|
Post by mark687 on Dec 29, 2021 20:48:31 GMT
|
|
|
Post by mark687 on Feb 3, 2022 15:03:31 GMT
|
|
|
Post by mark687 on Feb 7, 2022 17:18:30 GMT
Textless/ Clean Cover
Regards
mark687
|
|
|
Post by aussiedoctorwhofan on Feb 10, 2022 9:31:48 GMT
|
|
|
Post by elkawho on Feb 11, 2022 0:37:10 GMT
I've listened to the first story so far. I thought it was very good, however I'm at the point with this range that if there's a man in a prominent part I automatically think he's either A) the villain, B) useless, lacking in agency and going to mess up, or C) going to die. Sometimes all three, which is quite a feat.
I mean, I'm all for stories with strong women characters and leaders, but it's almost comical. We had some fantastic male characters. Greg, of course, and Daniel. But they are few and far between.
|
|
|
Post by aussiedoctorwhofan on Feb 11, 2022 0:38:43 GMT
I've listened to the first story so far. I thought it was very good, however I'm at the point with this range that if there's a man in a prominent part I automatically think he's either A) the villain, B) useless, lacking in agency and going to mess up, or C) going to die. Sometimes all three, which is quite a feat. I mean, I'm all for stories with strong women characters and leaders, but it's almost comical. We had some fantastic male characters. Greg, of course, and Daniel. But they are few and far between. Yes, I picked up on that too.. Ahem Ahem... Almost like a drinking game..
|
|
|
Post by IndieMacUser on Feb 21, 2022 14:36:56 GMT
|
|
|
Post by BHTvsTFC on Feb 21, 2022 19:03:57 GMT
Just finished and thought it was mostly superb! My only gripe is {Spoiler} all of the supporting players of note die in their one and only episode.
|
|
|
Post by bonehead on Feb 26, 2022 17:18:24 GMT
2.1 Bad Blood by Lizbeth Myles.
I thoroughly enjoyed this opener to the latest (final?) box set. The story is nicely character-led and well played by the cast, especially the twins.
Toward the end of the mammoth 9 series of BF's Survivors, there was comment about how it had become female led, with all the main male characters missing or dead. While I miss Greg (amongst others), I find Abby and Jenny wonderfully compelling characters, but it's impossible not to notice how that approach has been continued with these New Dawn sets. As mentioned above, if a 'bloke' turns up, chances are he's either a villain, or will be bumped off - both sometimes. I'm not sure how I feel about that.
A nice strong story to kick off this latest chapter. Andrew Smith's story next - always something to look forward to.
|
|
|
Post by bonehead on Mar 2, 2022 23:24:22 GMT
2.2 When First We Practise to Deceive by Andrew Smith
“It’s easy to get people to do what you want when you have a gun,” says Jenny. Ain’t that the truth? Crayle and his ruddy blokes are running a corrupt community, the place where Abbey’s son Peter was killed. Peter was a ruddy bloke as well of course, but even he didn’t deserve to die like that. Only Tania is a decent newcomer here, what with her being a lass. Blokes are racist, cowardly and stupid in this otherwise excellent, wonderfully played, story, just as they have been in every story for some time now. Every single one. In the extras, the male actors tell us how diabolical their characters are, and the female actors are equally joyful about how positive and brave their characters are. Does it bother me? Am I sexist for noticing this? Wouldn’t there be eyebrows raised if the genders were reversed here? I’m being more scathing about this than I mean to me, but apart from it being ‘a thing’ with Survivors, it has also become predictable in a series that thrives on surprises and shocks. Ken Bentley talks about how the show has always had strong, female characters – and it has, which is one of the reasons I’ve enjoyed it – but there have also been strong and decent males as well. A bit of balance would stop events becoming monotonous. I can’t not notice this ongoing development and it does mar my enjoyment of this otherwise really strong series.
