Outcasts - The New Caprica?!?

Recommended Videos

Trivun

Stabat mater dolorosa
Dec 13, 2008
9,830
0
0
Okay, that's a complete lie. After watching two episodes of Outcasts, it's nothing like Caprica, or even Battlestar Galactica for that matter. If I had to compare it to anything, in fact, I'd say it's more like Survivors meets Firefly (with a much brighter visual style). However, the overall context, and indeed the style of filming and presentation, is very clear. Outcasts is basically trying to be the UK version of hit US sci-fi series like Stargate, BSG, Caprica, etc. Not that that's a bad thing, it does manage it, and very well, I fully enjoyed seeing the British take on these popular and well-done sci-fi hits.

For those who don't know, Outcasts is basically a new BBC series that started recently, with very little fanfare, set on a world called Carpathia. The year is 2040 (though I feel it would make a bit more sense if it was 2140), and due to massive crises on Earth, including overpopulation, pollution, and massive political and social upheaval, drastic steps have had to be taken. The recent discovery of a planet newly named Carpathia, after the ship that rescued Titanic survivors, has proved a godsend to humanity, as it falls within the habitable zone, has existing flora (tough no fauna), and is only five years travel from Earth given the current space-faring capabilities of humans in the show. The plot follows the earliest settlers from Earth, as they colonize Carpathia and proceed to build a new society in the town of Forthaven, while also dealing with mistakes from the past and new arrivals from Earth who move to cause something of a stir among the colonists... and yes, it is much better than it sounds.

It's ended up getting mixed reviews, though mostly positive, with critics generally agreeing that the series should stick around and has a lot of potential if it is given a decent chance to build up and develop its story (which it is doing rather well, in fact). However, ratings haven't been the best, and as such the BBC chose to move it from a Monday primetime slot to a late night Sunday slot instead, which I feel is completely defeating the purpose. The critics say that it could be good if given a chance, so the BBC decide to sound its death knell instead. Really good planning there. Smooth.

Personally, I really enjoy this show. I've just seen the first two episodes on iPlayer and will watch the next two tomorrow, with episode five coming on Sunday apparently. The characters are good, and there's a decent plot with just enough hidden to keep you wanting more and to hook you, without being overly silly like most US shows tend to become. The filming is great, with some really nice shots in the first episode, and the cast play their roles really well, particularly Eric Mabius (as Julius Berger) and Hermione Norris (as Stella Isen). Overall, I agree with the critics, it does have massive potential, and I really want it to stick around. Sadly, though I'd be exceptionally pleased, I'd also be somewhat surprised if it lasts longer than a single series, given the way the BBC have apparently just given up on it and have relegated it in the time-slots.

So, really, the big question here is, have any of you seen Outcasts? If so, what did you think? Like it? Hate it? Indifferent? And what do you all think of the news about the BBC changing the time-slots, and their reaction to the audience ratings so far?
 

Trivun

Stabat mater dolorosa
Dec 13, 2008
9,830
0
0
Seriously, has nobody other than me seen this show? I would really recommend it, it's not often that the UK does serious sci-fi well, after all...
 

fenrizz

New member
Feb 7, 2009
2,788
0
0
I'll have a look tonight.

Sounds interesting, thought the fine folks at imdb.com don't seem to care much for it.
 

The Hive Mind

New member
Nov 11, 2010
241
0
0
I keep meaning to have a look at it but it just looks a bit bland. It seems to lack the style that made Firefly awesome, the (potential for good) action scenes of BSG and all in all just seems to be lacking personality.
 

Dags90

New member
Oct 27, 2009
4,680
0
0
Wasn't Caprica canceled rather quickly?

Unfortunately the first season is a big ratings and audience game. If you don't get the audience and rating pretty quick, your chances are pretty slim. I don't want to watch another Caprica. It just doesn't seem worth it.
 

Sonic Doctor

Time Lord / Whack-A-Newbie!
Jan 9, 2010
3,041
0
0
I'll take a look if I can find a place on the net with no hassle.

Considering what I saw of Battlestar Galactic, filming style being part of it, and didn't watch it anymore because it wasn't the type of sci-fi story telling I like, and I didn't look up anything related to it, Caprica included. But to each their own. Some are fans of BSG, while I'm a fan of things like Doctor Who, Stargate SG-1 and Atlantis, Firefly and pretty much all of the series of Star Trek.

If it is filmed in BSG style then I probably won't get passed the first episode.

