The history of small-scale BBC Sci-Fi is a little dire to say the least. Last year's "The Deep" was a torpid mess, and 2008's Survivors was a challenge to sit through. Outcasts, however, promised a change to that, taking on a much more epic scope. Hyped like nothing else, the show was commissioned in 2007 and went through several stages of development hell before being spat out as the twice-a-week drama we see before us. Does it live up to the hype?Suffice to say that it's a little hit and miss, as the "epic" tale of the planet Carpathia drove on without any real sense of tension or urgency. The first hour served as Exposition central, painting the background of what is an interesting premise, but one one that we've seen many time nonetheless. Escaping from an Earth ravaged by a US-China war, the colony of humans on alien planet Carpathia try to get along without killing each other. One of the show's main issues at the moment is, indeed, its scale - we were promised a planet-sized sci-fi adventure and yet we only get to see a small, unimaginatively designed fort (named, appropriately enough, Forthaven) and a few minor landscapes (a hill and a patch of desert). There's hardly anything seperating this new planet from Earth, apart from the presence of slightly advanced tech, and a few dust clouds caused by the planet's twin moons.
Character focus is incredably disproportionate, the first episode spening the majority of its time on irrational maverick Mitchell Hoban - a character killed at the end of the episode. Much more enthusiastic were Protection and Security (PAS) officers Cass (Daniel Mays, who'll pop up in Ashes to Ashes Series Three) and Fleur (Amy Manson, of Being Human fame), neither of whom were developed particularly well. Also on show were the tediously monotone President Richard Tate (Liam Cunningham) and neurotic mother/head of PAS Stella (Hermionie Norris, essentially playing her character from Spooks.) Our special new character was apparant researcher/pedophile/Evanglical American Julius Berger. Amongst others.
A strange mix of characters with disproportionate development isn't always a bad thing - Red Dwarf has had its problems there, and don't get me started on Survivors. The issue with Outcasts is its staunch seriousness and "sci-fi hardness" - there's relatively little to dig our teeth into aesthetics wise. Meanwhile, over on ITV, Primeval have the exact opposite state of affairs, as if they've stolen all the fun as compensation.Of the two hours, the second was superior as it mixed up the pace a little more and there wasn't the same amount of elongated exposition. Sci-Fi needs to have something to say about Humanity, while all our protagonists do is mope and worry about "making the same mistakes again," as if a small settlement is going to fight a nuclear war. Against itself. Every time the show's myriad of subplots try and show some flare, some bright little spark, it just gets flattened again.
You're on the right track Outcasts, but you're one hell of a disappointment.
Thanks.
