feedback loops. They KNEW that Tom Price had been dishonest in the past, theatened to kill them, was fake, etc. Jenny had been harrassed by him the very might he raped and killed the girl, but for some reason she "forgot" or decided not to speak up? The accused victim had NO track record of being lazy, evil, or anything. So, it's like real data had no relevance to them. The way they dealt with the situation was not even wrong! Then, Greg's narrative about why they need to keep Price around is just nonsense. "We need men", he says. Well, Greg, you just KILLED your best worker with no proof whatsoever! And, you are leaving someone unpunished (and he knows it), who could kill you and everybody else.

But in a sense, that it what makes this show so educational. It is, after all, a possible scenario in a post-apocalyptic world. One would hope that survivors would be smarter, but maybe we shouldn't get our expectations that high.

 

[Beau]

This is a great example of what NOT to do. I got real upset watching that part. Not networking, lots of assumptions, and lots of filling in the blanks and negative feedback loops. They KNEW that Tom Price had been dishonest in the past, theatened to kill them, was fake, etc. Jenny had been harrassed by him the very might he raped and killed the girl, but for some reason she "forgot" or decided not to speak up? The accused victim had NO track record of being lazy, evil, or anything. So, it's like real data had no relevance to them. The way they dealt with the situation was not even wrong! Then, Greg's narrative about why they need to keep Price around is just nonsense. "We need men", he says. Well, Greg, you just KILLED your best worker with no proof whatsoever! And, you are leaving someone unpunished (and he knows it), who could kill you and everybody else.

Yup, it was terribly frustrating yet very educational to watch as an example of a group who were totally ponerized in thought. They clearly had enough data to see that Price was not to be trusted and it seemed obvious to me that the first person who should be suspected of the crime was Price. I mean seriously, if there was one person who would be willing to sell them all out, it would be Price. Yet instead of looking at the obvious, they look at someone who is very unlikely to be able to even commit such an act and has only acted in favor of the group. I still couldn't believe that they allowed him to stay considering how many times he acted selfishly to their detriment. Not once did he prove himself trustworthy, he always acted in self-interest. There were times when that self-interest intersected with helping the group but even that was poorly accomplished, although the other people in the group were blind to his antics. When it came time to really think, they all acted like blind authoritarian followers accepting what their ponerized leader decided.

 

[Laura]

Yup, it was terribly frustrating yet very educational to watch as an example of a group who were totally ponerized in thought. They clearly had enough data to see that Price was not to be trusted and it seemed obvious to me that the first person who should be suspected of the crime was Price. I mean seriously, if there was one person who would be willing to sell them all out, it would be Price. Yet instead of looking at the obvious, they look at someone who is very unlikely to be able to even commit such an act and has only acted in favor of the group. I still couldn't believe that they allowed him to stay considering how many times he acted selfishly to their detriment. Not once did he prove himself trustworthy, he always acted in self-interest. There were times when that self-interest intersected with helping the group but even that was poorly accomplished, although the other people in the group were blind to his antics. When it came time to really think, they all acted like blind authoritarian followers accepting what their ponerized leader decided.

Also note that Price somehow convinced them that HE was doing stuff and constantly put the kid down and they ALL BOUGHT IT even with evidence that he was a liar and scumbag. That's a real lesson in how pathology can anchor in your mind and make you unable to see reality.

 

[Cosmos]

I've watched the whole orginal series of the 70ties and the remake from the 90ies and have to say that the remake can not hold up to the orginal series in any way IMO. the actors back then and the way they filmed it is classes better then that hollywood trash they made out of it later.

also the orginal actors where much better in both acting and the authenticity of their roles. In the orginal you can learn about possible interpersonal relationships and actions of persons and comunties in such a situation while on the remake they seem to have missed almost that whole point and focused more on action scenes and stuff.

IMO the remake isn't worth watching but the Orginal surely is.