I felt sick watching Stargate Universe, hoping something proper sci-fi and proper Stargate would come from it. But, they ruined it by not to appealing to the core Stargate fanbase and pretty much in filming and story structure made Stargate Galactic. I was glad that Universe was canceled, but sad that because it didn't get the ratings and the Sci-Fi channel canceled it, the makers and producers will think that the Stargate franchise is dead. It was far from dead, they just made some stupid and dick decisions that messed the flow of the franchise, the first being that they canceled Atlantis to put Universe in it's place, which was piss off the fans moment #1. Then they made Universe into a BSG look alike in the way it was filmed(grainy film[is grainy in HD so it isn't what I am watching it on], lots of pointless close ups on characters and switching back and forth between closeups of two sometimes three people[it doesn't make it look dramatic, it looks like the man filming it was having random seizures moments]. It also was like BSG in that it focused 90% of the show on the characters. I know the creators of Universe meant for their crappy character driven stories to be deep and meaningful, but what they made was a cheesy space soap opera.

Good and proper sci-fi is driven more by the setting(the worlds and spaceships) and non-character plots(aliens, things that go wrong that characters have to deal with[that have nothing to do with relationships]), and the technology that is in the world of the story. There has to be a balance. Yes, sci-fi has to have character development to be good, but the development needs to slow and most of the time subtle. I recommend if any, only one(possibly two, if it is a little lower in key) knock down drag out relationship fights in a season. If anymore is done, then the show will enter that dangerous territory for sci-fi: Too many emotional, moody, and angsty story areas. This will bring the show down to the lowest of filth, giving it the feel of a soap opera.

How it is done properly:

Doctor Who: Though there is a lot of emotion in the show and you find out many things about the Doctor, he is still mysterious and leaves you asking questions about him. But to level out some the the intense characterization in the stories, you get all the rest of the universe of the show and the plot which doesn't take a back seat to the characterization.

Stargate SG-1: We already have the back-story(the original Stagate movie with Kurt Russell) that sets up the series. Then in the large pilot episode we find out the whole plot premise of the show: There is more than just two Stargates, there are more aliens posing as gods and enslaving Earth's ancestors of old. Then a few more episodes in we find out that the Goa'uld didn't create the Stargates, so now we'll look for who did. We get to find all that out without hearing about who loves who, or who is sleeping with who. Eventually after a few seasons we slowly figure out that O'Neill and Carter have a thing for each other. There isn't any deep mushy stuff until it is warrented(See, things that happen to Daniel Jackson) If the people that were writing for Universe, were doing the writing for SG-1 when it came out, it would have taken four season to get what we did get plot-wise in the first season of SG-1. My reason for knowing this: It took them a season and a half to get around to even seriously putting in a major plot, that had to do with something other than the characters, that remotely resembled a Stargate style plot. What they did in one and a half seasons(30 episodes) on Universe, would have taken maybe 4 episodes on SG-1.

Long story short
The reason for this rant is this: sci-fi television has fallen into a trend that doesn't flow with classic sci-fi. The writers don't understand that sci-fi that is almost totally driven by character stories, with little to no big picture, is crap. You've got to have that grand big picture that pulls people into the story. I couldn't give a crap about what happens to nerdy guy, pretty girl, and the scientist, if they aren't dealing with some big picture plot. Total character plots are stupid.

So in the end, if I do watch Outcasts, how it fairs with me will depend on how the plot and stories are handled. If it is 90% driven by characters and whiny emotional stories surrounding them, then I'm going to hate it.

Now wasn't that fun? Weeeeeeeee!!
 

Trivun

Stabat mater dolorosa
Dec 13, 2008
9,830
0
0
Dags90 said:
Wasn't Caprica canceled rather quickly?

Unfortunately the first season is a big ratings and audience game. If you don't get the audience and rating pretty quick, your chances are pretty slim. I don't want to watch another Caprica. It just doesn't seem worth it.
Read the OP a bit more, it's not actually like Caprica (despite the title). Though I agree with you, which is why it's a shame that the BBC have decided to change the schedule for it. The critics have said they like it, it's getting the good opinions and such, they simply feel it needs a bit more time to get into a decent pattern. If the audiences stick with it then fine, or if the BBC controller and such decide to listen to the critics, then it'll be fine. Sadly, chances are that just won't happen.

Also, Caprica was very much a case of 'screwed by the network', just like Firefly was. Scify's actions regarding Caprica strongly suggest that they never wanted it to succeed in the first place and did whatever they could, including the stupid episode airing order and the silly scheduling, to make sure viewers wouldn't get into it. When a show faces that sort of adversity then it has no chance, regardless of how good it is. At least the BBC are giving Outcasts a decent chance, after all...
 

