Dan's 10 Disappointing TV Shows of 2011

Let's get one thing straight: this isn't a list of the Top 10 Worst TV Shows of 2011, although many of the following programmes would definitely appear on one. I just think it's too easy to throw together 10 terrible television shows, but the truth is I don't tend to watch the really awful stuff for longer than a few episodes.

Instead, my list is about the TV shows that were just about good enough to keep you watching, or you felt obliged to stick with out of loyalty to the brand, genre, or talent involved.... but were nevertheless very disappointing. Fact is, I watched all the episodes of everything on this list, so on some level you could say they were a success, but that's not to say I enjoyed most of what I saw.

I hope that explains my thinking behind some of the picks you don't agree with here, or are perhaps surprised by. The same overall rules apply as before, especially regarding how shows that premiered in 2010 can be counted if they broadcast 50% of their episodes in 2011.

And now, here are my most Disappointing TV Shows of this year...

10. American Horror Story

(Season 1) I grew to strangely enjoy this show, as you "enjoy" picking at a thick scab. From the creative minds of Ryan Murphy and Bryan Falchuk (Nip/Tuck, Glee), this was a "haunted house" movie stretched to 12 episodes, about the dysfunctional Harmon family moving into a Los Angeles home full of frightening ghosts from the building's notorious past. It contained some neat ideas (like how some ghosts are so corporeal they interact with the living as "real people"), and Jessica Lange's performance was brilliant as bonkers neighbour Constance. But the problem with AHS is that it had no sense of self-discipline, the story felt half-improved, some of the actors didn't have the right approach to the material (especially Connie Britton), and a great deal of its better ideas were stolen from movies. (The show even used music from Psycho and Bram Stoker's Dracula!) Okay, it was by design and thus intended to be a loving confection of tropes, but for me it came across as desperate. (random reviews) FX / FX UK

9. The Killing

(Season 1) There are far worse shows around, but The Killing is on this list because of how disappointing it became. What's extraordinary is that it had the best pilot of 2011, by some margin, and I was engrossed for the first five weeks. Based on the Danish original (which is required viewing for Guardian readers here in the UK), all American showrunner Veena Sud had to do was Americanise where appropriate and condense the 20-episode foreign season into half that time Instead, she flushed away many people's goodwill by revealing a "twist" that meant half the season had been a colossal waste of our time, and then gave us a finale that didn't bother answering the "Who Killed Rosie Larsen?" question. That would have been defensible, had we not been led to believe there would be an answer this year, as most people only kept watching past episode 7 for an answer that never came. A crying shame, because the production on The Killing was exemplary, with a brilliant atmosphere (perpetual rain, overcast skies) and thrumming soundtrack. But they should have kept their eyes on the story and were wrong to mislead the audience to this extent. (review archive) AMC / CHANNEL 4

8. Chuck

(Season 4) The little show that would have been cancelled halfway through season 2, at any other time in NBC's history. It's managed to scratch out five seasons, but the fourth is where it started to lose much of its curious appeal. This is primarily because its story arcs didn't work for me, especially the annoying "search for Chuck's long-lost mom" storyline that soaked up so much time. As "Mama Bartowski", Linda Hamilton (Terminator 2) reminded us why her career tanked in the mid-'90s, bringing zero humour and scant charisma to an underwritten role. She was simply there because of her association with a geeky franchise, allowing the writers to do some cute Terminator in-jokes. Ex-007 Timothy Dalton fared better as a scene-chewing Russian super-villain, but even he outstayed his welcome. A poor year of a show that probably deserved the axe this summer, although the current fifth season has been much better... (review archive) NBC / SKY LIVING

7. Glee

(Season 2) If we're honest, Glee started to lose itself as early as mid-season 1 after its winter hiatus, but season 2 is where I lost patience. Overstuffed with (mostly weak) pop songs, it became clear the three writer-producers had little idea what to do with their talented cast. Beyond the storyline with Kurt and his move to the Dalton Academy, it was a case of random romantic match-ups (which were on/off more times than a light switch) and far too many celebrity guest stars. Gwyneth Paltrow had a brilliant first appearance (singing Cee Lo Green's "Forget You"), but bringing her back twice didn't work. The season also gave us too many "themed episodes", from Britney Spears to Rocky Horror. What was once a joyful show that made you giggle and hum along to cheery music became a one-trick pony you wanted to see put down. The most annoying thing is that I'm still watching Glee today, halfway through the even worse third season. I really have no excuse, beyond masochism and an unhealthy fascination with dancer Heather Morris. (random reviews FOX / E4

6. Episodes

(Season 1) A satire on TV production, specifically when hit British comedies get remade into terrible US remakes, Episodes was a leaden and unfunny misfire on most levels. There were performances from Stephen Mangan and Tamsin Greig (as a British screenwriting couple trying to keep their principles in the face of adversity), with a fairly amusing turn from Friends' Matt Le Blanc playing "himself", but it simply wasn't enjoyable to watch all the way through. It limped along after a poor start, with perhaps two episodes that actually rose to an acceptable quality level, which isn't enough. Given the talent involved and subject-matter that felt like it could have something to say about Anglo-American cultural differences, Episodes was one of this year's bigger disappointments to me. A comedy that had its handful of targets in mind, and bludgeoned them over and over, week after week... (review archive) BBC2 / SHOWTIME