 

[loreta]

What I did not like in that chapter about Price is that it put the notion of "forgiveness". That saying that a psychopath, a killer, can "change", become a good man, can have a "second" chance. At the end of the chapter you see Price crying. This is very important: you feel almost sorry for him, looking at poor Price crying and regretting what happened but not about killing the young woman. He does not cry for what he did, after all. But the idea is that Price is accepted even if he is a knife killer. So we will forgive him. And in another chapter ·········SPOILER·········· when he dies he dies doing something almost right. Greg is not a stupid man so how can he accept a killer that can kill the kids? Or is that that killing a young woman in a state of drunkenness is almost acceptable? If I have kids with me and a killer, I know what to do. But Greg did not do it. Why? Is he accepting Price the killer because himself he killed a young innocent man?

 

[annp]

What I did not like in that chapter about Price is that it put the notion of "forgiveness". That saying that a psychopath, a killer, can "change", become a good man, can have a "second" chance. At the end of the chapter you see Price crying. This is very important: you feel almost sorry for him, looking at poor Price crying and regretting what happened but not about killing the young woman. He does not cry for what he did, after all. But the idea is that Price is accepted even if he is a knife killer. So we will forgive him. And in another chapter ·········SPOILER·········· when he dies he dies doing something almost right. Greg is not a stupid man so how can he accept a killer that can kill the kids? Or is that that killing a young woman in a state of drunkenness is almost acceptable? If I have kids with me and a killer, I know what to do. But Greg did not do it. Why? Is he accepting Price the killer because himself he killed a young innocent man?

That just stunned me - they killed the young man who was obviously always helpful and kind because they were worried about the children. Then they let Price off the hook because they need workers, when it was obvious that he did as little work as possible - and it is not as if no one noticed! However, I guess if you take Greg's guilt into account, it might make sense - he did not want to compound his mistakes in his own mind.

Of course no mention is made of the danger to the children or the others by letting Price stay - as if he just magically got better because he was "sorry" for what he had done?? I mean ...really??? This episode was so far-fetched I thought - I could hardly accept that people could really act that way. However - it is easy to say that when you can see everything as an observer and quite different "on the ground".

The discussion they had about what to do to the accused, after the murder was quite interesting - and one I am still not sure how to answer. What is best to do with the perpetrator? If killing is not acceptable, and neither is being exceptionally cruel to the accused by causing a possible slow painful death (banishment/starvation)- then how does one safeguard others? I don't think keeping someone locked up is really an answer either - at least in that situation.

 

[Carl]

[quote author=aleana]
That just stunned me - they killed the young man who was obviously always helpful and kind because they were worried about the children. Then they let Price off the hook because they need workers, when it was obvious that he did as little work as possible - and it is not as if no one noticed! However, I guess if you take Greg's guilt into account, it might make sense - he did not want to compound his mistakes in his own mind.

Of course no mention is made of the danger to the children or the others by letting Price stay - as if he just magically got better because he was "sorry" for what he had done?? I mean ...really??? This episode was so far-fetched I thought - I could hardly accept that people could really act that way. However - it is easy to say that when you can see everything as an observer and quite different "on the ground".

The discussion they had about what to do to the accused, after the murder was quite interesting - and one I am still not sure how to answer. What is best to do with the perpetrator? If killing is not acceptable, and neither is being exceptionally cruel to the accused by causing a possible slow painful death (banishment/starvation)- then how does one safeguard others? I don't think keeping someone locked up is really an answer either - at least in that situation.
[/quote]

This was when the whole thing just started getting ridiculous to me. It's a shame the situation was clouded by the cartoon-like plot line of perfect occurrences to incriminate the innocent guy, though I guess general law can and does act in that manner quite often. I may be underestimating the levels of ponerization these days, but I don't think anyone in the real world would let 'Price' stay with them after finding out what they did. They treated it as if he was caught stealing food or something, rather than a brutal, cold blooded rape and murder. Never mind, he was just a little drunk, boys will be boys!

As for dealing with the situation of 'punishment', exile would have been the best option, especially since they did not have conclusive proof.

One would safeguard the group much earlier on by noticing initially price's lazy, good for nothing, self serving attitude that is made pretty obvious to everyone. Never mind worrying about his potential to murder, if it was my group he'd be sent packing after an hour of working with him..