DefunctTheory

Not So Defunct Now
Mar 30, 2010
6,437
0
0
Sonic Doctor said:
I'll take a look if I can find a place on the net with no hassle.

Considering what I saw of Battlestar Galactic, filming style being part of it, and didn't watch it anymore because it wasn't the type of sci-fi story telling I like, and I didn't look up anything related to it, Caprica included. But to each their own. Some are fans of BSG, while I'm a fan of things like Doctor Who, Stargate SG-1 and Atlantis, Firefly and pretty much all of the series of Star Trek.

If it is filmed in BSG style then I probably won't get passed the first episode.

I felt sick watching Stargate Universe, hoping something proper sci-fi and proper Stargate would come from it. But, they ruined it by not to appealing to the core Stargate fanbase and pretty much in filming and story structure made Stargate Galactic. I was glad that Universe was canceled, but sad that because it didn't get the ratings and the Sci-Fi channel canceled it, the makers and producers will think that the Stargate franchise is dead. It was far from dead, they just made some stupid and dick decisions that messed the flow of the franchise, the first being that they canceled Atlantis to put Universe in it's place, which was piss off the fans moment #1. Then they made Universe into a BSG look alike in the way it was filmed(grainy film[is grainy in HD so it isn't what I am watching it on], lots of pointless close ups on characters and switching back and forth between closeups of two sometimes three people[it doesn't make it look dramatic, it looks like the man filming it was having random seizures moments]. It also was like BSG in that it focused 90% of the show on the characters. I know the creators of Universe meant for their crappy character driven stories to be deep and meaningful, but what they made was a cheesy space soap opera.

Good and proper sci-fi is driven more by the setting(the worlds and spaceships) and non-character plots(aliens, things that go wrong that characters have to deal with[that have nothing to do with relationships]), and the technology that is in the world of the story. There has to be a balance. Yes, sci-fi has to have character development to be good, but the development needs to slow and most of the time subtle. I recommend if any, only one(possibly two, if it is a little lower in key) knock down drag out relationship fights in a season. If anymore is done, then the show will enter that dangerous territory for sci-fi: Too many emotional, moody, and angsty story areas. This will bring the show down to the lowest of filth, giving it the feel of a soap opera.

How it is done properly:

Doctor Who: Though there is a lot of emotion in the show and you find out many things about the Doctor, he is still mysterious and leaves you asking questions about him. But to level out some the the intense characterization in the stories, you get all the rest of the universe of the show and the plot which doesn't take a back seat to the characterization.

Stargate SG-1: We already have the back-story(the original Stagate movie with Kurt Russell) that sets up the series. Then in the large pilot episode we find out the whole plot premise of the show: There is more than just two Stargates, there are more aliens posing as gods and enslaving Earth's ancestors of old. Then a few more episodes in we find out that the Goa'uld didn't create the Stargates, so now we'll look for who did. We get to find all that out without hearing about who loves who, or who is sleeping with who. Eventually after a few seasons we slowly figure out that O'Neill and Carter have a thing for each other. There isn't any deep mushy stuff until it is warrented(See, things that happen to Daniel Jackson) If the people that were writing for Universe, were doing the writing for SG-1 when it came out, it would have taken four season to get what we did get plot-wise in the first season of SG-1. My reason for knowing this: It took them a season and a half to get around to even seriously putting in a major plot, that had to do with something other than the characters, that remotely resembled a Stargate style plot. What they did in one and a half seasons(30 episodes) on Universe, would have taken maybe 4 episodes on SG-1.

Long story short
The reason for this rant is this: sci-fi television has fallen into a trend that doesn't flow with classic sci-fi. The writers don't understand that sci-fi that is almost totally driven by character stories, with little to no big picture, is crap. You've got to have that grand big picture that pulls people into the story. I couldn't give a crap about what happens to nerdy guy, pretty girl, and the scientist, if they aren't dealing with some big picture plot. Total character plots are stupid.

So in the end, if I do watch Outcasts, how it fairs with me will depend on how the plot and stories are handled. If it is 90% driven by characters and whiny emotional stories surrounding them, then I'm going to hate it.

Now wasn't that fun? Weeeeeeeee!!
You are a god among men. I agree with everything you said.

I love you.

EDIT: I want SG-1 back!
 