5. Dexter

(Season 6) It's a huge shame to see Dexter appear on this ignoble list, as a few short years ago it was a regular in my Best Shows list, but season 6 was the year when the wheels finally came off Showtime's top-rated series. There have been warning signs for awhile now, notably during the ragged fifth season, but this year was a particularly bad run. Despite the potential of delving into a religious theme, the writers lost sight of what made the show so great in its heyday, and countless mistakes amassed throughout its run. The greatest sin being a twist tardily revealed weeks after most fans had guessed it, and a peculiar decision to have Deb suddenly find her adopted brother sexually attractive. Throw in the show's continuing problems in giving its extended cast anything worthwhile to do (just kill a few already!), and the misjudged casting of Colin Hanks as the season's villain (who's no Jimmy Smits, let alone a John Lithgow), and Dexter simply ran aground under a weight of shit. The only hope is knowing the show now has an end-date of 2013, so the writers can work towards a definite conclusion. Trouble is, can its current writing staff pull something off that fans will enjoy? (review archive) SHOWTIME

4. Primeval

(Series 4 & 5) This year we had a double-dose of Primeval, because digital partner Watch showed series 5 months after ITV finished series 4, as they were filmed back-to-back. It was an unexpected return of a show ITV axed because of costs, with two new regular characters along for the ride, but this was a very inauspicious year. Primeval has rarely been good, but it can be fun if you accept its flaws and formulas. I just don't think it has anything left to offer anyone, because the new characters were a washout (especially tedious Irish "action man" Matt), and the fifth series in particular was a big waste of time until a half-decent finale. It's a show that has moments to enjoy, but it's reached a point where I'm struggling to stay interested on a character or storytelling level—or even in a superficial "ooh, dinosaurs" way, to be frank. (review archive) ITV1 / WATCH / BBC AMERICA

3. Outcasts

It had a familiar yet appealing premise, an ambitious production filming in South Africa, with some good actors involved, but Outcasts failed to live up to expectations. SF nerds took great delight in tearing the show's setup apart, and none of the characters left any impression (apart from the excellent Liam Cunningham). It didn't help that Jamie Bamber's character was killed off in the first episode, or that so much of the story and twists felt analogous to things we've seen done better in Lost, Battlestar Galactica and Solaris recently. I have an appetite for intelligent SF mysteries with a measured pace and emphasis on character, but Outcasts just wasn't any fun and almost crawled through its hours. However, it did inspire this blog's busiest article in many years! (review archive) BBC1 / BBC AMERICA

2. Life's Too Short

(Series 1) The sitcom that appears to prove The Office's Ricky Gervais and Stephen Merchant are creatively bankrupt, Life's Too Short distilled everything they've done before (a mockumentary format poking fun at a disabled character, with meta-jokes and celebrity cameos) but did nothing new or interesting with those ingredients. For half the seven episodes, it didn't even feel like a Warwick Davis-starring sitcom, as so much was an excuse to shoehorn in Gervais, Merchant and a guest-star-of-the-week. Things improved slightly for the last three episodes, once the storyline with Warwick's divorce became a bigger focus, but my goodwill was exhausted by then. It just wasn't insightful or clever, as everything here had been done better in Extras, and poor Warwick was forced to play himself-doing-a-David-Brent impersonation. A sore disappointment from two writers who used to demand only the best, but are now happy to devise stupid shows for their friends (see also Karl Pilkington's An Idiot Abroad). (review archive) BBC2

1. Torchwood: Miracle Day

While there were concerns about "Americanizing" Torchwood when Russell T. Davies announced those plans, I don't think any fan anticipated the debacle that Miracle Day became. It still had its creator at the helm, who managed to recruit a writing staff of people who'd worked on some impressive shows (Buffy, House, Battlestar Galactica, X Files, Breaking Bad), and it wisely refused to tone down the sex/violence. In fact, quite a few people believed this could be the making of Torchwood because it had more money to play with, had a very ambitious high-concept story (everyone on the planet suddenly stops dying for an unexplained reason), and was reprising its very successful Children Of Earth miniseries format.

Unfortunately, Miracle Day fell flat on its face after a decent start. Once the novelty of its idea had worn off by episode 4, it became clear just how irritating the new American characters were (especially belligerent dickhead Rex Matheson), they made the godawful mistake of trying to make audiences sympathise with a child-killing paedophile (then had no idea what to do with Bill Pullman's slimy character halfway through), dandy hero Jack Harkness had nothing to do until two-thirds into the story, Gwen Cooper was as irksomely forthright as ever, there were no aliens, and the ultimate explanation for the titular "miracle" was extremely silly and vaguely explained. I can't think of any other show that so spectacularly flopped after such a previous high (although Children Of Earth is somewhat overrated). It even made committed fans fall out of love with the show! I don't think anyone would care if Torchwood never came back now, as Miracle Day appeared to kill a promising franchise. How ironic. (review archive) STARZ/ BBC1

'Being Human' back for series 4; 'Outcasts' gets cast out

There are no surprises here. If you were crazy enough to consider the BBC may axe Being Human, you were proven wrong today with confirmation an eight-part fourth series has been commissioned for transmission in 2012 (most likely January.) The third series finale attracted 1.05m viewers for BBC3 on Sunday evening.

Harry Lansdown, (Acting) BBC Three Controller:

"Being Human's brilliant mixture of fantasy and everyday life continues to provide must-see, ground-breaking drama for BBC Three, and I'm delighted to announce a fourth series for 2012."

Toby Whithouse, creator/writer:

"We were overwhelmed by the response to series three, and so we're absolutely thrilled that the BBC have given us this opportunity to continue our show into a fourth year.