Perhaps if the story was not so good in all other departments - and it is - this theme wouldn't bother me so much. Perhaps I'm over-reacting.
|
|
|
Post by aussiedoctorwhofan on Mar 2, 2022 23:55:05 GMT
2.2 When First We Practise to Deceive by Andrew Smith
“It’s easy to get people to do what you want when you have a gun,” says Jenny. Ain’t that the truth? Crayle and his ruddy blokes are running a corrupt community, the place where Abbey’s son Peter was killed. Peter was a ruddy bloke as well of course, but even he didn’t deserve to die like that. Only Tania is a decent newcomer here, what with her being a lass. Blokes are racist, cowardly and stupid in this otherwise excellent, wonderfully played, story, just as they have been in every story for some time now. Every single one. In the extras, the male actors tell us how diabolical their characters are, and the female actors are equally joyful about how positive and brave their characters are. Does it bother me? Am I sexist for noticing this? Wouldn’t there be eyebrows raised if the genders were reversed here? I’m being more scathing about this than I mean to me, but apart from it being ‘a thing’ with Survivors, it has also become predictable in a series that thrives on surprises and shocks. Ken Bentley talks about how the show has always had strong, female characters – and it has, which is one of the reasons I’ve enjoyed it – but there have also been strong and decent males as well. A bit of balance would stop events becoming monotonous. I can’t not notice this ongoing development and it does mar my enjoyment of this otherwise really strong series.
Perhaps if they story was not so good in all other departments - and it is - this theme wouldn't bother me so much. Perhaps I'm over-reacting.
It's not just you noticing it.
|
|
|
Post by BHTvsTFC on Mar 3, 2022 1:21:38 GMT
I don't think it's that bad a problem as is being perceived. Series Nine had a female protagonist, and the Prime Minister in this run is a little dubious too. There is always a certain predictability that in times of crisis that the ones to rise up to power will be the same types that always have. That said it is something to watch out for, and maybe a story here and there could break the stereotype.
If the range continues it would be nice to have some new 'regular' characters introduced like we had at the beginning.
|
|
lidar2
Castellan

You know, now that you mention it, I actually do rather like Attack of the Cybermen ...
Likes: 5,672
|
Post by lidar2 on Mar 3, 2022 9:36:37 GMT
I almost hate to say this, and it may well be controversial, but I strongly suspect that if Survivors was "real" and the post-Death world regressed to some kind of more primitive, agrarian society then a lot of the more "traditional" ideas on family and the role of women would return with a vengeance. The idea of women becoming the leaders in this new society, other than the occasional exception who proved the rule, strikes me as flying in the face of the likely socio-economic reality of a post Death world.
The logic of Charles Vaughn (have as many babies as possible to ensure the survival of the species) would likely come to the fore. There would likely be higher infant mortality, meaning more children needed. As many of the labour-saving machines used in agriculture and other areas of life became obsolete, there would be a renewed emphasis on physical strength and stamina as desirable / dominant qualities, which would favour men. Likewise the violence of the world of Survivors would give more emphasis to the traditional idea of males as the warrior / soldier / protector.
And bear in mind also that the Survivors starting point is the social attitudes of the 1970s, not our attitudes of the 2020s. Back then, Golda Meir and Margaret Thatcher were very much the exceptions. All the glass ceilings broken in the last 50 years, some of which we now take for granted as broken, would still be unbroken.
I personally think this is something that could be interesting to explore in Survivors and make for good drama as individuals, both male and female, find themselves forced by society and social pressure back into "traditional" roles that they had broken free from in the pre-Death world. But what would give this a unique spin is that it would not be a simple tale of social conservatism vs social liberalism (as might happen in the real world) but the result of a pragmatic "ensure-survival-of-the-species" ideology, the logic of which would be hard to fault and would mean there were no simple, easy answers to the questions raised. But that's just my opinion (and I should add I haven't listened to New Dawn yet).