Dags90

New member
Oct 27, 2009
4,680
0
0
Trivun said:
Read the OP a bit more, it's not actually like Caprica (despite the title). Though I agree with you, which is why it's a shame that the BBC have decided to change the schedule for it.
I'm aware, that was sort of my point. Caprica was canceled after 1 (and a half) season(s). I didn't even know about the half season until I did some wiki'ing from this thread. Being the "New Caprica" doesn't inspire much confidence. I'm tired of networks teasing us with potentially interesting new Sci-Fi shows and not committing because they aren't instant ratings successes.
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,908
0
0
Trivun said:
Okay, that's a complete lie. After watching two episodes of Outcasts, it's nothing like Caprica, or even Battlestar Galactica for that matter. If I had to compare it to anything, in fact, I'd say it's more like Survivors meets Firefly (with a much brighter visual style). However, the overall context, and indeed the style of filming and presentation, is very clear. Outcasts is basically trying to be the UK version of hit US sci-fi series like Stargate, BSG, Caprica, etc. Not that that's a bad thing, it does manage it, and very well, I fully enjoyed seeing the British take on these popular and well-done sci-fi hits.

For those who don't know, Outcasts is basically a new BBC series that started recently, with very little fanfare, set on a world called Carpathia. The year is 2040 (though I feel it would make a bit more sense if it was 2140), and due to massive crises on Earth, including overpopulation, pollution, and massive political and social upheaval, drastic steps have had to be taken. The recent discovery of a planet newly named Carpathia, after the ship that rescued Titanic survivors, has proved a godsend to humanity, as it falls within the habitable zone, has existing flora (tough no fauna), and is only five years travel from Earth given the current space-faring capabilities of humans in the show. The plot follows the earliest settlers from Earth, as they colonize Carpathia and proceed to build a new society in the town of Forthaven, while also dealing with mistakes from the past and new arrivals from Earth who move to cause something of a stir among the colonists... and yes, it is much better than it sounds.

It's ended up getting mixed reviews, though mostly positive, with critics generally agreeing that the series should stick around and has a lot of potential if it is given a decent chance to build up and develop its story (which it is doing rather well, in fact). However, ratings haven't been the best, and as such the BBC chose to move it from a Monday primetime slot to a late night Sunday slot instead, which I feel is completely defeating the purpose. The critics say that it could be good if given a chance, so the BBC decide to sound its death knell instead. Really good planning there. Smooth.

Personally, I really enjoy this show. I've just seen the first two episodes on iPlayer and will watch the next two tomorrow, with episode five coming on Sunday apparently. The characters are good, and there's a decent plot with just enough hidden to keep you wanting more and to hook you, without being overly silly like most US shows tend to become. The filming is great, with some really nice shots in the first episode, and the cast play their roles really well, particularly Eric Mabius (as Julius Berger) and Hermione Norris (as Stella Isen). Overall, I agree with the critics, it does have massive potential, and I really want it to stick around. Sadly, though I'd be exceptionally pleased, I'd also be somewhat surprised if it lasts longer than a single series, given the way the BBC have apparently just given up on it and have relegated it in the time-slots.

So, really, the big question here is, have any of you seen Outcasts? If so, what did you think? Like it? Hate it? Indifferent? And what do you all think of the news about the BBC changing the time-slots, and their reaction to the audience ratings so far?

Well, I think your youth might be showing to an extent. From the way your describing this it sounds like an attempt to re-do "Earth 2". I can see the comments on "Caprica" and "Firefly" but the bottom line is that the attempt to do a science-fiction show about colonists has been done straight up before, it also failed pretty badly in the end:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_2_(TV_series)

I can see where the BBC is coming from to be honest. I want more science fiction and fantasy shows, and don't much care what network makes them, but with all the competition, giving a choice slot to a failing show that is imitating a failing formula probably isn't fair to people with other shows. It's always possible it will recover in it's new time slot, but having seen "Earth 2" I can see why this show is probaby failing to *hold* much support from mainstream viewership.

I wish it the best, as this approach to science fiction has potential as a science fiction series, but it doesn't seem like this show is liable to be the one to pull it off.

Simply my thoughts, if it helps at all, consider that it's pretty impressive that it made it this far at all. A lot of shows never get a chane to be seen on TV at all, especially science fiction. Just hope that they manage to tie it up even if it's only a few episodes long as opposed to leaving it hanging.
 

Sonic Doctor

Time Lord / Whack-A-Newbie!
Jan 9, 2010
3,041
0
0
AccursedTheory said:
You are a god among men. I agree with everything you said.

I love you.

EDIT: I want SG-1 back!
Thanks.

Yes having SG-1 back would be awesome. I would even go for them uncanceling Atlantis, considering that they canceled to put on Universe.

Universe could have worked if they had a normal Stargate show mindset when creating it. We didn't get a good amount of alien interaction until season 2, but still like in the first season, they down played them enough that at times I was like, "Hey where did they go, were were interacting with them and then poof, they were gone without a proper resolution." Then near the halfway point on season two, we finally get the plot that the ship could be following a signal to something that could possibly show us who created the universe, but when it was talked about it was like a 3 minute after thought compared to the rest of the episode.