"We've got another intense and epic story lined up for you, with some new faces and old, and even more horror and mayhem and mugs of tea. I can't wait to get started."

In a similarly predictable but far less positive light, the BBC have decided to axe their troubled sci-fi drama Outcasts. The eight-part series struggled in the ratings from the start, which led to it being moved to Sunday night from its primetime Monday slot. The last episode attracted 1.5m viewers last night, down from the premiere's already disappointing 4.8m. My post-mortem interview with Outcasts' creator Ben Richards can be read here.

Interview: Ben Richards, writer/creator of 'Outcasts'

Ben Richards wrote for BAFTA-winning spy drama Spooks, before creating the political drama Party Animals and ITV's hitman thriller The Fixer. Most recently, he made the sci-fi drama Outcasts, which completed a turbulent eight-part run on BBC1 last night. It was a show that garnered very mixed reviews, although some of the critical hostility softened as the series progressed. However, after ratings halved from the premiere's 4.8m after a few weeks, the BBC were forced to shunt it from weekday primetime to late-night Sundays for its final three episodes. I got in touch with Mr Richards to put a few questions to him about Outcasts; from its conception and creation, to the disappointing audience reaction...

DAN OWEN: Briefly talk us through the origin of Outcasts: was it all your idea, or was it a project you took on that Kudos Productions wanted to pursue? And what did you intend to achieve with it?

BEN RICHARDS: Outcasts started as an idea about pioneers. I had been reading a lot about the colonisation of Australia and Virginia and really wanted to do a pioneer drama. The sci-fi element came later as we thought about doing it in the future rather than the past and having our settlers on another planet. Law and order is obviously a critical element of frontier settlements and that was where the idea for Protection and Security came from.

How did the writing process work? Did you come up with the entire eight-part storyline and assign individual episodes to other writers? Or was there more collaboration with other writers than people expect from the UK system?

We had an incredibly tight timeframe from greenlight to shooting and had to get scripts ready very fast. This meant finding the writers, briefing them and there was nowhere near as much time as we would have liked. Those experts who like to pronounce loftily on the shortcomings of British drama would do well to actually study the production constraints of a show like Outcasts which is not nearly as simple as just budget. We had about a year from greenlight to channel delivery to produce seven scripts, to find Carpathia (!), to design the sets, to cast and prep and then enjoy the luxury of eleven shooting days per episode while getting all the CG done etc. And by the way these are not excuses as I am really proud of the finished product. That was our reality.

Was it a challenge creating this show for a mainstream audience on BBC1? I can imagine a very different show if it had aired on BBC2 or Channel 4. Did the "BBC1 factor" curtail a few things creatively, or in any way dilute the original vision? Or would it have been impossible without the BBC?

This goes right to the heart of the issue. We tried to create a show that wouldn't just be for a niche audience -- after all this was designed for primetime BBC1 -- but appeal also to the mainstream. In that we clearly failed but I am no longer sure it was an achievable objective within a genre like sci-fi. How big an audience do the critically successful series get, let alone sci-fi? Those who compare us to BSG might like to consider how that show would fare on Monday at 9pm on BBC1? It does make me laugh sometimes when critics imply that high ratings and cross-audience popularity is an easy combination to achieve in a new drama series. If it were, presumably we would see more of them, right?

The most ludicrous part comes when critics who dismiss ratings as vulgar when it suits them have no hesitation in using them as a stick to beat shows they have decided they don't like. But I think ours was a valiant effort as the elements of the show of which I'm most proud -- the moral issues and conflicts of humanity at a crossroads -- still reached a bigger audience than they might have otherwise done. The BBC in no way interfered creatively with this process except in a helpful way and we had excellent support from Matthew Read our BBC executive and from Ben Stephenson -- both of them very clever people who care about good drama. I'm sure people will be saying "oh he's just saying that out of self-interest" but boringly it happens to be true.

There are certainly many influences on Outcasts (which isn't unreasonable given the core premise has been done many times in sci-fi literature), but was anything a particular touchstone? Many people spotted similarities to recent TV successes like Battlestar Galactica, Lost and various sci-fi novels -- were they deliberate, unintentional, or unavoidable because of the premise?

It was obvious that people would look at BSG and Lost although I can honestly say they weren't big creative influences and the idea that we were trying to rip them off is funny for a number of reasons. Not least because we're not quite stupid enough to think "oh people won't notice if we just reproduce some of the most iconic sci-fi shows on television". I don't think Outcasts borrows much from either show except where the similar terrain makes it inevitable. In any case my background -- in terms of both writing and taste -- is not especially in that type of show and I would say Deadwood was a much bigger creative influence. Even within sci-fi, Blade Runner -- one of the greatest films ever made -- will always be more present in my head.

Outcasts was announced in summer 2007 but only arrived in 2011. Was it delayed for any unexpected reason, or did it simply take four years to develop, write, film and schedule?

The answer is quite boring. The announcement was made very very early to put down a marker and way before development actually began or I could start work on the script. Then there were several changes at the BBC which required us to take on the thoughts of different people. But there was never any crisis in the development process.

The original press release described Outcasts as "a tense and fast-paced series about co-operation and conflict, idealism and power, sexual competition and love. Most of all it is about our life's big imperatives -- cheating death, seeking suitable mates and surviving as a species." Do you think the series covered that early manifesto, or did things get lost? "Fast-paced" doesn't seem to describe the show.