I hope I don't come across as a sexist throwback to the 1950s - what I describe above certainly isn't how I think our society ought to be run. But I think BF ought to be more realistic about what a post Death world might be like, rather than just defaulting to a "strong female characters because those are the kinds of characters our female actors want to play" mentality.
|
|
|
Post by grinch on Mar 3, 2022 10:35:26 GMT
As someone who has yet to dip his toes into the Survivors range, I must say this makes for a fascinating discussion.
|
|
|
Post by mark687 on Mar 3, 2022 10:41:57 GMT
Poll Added
Regards
mark687
|
|
|
Post by bonehead on Mar 3, 2022 20:19:12 GMT
2.3 Last Stand by Roland Moore.
Ooh, BF, you - *shakes fist, Tennant style*. You had me there, at the end.
While I didn't think this final story quite matched the heights of the previous two, the last few scenes were electrifying. Low-key and bleak though it was, thank you to Paul Bazely's Akhil for proving that all blokes aren't quite gits. Poor Perry Pyro got some background as well which certainly didn't redeem him, but made me a lot happier about the gender balance in this series. Am I becoming obsessed? I hope not, because I said previously, this is a brilliant series, and hearing Nick Briggs seemingly indicating a continuation at some point makes me very happy. Oh yes, and Carolyn Seymour is one heck of an actress. Gareth Armstrong as Crayle was a very worthy adversary too.
Only My Generation in the previous set was a disappointment to me; apart from that, I'm very glad New Dawn exists. Ripe for a relisten even now, I think.
|
|
|
Post by Digi on Jun 16, 2022 1:36:15 GMT
Finally finished this set off tonight and I am....whelmed? Like there's nothing specifically bad about it, it's perfectly engaging, good dialogue, great sound design as always, and so on.
But did we really just kill off a second long-term character -- and it still wasn't Abby? Really? And our final episode, a bit inconclusive? And this entire second New Dawn boxset, not really addressing the new British nation situation?
It feels like while nothing wrong was done here, it went down some curious creative paths, and failed to address some of the more pressing/interesting ones.
|
|
lidar2
Castellan

You know, now that you mention it, I actually do rather like Attack of the Cybermen ...
Likes: 5,672
|
Post by lidar2 on Jun 21, 2022 15:02:31 GMT
Listened to this at long last.
This was less a political thriller than the first volume and more traditional Survivors and very welcome for it.
I shall make the obligiatory point (in a Survivors review) about the gender politics and stereotyping. Episodes 1 and 2 fully conformed to the Big Finish Survivors playbook, epsiode 3 was a bit more balanced. I won't repeat earlier posts on this subject as I have nothing new to say, other than to take up Ken Bentley's point about the TV show having strong female characters. Yes, in series 1, but not so much after Abby left. Series 2 was basically a p***ing contest between Greg and Charles and in series 1 and 2 Jenny was a pretty weak female character. Jenny picked up bit of strength in series 3 but looking at the overall 38 episodes I wouldn't say it was a female led show after series 1. Pet was a strong female character, but in a more traditional, homemaker role, but that's maybe not the kind of strong female character BF want to portray.
Interesting that the 2 main good Ranger characters across the 2 boxsets were both black. Given the difficulties faced by black police officers in the real world in the 1990s (and still today), is it plausible that the post-Death world would be more accepting? As I posted above I think that if something like the Death ever really happened, people would react by retreating into a very old fashioned, conservative worldview - traditional role of women, more religion/superstition, less accepting of minorities, etc etc.
The TV show ended with the restoration of electric power, an important milestone on the Survivors' road to back civilisation, so it's appropriate this ends with another milestone - a general election.
As it stands, New Dawn is a nice epilogue to the main story told in the TV show and the previous 9 boxsets. But I hope it won't be an epilogue, I hope that is chapeter 1 of a whole new Survivors story.
Anything else to add? Well, given that it concerned government an appearance by everybody's favourite civil servant Evelyn Piper might have been appropriate. But that's a minor quibble.
|
|