If the creators had brought that major story plot to light, possibly a half episode and a full episode near the beginning of the first season, then a whole lot more fleshing out of aliens in season one, it would have been a whole lot better. But instead of that awesome sounding major plot heavily focused in the beginning, we get the plot that really isn't a plot of "Boo-Woo, we are stranded and alone on a ship far away from home with little hope of getting back".......wait, wasn't that the plot of Star Trek Voyager? Well, ya, but at least it had lots of plots that overshadowed the characters and we got to see aliens and they interacted with them a lot and explored, instead of just focusing on the crew talking about themselves and getting home(though their was a lot of it in Voyager, but they made it interesting, and 95% of it up beat and not depressing.

We need a come back of sci-fi that is hopeful and bright, instead of dark and depressing. That is what made me like the Star Treks and the two Stargates, very few and far between there were depressing moments, but most of it was hopeful for the future, there was always a bright silver lining that would bring a viewer out of any of the depressing moments. But today, we get depressing sci-fi that is purposefully depressing and it basically tells us we should be depressed because there is no hope for the future(which is a load of bull).
 

Sonic Doctor

Time Lord / Whack-A-Newbie!
Jan 9, 2010
3,041
0
0
Therumancer said:
Well, I think your youth might be showing to an extent. From the way your describing this it sounds like an attempt to re-do "Earth 2". I can see the comments on "Caprica" and "Firefly" but the bottom line is that the attempt to do a science-fiction show about colonists has been done straight up before, it also failed pretty badly in the end:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_2_(TV_series)

I can see where the BBC is coming from to be honest. I want more science fiction and fantasy shows, and don't much care what network makes them, but with all the competition, giving a choice slot to a failing show that is imitating a failing formula probably isn't fair to people with other shows. It's always possible it will recover in it's new time slot, but having seen "Earth 2" I can see why this show is probaby failing to *hold* much support from mainstream viewership.

I wish it the best, as this approach to science fiction has potential as a science fiction series, but it doesn't seem like this show is liable to be the one to pull it off.

Simply my thoughts, if it helps at all, consider that it's pretty impressive that it made it this far at all. A lot of shows never get a chane to be seen on TV at all, especially science fiction. Just hope that they manage to tie it up even if it's only a few episodes long as opposed to leaving it hanging.
I was actually thinking the same thing when I read the description of Outcasts, but since I haven't watched it yet, I wasn't going to make the Earth 2 comparison until I had.
 

Cowabungaa

New member
Feb 10, 2008
10,804
0
0
Trivun said:
Seriously, has nobody other than me seen this show? I would really recommend it, it's not often that the UK does serious sci-fi well, after all...
I've seen the first episode and was delightfully surprised, if a little puzzled. The only reason I haven't followed it is because they broadcast it every night, and I just cannot be bothered to watch something every freakin' night. Shame BBC iPlayer doesn't work here.

But I'll take the effort to *ahem* catch up though, if you know what I mean. It does look interesting. Though it saddened me that Apollo was killed in the first epi. I like Apollo, or whatever this character's name was, even though he was psychotic.
 

Trivun

Stabat mater dolorosa
Dec 13, 2008
9,830
0
0
Cowabungaa said:
Trivun said:
Seriously, has nobody other than me seen this show? I would really recommend it, it's not often that the UK does serious sci-fi well, after all...
I've seen the first episode and was delightfully surprised, if a little puzzled. The only reason I haven't followed it is because they broadcast it every night, and I just cannot be bothered to watch something every freakin' night. Shame BBC iPlayer doesn't work here.

But I'll take the effort to *ahem* catch up though, if you know what I mean. It does look interesting. Though it saddened me that Apollo was killed in the first epi. I like Apollo, or whatever this character's name was, even though he was psychotic.
You mean Mitchell, yes? And yes, I was also quite annoyed at that, though it's good that he hasn't been forgotten and he's still a recurring plot device effectively, even after his death. Also, I do like the way the story is going at the moment, with the plot twists that are just enough to keep you wanting more without going overboard. And said twists are easy to resolve later if the series does get cancelled early, unlike some other shows that sadly died an early death (such as ITV's Trinity, or the BBC's Spooks: Code 9). At least with the aforementioned Spooks, the creators dug themselves into a hole - as 2012 comes they have to either dismiss the series completely which means the story no longer matters, or accept it (which is a win for us fans) and have the Olympics get attacked by a nuclear explosion. Gotta love hindsight, eh? :p