Ah pacing! Well, I don't agree it was as slow as some people say although I totally agree it would have probably suited a 50-minute length given that it was definitely not high octane on the action front. I've written lots of early Spooks so I can do fast if I want -- honest guv! In retrospect, given our attempt to gain a mainstream audience, and the difficulty of selling the genre to them, not enough action was always going to be a problem for us. We would have changed that in a second series I'm sure.

I enjoyed Liam Cunningham's measured performance as President Tate, and it was interesting to see an American star like Ugly Betty's Eric Mabius involved in a British series. Were you involved in choosing those actors?

I was involved in the casting decisions and we had great fun with it. You're right, Liam's was a brilliant understated performance and I have nothing but praise for all the cast. I'd like to make a special mention though of the lesser known, younger actors. Amy Manson is going to be a star I have no doubt of it. And Michael Legge as Tipper was, I thought, quite exceptional in a very hard role. He would have been a big part of our plans in Series 2.

Were you around during the filming of the show in South Africa? Do you have any fun anecdotes about shooting on location?

Because the rush for scripts was so intense I was mainly based in London overseeing that and helping with rewrites. Obviously the funniest anecdotes are unrepeatable but our frantic schedule wasn't helped much by a cobra on set. That was the origin of the snake joke in Ep 5 between Cass and Fleur.

The ratings for Outcasts' premiere (4.8m) were much lower than anticipated for a major BBC primetime series, and the immediate reaction was mixed to negative from the press. Was that a shock? Were you expecting more positivity from viewers, or patience?

I was shocked that only 4.8m started watching the show. Although kind of relieved too as it would have been worse to start with 7 and fall to that over an hour! So -- and this is very important -- we did not start with high enough figures to sustain a loss which would undoubtedly come given the nature of the show. And most shows will lose at least a million viewers across their first eps - especially new series. It is much easier these days to do one-offs or three-parters than a series. Unless they are safer genre shows -- and even these are hard -- new series are fiendishly difficult. Slow-burners or those with complex serial arcs even more so. And the critics will always be much harder on a series than an issue-driven 90-minute drama with a name writer where low ratings are a badge of creative honour (ditto American series). I don't know a single person who works in TV who doesn't agree that returning series is the hardest thing to crack. But they are essential as well and so we keep trying.

The only impatience I really lament is that shown by certain critics who should have known better. So peering into the dingiest corner of the stupidity basement, badge of honour goes to the previewer who said with extreme condescension to the black cast in both episode 1 and subsequent episodes that: "apart from Ashley Waters as a mouthy soldier" (yes, let's just ignore that minor "detail" shall we?) it would give comfort to Nick Griffin. This piece of wilful idiocy was hard to trump but a few gave it their best shot. People who attacked the production values or the "discount CG" were just ignorant although it made me angry for the talent and effort which went into such a difficult project. Then there were those who thought themselves qualified to give me writing classes while becoming so entangled in their struggle to find hysterical adjectives that it became better just to shrug, whistle and stare at the sky. As the Spanish saying goes: "mucho ruido, pocas nueces." I don't believe some of these people watched past Ep 1 -- if they even did that -- and that is just not good enough to judge a new series.

On the bright side, there were also some good and understanding reviews -- a fact that is sometimes forgotten. We had nice comments in several broadsheets and from some surprising sources but the thing that gave me real hope and optimism was the internet. I'd never really dealt with this side of things before but I found that TV critics online seem to like and have a genuine interest and enthusiasm for the medium with which they engage. Many sites had -- usually interesting, sometimes justifiable -- reservations about Eps 1 and 2 but crucially they were able to show the patience you describe, do their job as critics and judge a new show across its run. Most became very supportive of the show and that was great. Even a cocky smartarse nitpicker like yourself, Dan, changed your tone a bit from the original hilarious injunction to "lower your expectations!" Many hardcore sci-fi fans really swung behind the show as witnessed by the thoughtful -- and by no means unconditional -- support given by sites like Outpost Skaro and Den of Geek. [The editor of Den of Geek] Simon Brew's timely piece when our slot changed was like breathing clean air and was greatly appreciated by more than just myself.

Do you think Outcasts was badly scheduled by the BBC, who chose to air two episodes on consecutive evenings for a fortnight?

Oh this is so complex I'm not sure I can really do it justice. I think showing 1 and 2 on consecutive nights would have been OK were it not for Gypsy Weddings which really hurt us. Then I think people got confused and from then on it was just a bit chaotic. But better would have been for [episodes] 1 and 2 to be combined into a 90-minute pilot. Maybe a less high profile time slot from the start would have helped, I just don't know. Hindsight's a wonderful thing though.

I maintain that the BBC drama standard of 60-minutes isn't ideal, often resulting in saggy middles. Do you agree, and were you aware of this problem with Outcasts? Did you miss being able to hit mini-climaxes for ad breaks, as you can on a commercial station?

I didn't miss ad breaks, I loathe ad breaks -- they can really kill you sometimes. But I do agree with more 45/50 min eps. I think especially with slower paced shows like ours an hour can easily create longueurs. Clearly some people felt it did and -- while we couldn't do much about the running time -- that would have been a major issue in Series 2.

With the benefit of hindsight, what would you change about Outcasts, now you've had time to process all the criticism? And is there anything you passionately disagree with critics about? Conversely, is there anything the show's detractors were right to attack that you didn't realize was an issue?