Of course, real life predators can be a lot harder to spot, and for that we need discernment and networking

 

[Jacques]

One would hope that survivors would be smarter, but maybe we shouldn't get our expectations that high.

I don't think that we should have high expectations. :(

I don't see why there should be a big difference between what we have for the moment "% of smart vs % of non-smart" and what we could have after a disaster "% of smart vs % of non-smart". The ratio should be quite the same or maybe I am missing something.

 

[JonnyRadar]

I've watched the whole orginal series of the 70ties and the remake from the 90ies and have to say that the remake can not hold up to the orginal series in any way IMO. the actors back then and the way they filmed it is classes better then that hollywood trash they made out of it later.

also the orginal actors where much better in both acting and the authenticity of their roles. In the orginal you can learn about possible interpersonal relationships and actions of persons and comunties in such a situation while on the remake they seem to have missed almost that whole point and focused more on action scenes and stuff.

IMO the remake isn't worth watching but the Orginal surely is.

I agree. I've been checking out the remake and it's basically sex and action, there's no focus whatsoever on practical living except the boy's interest in raising the chickens, and maybe finding petrol. Of course, given the "progress" of society over the last 40 years and the increase in focus on sex and action in culture (and hollywood), perhaps the remake is not far off from what it would be like if the same thing happened in these times. There's been a hell of a lot more dumbing down in our world since the 70s...

The remake contains some of the characters and plot points from the original show, but I could see the producers saying something like "take that plot and make it sexy..."

 

[zim]

One would hope that survivors would be smarter, but maybe we shouldn't get our expectations that high.

I don't think that we should have high expectations. :(

I don't see why there should be a big difference between what we have for the moment "% of smart vs % of non-smart" and what we could have after a disaster "% of smart vs % of non-smart". The ratio should be quite the same or maybe I am missing something.

I´ve finished the part one, it was difficult because of the language, but I had a sensation of lost/sad , the chapter of Price -killing that girl and the others killing the boy who had problems!!!! That broke my heart.

I was thinking about all the picture in our world, what if this really happen and many psychopaths survive???, Many people will believe in them AGAIN , many people will follow them AGAIN, although the universe “ clean in the house” it will be the same as is today years after !! So what is the point??? I really don’t understand???
Well it is balance but another cycle of deaths and psychopaths in the power!!!! If we survive how many things we have to do to survive????? OMG

What are the chances that someday the things will be different or that picture doesn't exist? Im not particulary positive about that because the reality shock in my face !!!

 

[Foxx]

I was thinking about all the picture in our world, what if this really happen and many psychopaths survive???, Many people will believe in them AGAIN , many people will follow them AGAIN, although the universe “ clean in the house” it will be the same as is today years after !! So what is the point??? I really don’t understand???
Well it is balance but another cycle of deaths and psychopaths in the power!!!! If we survive how many things we have to do to survive????? OMG

What are the chances that someday the things will be different or that picture doesn't exist? Im not particulary positive about that because the reality shock in my face !!!

I think that's what we're all collectively doing here--trying to find a way to break the cycle of psychopaths in power. I don't really know how that will happen, but at least the Cs sound optimistic, and I'll just keep doing the best I can for as long as I can, personally.

FWIW.

 

[meta-agnostic]

One would hope that survivors would be smarter, but maybe we shouldn't get our expectations that high.

I don't think that we should have high expectations. :(

I don't see why there should be a big difference between what we have for the moment "% of smart vs % of non-smart" and what we could have after a disaster "% of smart vs % of non-smart". The ratio should be quite the same or maybe I am missing something.

I guess we will see. At first the %ages would be the same but I could see an eventual winnowing down though "natural selection" for lack of a better term. You have people concerned about others as well as themselves and trying to think ahead, you have the psychopaths and other pathologicals who will do anything to survive, and you have the vast majority who were surprised when the stores without power were only taking cash this week. Eventually things might narrow themselves down to the 51%ers vs. the 95%ers or however that epic battle is supposed to play out.