I love Ep 1. I think -- contrary to some critics -- that the expositional balance was about right and if anything we didn't explain enough. I think Bharat [Nalluri] directed it with beautiful cinematic elegance and personally I liked the slower pace building towards the dramatic denouement with Mitchell. I'll always love scenes like Stella talking to Tate about her memories of watching La Traviata on Earth and if that's not your bag then you'll never like my writing so nothing to do there, sorry! I also think that many of those who have watched Ep 8 are now looking at Ep 1 through slightly different eyes -- some are even watching it again and have e-mailed me with really interesting thoughts.

But... the one thing I've definitely learned is you can't start with too much backstory especially in a strange and new world like ours. Our intentions were honourable though -- we wanted to get people into story as quickly as possible because exposition is so hard and tedious. However, I totally take on board that it was hard to care about an ensemble in these circumstances and we should have given people an easier "in" to the show and crucially a central character to identify with more quickly. We started with Mitchell as the focal point and then killed him although I still think that was a really interesting story. The "strutting conquistador nobody needs" is a tragic figure in many ways and we had long debates about whether to kill him or not. He was Mitchell Hoban before he was Jamie Bamber! But because our starter "human" story was very complex and tied to conflicts we hadn't actually seen I do accept it was hard to get a handle on it. So I think it was a great episode but perhaps not the most accessible episode 1. If we had started with a universal crisis like the whiteout in Ep 3 we would have made life much easier for ourselves. And I think the two opening eps would have worked better as a 90-minute pilot as you and others have suggested.

Creatively there's not a great deal I'd want to change with the series as a whole. To get more viewers we could have obviously upped the action and pacing although it's not something I was itching to do. I think the later episodes are gripping, interesting and emotionally intense and luckily I can still find a few people who agree with that! I love Episode 8 -- it's one of the favourite things I've written and a huge credit to the director Jamie Payne. When Cass explains to Fleur about watching footage of the Srebrenica massacre on earth (his memory of the kid with the rabbit is from a real image that never fails to distress me) I think you would simply have to be a heartless, unimaginative twat not to be moved. Obviously it cuts across giving comfort to Nick Griffin but I can live with that.

Official word is expected soon, although it's very unlikely the BBC will recommission Outcasts. [Update: it has been axed.]

I'm sad there won't be a Series 2 as we had lots of great stories and new characters. We had some exciting writers lined up too and I think it would have become a seminal TV show. I really do think that -- it was obvious from the growing appreciation of the show, just check the Twitter and Facebook responses now, that the early hate-mob had been left far behind. That's partly our fault for not drawing people in more quickly -- I won't deny that -- but there are lessons too for those who stamp with such drearily obvious glee on newborn shows. The fact is that the show had a moral concern and an emotional core that is lacking in so much TV these days and I think it was growing in confidence to tell those stories.

Now it's gone and what will replace it? The flip self-aggrandising negativity that is so in vogue -- but which I think many people are really tired of now -- was brutally applied to Outcasts at the beginning. Luckily, I think it was strong enough to withstand that onslaught and -- schedule change notwithstanding -- emerged with both dignity and a group of fans who understood and admired what we were trying to do. I'm still really proud of it and the questions it tackled. I'd make changes -- of course I would -- but I will never look back on it with anything but pride for the show and admiration for the dedication of all of those who worked on it. Anybody can write a 300-word sneer; not everybody can do what our brilliant team did -- and create a whole new world for the imagination.

The Outcasts DVD/Blu-ray box-set is released on 4 April 2011. You can pre-order now from Amazon, Play.com and HMV. You can also read my archive of Outcasts reviews here.

'OUTCASTS' 1.8

It's the end of the road for this maligned sci-fi drama, and what a rocky journey it's been. The cruel thing is that this finale was Outcasts' most assured and confident hour, for a number of reasons: there was stronger use of Julius Berger (Eric Mabius), who finally embraced his villainy without pussyfooting around; a surprise development with Fleur (Amy Mason) discovering she's a unique breed of AC, created as part of an "Omega Project", which makes her a more interesting presence; a clearer threat posed by the alien "host force" as they attacked Forthaven with a new strain of a deadly virus; fun scenes of political maneuvering with Tate (Liam Cunningham) and Stella (Hermione Norris) trying to protect the presidency from the devious Berger's clutches; and the climactic arrival of another transport ship full of evacuees loyal to Berger, which throws a fresh angle onto the whole situation. A situation that will never be explored, as Outcasts vanishes into a black hole...

Some of episode 8's solid character development should have come earlier, as the things that intrigued me about Outcasts were rarely character-driven. Frightening whiteouts, alien doppelgangers, excavated skeletons – those all helped keep me watching, but very little about the characters themselves drew me back. If Fleur had proactively discovered she was an AC (rather than be told by people) a few weeks ago, perhaps after sensing she was different to everyone else, that would have been more interesting. If the story had revealed that Cass (Daniel Mays) was once a hitman for Mexican/Russian cartels around episode 5, that would have made me more anxious and interested whenever he interacted with people. But those moments, and others, arrived too late in the game.

Berger was introduced well in episode 2 (a harbinger of doom, descending from the skies), and I found his belief in a Universal Spirit and an undertone of pedophilia simmered away quite nicely for awhile, although I'd have like to have known more about what ordinary Forthavenites thought of him. Berger gathered a clique overnight, but the show didn't tackle the idea of Berger as a dangerous spiritual leader in a society that's perhaps become very secular. I mean, the people of Forthaven have experienced a literal end-of-the-world event, so wouldn't there be some incredibly juicy stories to tell about how people's view of a benevolent God has changed. Outcasts had a religious angle at its disposal. and a few storylines felt quite Biblical in nature, but it never seemed to outright tackle them.

Tate practically invited trouble by letting Berger have an official role at Forthaven and get away with making disruptive speeches to the populace. It was all too easy for Berger. Maybe Berger could have risen to prominence by rigging an official election, or blackmailing important people on the council to undermine Tate? If only to have given him something to do and achieve in the preceding episodes, other than whisper poison into dopey Jack's (Ashley Waters) ear and eventually lynch an AC.

Still, Eric Mabius improved in this finale; suddenly allowed to get serious in his quest to usurp Tate, manipulate Stella (his weakness), resume flirting with Stella's teenage daughter, continue brainwashing Jack, threaten Fleur (whom he assumedly believes doesn't have a soul?), and feed his orbiting comrades misinformation. It's just a shame he didn't feel very active in the show between his arrival and the finale, as it was good fun seeing him scramble for the presidency once Tate relinquished it to Jack, in a masterful move.

One thing I don't think worked with Outcasts was how episodes would introduce hitherto unseen characters, put them through an hour's drama, to never be seen again. Namely, the woman with her difficult pregnancy, the wife suffering domestic abuse, the mother replaced by an alien duplicate, and others. It would have worked better if these were people who had come to know, or who hung around in some capacity. The finale avoided that by putting Tipper's (Michael Legge) life in danger when he caught the alien virus, which was a wise move. We know enough about Tipper to feel some sympathy for his plight and, while I wasn't exactly desperate to see him survive, it helped the drama having a familiar face going through this life-and-death situation.

There was also far better opportunities for good character moments, which brought the best out of the cast. Daniel Mays was great in the scene where he admitted to Fleur he used to kill people (his story of a little boy clutching a rabbit was a highlight), Ashley Waters had something more interesting to play as he came to realize that Tate's preferable to Berger (despite their differing views on some issues), Hermione Norris looked more interested in the events playing out with the virus and Berger, and Amy Manson delivered good work as she realized she's a next gen AC, although the script had her character accept this fact rather too easily. There was a sense of things being rushed in the home run, which didn't help. This should really have been a two-part tale.

There was evidently misplaced confidence in this being a finale with a future, as it left so many plot-threads dangling. The abiding thought you'd left with is that Outcasts started to find some shape and confidence in its final episode, setting up a second series that might have hit the ground running now everything's been laid out. Fleur as an emissary of Forthaven, living in the AC society; Forthaven defending itself from the alien menace; people loyal to Berger arriving to remove Tate from office. The writers could have responded to the criticism and done something about the easily-fixed issues.

Overall, Outcasts wasn't a great show and clearly didn't click with audiences, but it improved steadily after its third episode and might have found its footing in a notional second series. I don't think there was one killer reason the show didn't work: it was felled by a thousand different paper cuts. Inflated audience expectations, sci-fi nerds huffing about the lack of tech porn, some weak characters, a premiere that didn't explain the concept enough so people could get a handle on it, and other concerns I've mentioned in the past. But it was also ambitious for a primetime BBC drama, the design and cinematography was very strong, its cliffhangers singlehandedly refueled your interest, Liam Cunningham raised the material with minimal effort, and some of its ideas (while a little shopworn in the genre) were developed nicely.

A flawed series that didn't succeed with the mainstream (as intended), but not quite the god-awful insult to science fiction many people were claiming in its early weeks. We can agree it knocks spots off The Deep, at any rate!

Now it's over, what did you think of Outcasts in general, and this finale in particular?

Asides

• Why are the people aboard the CT10 transport ship so loyal to Berger and trust the reports he sends back to them about Tate's failure to lead? More importantly, why did they keep their presence a secret from Carpathia?
• Transport ships are prefixed CT, just like viruses. What's that about? What does "CT" even stand for? "Carpathian transport" makes sense, but in the case of viruses? One day a transport ship's going to arrive with the same designation as a virus, so that'll be confusing!

written by Ben Richards / directed by Jamie Payne / 13 March 2011 / BBC One

'OUTCASTS' 1.7

It's not great sci-fi, but it can be decent drama. Ironically, episode 7 was the most down-to-earth episode of Outcasts yet, but that worked in its favour. I'm sure many sci-fi fans will disagree (vehemently, for those still opining the absence of futuristic off-road vehicles), as this week's storyline wasn't tinged with anything particularly imaginative -- but it was the first time the show seemed to fill its 60-minute runtime without too much slack, while Daniel Mays and Amy Manson suddenly came to life.

Earlier in the series, it was teased that Cass (Mays) either isn't who he claims to be, has a particularly scandalous past only Tate (Liam Cunningham) knows about, or both. You're not along if you'd forgotten about that. Episode 7 picked up the idea, with Cass receiving an anonymous handwritten note ("I know who you really are - be in touch soon") which immediately turned him into a paranoid mess. While drowning his sorrows at the bar, Cass was approached by an attractive woman calling herself Faith (Claire Keelan), whom he slept with, only to catch her stealing his gun from the next morning. Even worse, during the theft Faith glimpsed official documents that belong to Cass, proving his real name is Tom Starling. Is Faith the woman who sent him the taunting note? If so, is she going to blackmail him? And why did she steal his gun?

Meanwhile, Tate encountered an alien double of himself in his room, which threatened the inhabitants of Forthaven with the same fate that befell the indigenous hominids. Bang goes my theory that the alien intelligence and the skeletons are actually the same species from opposite ends of the evolutionary ladder! Resolving to make contact with the aliens and get a chance to settle any misunderstanding, Tate ventured into the mountains alone, believing that AC leader Rudi (Langley Kirkwood) might be able to help him broker a lasting peace. It was almost a Biblical subplot, with a leader of men walking a solitary mountain path, to commune with the "Gods" who take the form of his dead children, encountering the "slaves" he had condemned to death.