 

[Gwenllian]

This was when the whole thing just started getting ridiculous to me. It's a shame the situation was clouded by the cartoon-like plot line of perfect occurrences to incriminate the innocent guy, though I guess general law can and does act in that manner quite often. I may be underestimating the levels of ponerization these days, but I don't think anyone in the real world would let 'Price' stay with them after finding out what they did. They treated it as if he was caught stealing food or something, rather than a brutal, cold blooded rape and murder. Never mind, he was just a little drunk, boys will be boys!

What struck me was that people were not even grieving over the loss of that young woman, who had been a bubbly and cheerful lass. No wonder she got on so well with the woman with the accent, who also seemed more alive than the others.

I think Loreta and MK Scarlett talked about how people do not help out others when there is an accident or disaster.
Supriyanoel wrote a post in the 'Winter Storm threatens East coast' thread, where she related that no one came to her aid.

In 'You are not so smart - Why your memory is mostly fiction' there is a chapter which is called 'The Bystander Effect' (Ch. 10).

David McRaney writes:

If your car were to break down and your mobile phone had no service, where do you think you would have a better chance of getting help - a country road or a busy street? To be sure, more people will see you on a busy street. On a country road, you might have to wait a very long time before someone comes by. So which one?
Studies show you have a better chance on the country road. Why?
Have you ever seen someone broken down on the side of the road and thought, "I could help them, but I'm sure someone will come along." Everyone thinks that and no one stops. This is called the bystander effect.

I have found that people in the country are more helpful. Also, they are more self-reliant, OSIT. That might also be a factor? Maybe they are more confident, because they are more self-reliant and do not feel embarrassed and are not afraid to act?
David mentions that the fear of embarrassment might play into group dynamics.

 

[meta-agnostic]

The gas lines and shortages in the Northeast USA are really reminding me of the scenes where the survivors come upon a petrol station and are able to use a manual hand pump to extract the petrol. Where is that even going to be an option these days?! Several of these Sandy-ravage gas stations have gas but no electricity to power the pump. Should they be selling gas on a bring-your-own-generator or bring-your-own pump basis? It's pretty scary to contemplate just how far we've [d]evolved since the '70's.

 

[Alana]

One would hope that survivors would be smarter, but maybe we shouldn't get our expectations that high.

I don't think that we should have high expectations. :(

I don't see why there should be a big difference between what we have for the moment "% of smart vs % of non-smart" and what we could have after a disaster "% of smart vs % of non-smart". The ratio should be quite the same or maybe I am missing something.

In this series, it doesn't seem that enough "smarts" survived the plaque! I am up to episode 11 of the first series, and I agree, it's been very frustrating to watch. Every episode is like an example of what not to do, and their reactions to situations are like... alien, I don't understand them. The worst so far has been the Law and Order episode that so many of you have mentioned.

________Spoiler's!_______________

If Tom decided to tell them that he did it because his conscience couldn't stand it, why didn't he do it before they killed Bunny? If he has a conscience to begin with? And all the reasoning they used to try Bunny, which was based on false assumptions, could as well been applied to Tom and it would have been true. What, they suddenly forgot about the safety of children? And wasn't Tom asking sexual favors of Wendy when they first met in exchange of the fish he gave her? Did Abby forgot about that?

And then they hide the pregnant woman in their house, and when her "husband" comes to get her back, instead of pretending they know nothing, they are busy, and gently get him on his way, they offer him milk and bread and ask if he would like to stay the night! They so need to stop eating that bread and drinking that milk!

_________Spoiler's end______________

Despite it raising my blood pressure, I am actually very glad I get to watch it because it wakes me up from the idea I had that for the most part, people would want to join together and help each other as much as possible in such horrible situation. That the death of their loved ones, all types of loses, would shock and shake them to reevaluate themselves and their values. I was obviously very wrong. So it helps me reevaluate my own idea now. Also, last night I was thinking that the Survivors was made in the 70s, before we were so depended on our electronic/communication devises, people actually knew how to read a map then, or how to use books to get information. For the people of today, who live more in a virtual world than the real one, it will be even harder to navigate and survive such an environment I think.