However, the emphasis of the story was on Cass, as he was forced to investigate himself after "Faith" (aka Carla Shapiro) was reported missing by her husband (Adrian Bower) and eye witnesses came forward with accounts of Carla running away from someone matching Cass' description. Mays was a lot stronger in this episode than he's been till now, possibly because he seems miscast as a tough law enforcer but can play scared and desperate very well. It was good fun watching Cass struggle to keep the lid on his secret; trying to find Carla before Fleur, which meant having to duck out of certain situations with the official investigation before his cover's blown. The situation also reminded me of Dexter, which often has its lead character caught in the midst of a police investigation he's secretly embroiled in and trying to solve from a different angle.

The similar approach worked well here, with the burgeoning Cass/Fleur relationship also feeling more substantial and believable, as it's previously carried the whiff of brother/sister camaraderie. They're not exactly a great romantic couple, but the actors seemed to appreciate getting relatable material to tackle, and the threat of their nascent romance being nipped in the bud was heartfelt. Both actors delivered their best work on the show.

Always good to see Claire Keelan, too. She's one of those actresses who can bounce from comedy to drama with seemingly little effort, and it's a shame she's never landed a regular role in a big hit show. Nathan Barley, No Heroics, The Trip, Outcasts -- all benefited from having her around, but she has a knack for choosing projects that are cruelly short-lived. She played the role of Carla nicely -- going from apparent femme fatale to beaten housewife. The script perhaps didn't make her story into anything truly compelling, but it would have been a mistake to take the focus off Cass and onto another guest-star we'll never see again, so I didn't mind the emphasis being on Cass's personal and professional turmoil.

Overall, Episode 7 had a good central story that perhaps should have come a few weeks earlier -- if only to turn Cass and Fleur into stronger presences on the show. My biggest complaint is that, for a penultimate episode, it wasn't very thrilling and didn't leave me gasping to see the finale. Even the mystery of the note sent to Cass was explained as coming from Berger (Eric Mabius), acting on information supplies to him by the CT10 transport ship, but the reasoning appeared to be primarily for mischief.

Still, there are enough storylines in play to make for a good finale -- although it's doubtful everything can, or will, be answered before Outcasts disappears into the ether.

Asides

• If you're keeping score, last week's episode of Outcasts (the first in its new Sunday night slot) grabbed 1.52m, down from the previous Tuesday's 2.70m, and way down on the premiere's already disappointing 4.5m.
• I'm surprised by how big Forthaven looked from a new, high angle here. It's a veritable sprawling city. You didn't get that feeling from the early episodes, but since episode 4 the show has done a better job establishing the scale of the place with CGI assistance.
• Is the alien intelligence indigenous to Carpathia? If they are, that doesn't make much sense to me. So they shared the planet with those hominids for millennia, then had a war and annihilated them? Maybe. But is it feasible that a planet would have two such very different, sentient species cohabiting on it? What kind of evolution created that circumstance? It would make more sense if the alien intelligence are refugees like the humans, who settled on Carpathia and exterminated the native people. But why have they waited 10 years before setting their sights on Forthaven? And why do they have no quarrel with the AC's? Is it the AC's who told the aliens that Tate's people are a threat?
• Why did none of the eye witnesses recognize Cass by name? He appears to be one of only two PAS officers looking after the 70,000 Forthavenites!
• I was preparing a theory that the aliens killed Forthaven's children with a virus because they need young human bodies to survive in. Does that sound feasible? Why else would they only kill the kids?

written by David Farr / directed by Jamie Payne / 6 March 2011 / BBC One

'OUTCASTS' 1.6

It's tough reviewing Outcasts. It has such a dreadful reputation (now dumped to Sunday nights in the wake of dismal Monday/Tuesday ratings), but I do see positive flashes. The problem is that everything good about Outcasts is undone by the indolent pacing and wishy-washy characters, that suck the life out of everything. I'm interested in a fair few story elements (particularly the presence of an alien intelligence on Carpathia), but the means to explore that is the characters I feel no affinity for. It's a TV show where reading a recap may be equally as entertaining, or perhaps preferable because it wouldn't take a solid hour.

Episode 6 was actually pretty good, by and large. It began with the two-day disappearance of three XP's (Hunter, Johnson and Docherty), whom we later learn were sent on a black ops mission to assassinate the AC's leader Rudi by Jack (Ashley Walters) and Berger (Eric Mabius), who's evidently intolerant of the threat posed by those genetically-engineered pariahs. The mystery thickened with the surprise return of Josie Hunter (Juliet Aubrey, reprising her role as Helen Cutter on Primeval) to Forthaven, claiming to have survived an AC attack. Josie was swiftly reunited with her three children, who quickly began to sense that their mother has "changed". Indeed, the audience were several steps ahead of writer David Farr in forming the hypothesis that Josie isn't the real Josie, but another example of the corporeal "hallucinations" Tate (Liam Cunningham) has been seeing of his dead children.

There was undoubted fun and anxiety whenever fake-Josie was on-screen, with Aubrey doing a great job as the off-kilter version of the mother her kids know and love. A moment when Tate spied on Josie, seeing her make random expressions and arm gestures, as if practicing human interaction, was genuinely unsettling. However, everyone's reaction to the fact an alien changeling has sneaked into Forthaven was disappointingly flat: Tate barely reacted, Stella (Hermione Norris) feels more detached than Josie at times, and Cass (Daniel Mays) just went with the flow. Part of the fun when you include aliens is seeing how people react to their presence, as the audience at home want to vicariously experience the thrill and fear, but Outcasts did a poor job in that respect.

The simultaneous drama with the pregnant wife of a missing XP, having to give birth without her husband, was of mixed success. It was another example of the show asking us to care about a character we haven't met previously (or if we have, I've forgotten), and the dilemma at the heart of the situation was a very old one (the baby survives and the mother dies, or vice versa). You'd be inhuman if you didn't care to some extent, but I wish this character had been someone we had a connection with.

One thing I want to praise is the marvelous direction by Andy Goddard, who gave this episode a notable boost visually. The scenery has always been beautiful, but it was particularly awesome here (a vista shot with a distress flare arching into the sky was gorgeous), there were some fantastic scene transitions (my favourite being one where Tate seemed to melt into the shadow of the next scene's corridor), and the tilting action shot of Stella running down a corridor was movie-quality stuff. The AC's were also far more threatening as a silent stealth force, burrowing into Forthaven to cause a blackout.

There's not much more to say about Episode 6, which was pretty basic in term of storytelling. I'm glad an alien presence on Carpathia is now confirmed, but slightly worried it's wandering into clichéd territory of the aliens being fascinated by the human concept of love. I'm also unconvinced by Tate's speculation that these aliens caused the genocide of the hominids that used to live on Carpathia, and have similar plans for them. I'm sticking to my theory the hominids WERE the aliens, in a less-evolved form.

Overall, we only have two episodes left of Outcasts, with little possibility of a second series. It seems to be building towards Berger and Jack mounting a coup d'état, with Stella forced to choose between the two ideologies they represent, the arrival of a CT10 transport full of people who appear to be on Berger's side, not to mention the wider issue of the vengeful AC's and the ambiguous nature of the aliens. That sounds like it might be a heady concoction, so fingers crossed Outcasts at least ends on a high note. It's a shame the first three episodes were so tedious and the characters just haven't been very strong, as the core ideas behind this show are decent -- if derivative of other TV shows, films, and novels that tackled the same broad subject-matter with greater skill.

Asides

• I see from this episode that Forthaven has a prayer room. I was under the impression religion was frowned upon in this show's future, hence the friction between secular Tate and spiritual Berger, but clearly I was wrong.
• Not that I want to see more of them, but the lack of Stella's daughter Lily and genius/DJ Tipper in recent weeks hasn't gone unnoticed. Hopefully, if they're still of relevance, they'll figure into the remaining two episodes more.
• Why did the AC's have to burrow into Forthaven? As last week proved with Pak, you can simply walk through the gates and grab yourself a drink at the local bar.
• Juliet Aubrey didn't bring her impressive cleavage over from Primeval, more's the pity, but her character really could have just wandered over from that show.

written by David Farr / directed by Andy Goddard / 27 February 2011 / BBC One/HD

'OUTCASTS' 1.5

It's the snail's pace that keeps killing my enthusiasm. I liked the idea behind this lyrical fifth episode, but because it boiled down to a long trek through an empty wilderness with three characters (two of whom you don't really care about) you felt every second of the hour passing. It doesn't help that the alien world of Carpathia is, for reasons of premise and budget, a beautiful but unexciting place of unending vistas, with the occasional binary moon. This journey at the heart of this episode needed bigger incidents to keep things fresh and tighten the trio's dynamic as they struggled through obstacles, but not enough really happened in that respect.

This week, a bearded Scottish stranger calling himself Pak (Gary Lewis) arrived at Forthaven with a pouch full of glistening diamonds, getting himself into a bar brawl with Jack (Ashley Waters) and some locals before disappearing, chased by PAS officers Fleur (Amy Mason) and Cass (Daniel Mays). It soon became clear that the unkempt outsider is one Patrick Baxter, the first person to step foot on Carpathia; an expeditionary man presumed dead but who's actually been living for 11 years at the coast, which Forthavenites avoid because they've been told the ocean is dangerously radioactive. After hearing about their community's visitor, Stella (Hermione Norris) decided to track Fleur and Cass across the wilderness with the help of Jack, believing the ocean holds the key to explaining the discovery of hominid skeletal remains on Carpathia.

At one point Jack suggests to Stella "you need to think less; that'll make life easier", and that's good advice for the viewers at home. There are just so many questions Outcasts throws up every week. Individually they're minor quibbles, but collectively they punch holes through the show's reality. How did Pak just wander into Forthaven's open gate? Aren't they protecting their perimeter from possible AC attacks these days? Why does anyone care about diamonds, if they can't be used or exchanged as currency on Carpathia? Why does nobody recognize Patrick Baxter, who's obviously a very famous figure in human history? Why were Stella and Jack so unimpressed when they found the beach that turned Cass and Fleur into excited kids? Are Cass and Fleur the only PAS officers in Forthaven? Why did Pak opt to stay away from Forthaven for 11 years after he landed? Why would people believe the oceans are radioactive? As it's not true, who told them they were? Was Stella expecting to find unearthed skeletons at the beach? Admittedly, there may be answers to some of these questions, and a few may even be intentional clues towards something Outcasts has up its sleeve for the finale, but in the moment some of these head-scratchers can be very irritating.

To be positive, the focus on two connected storylines avoided the rambling that seeped into earlier episodes, and Gary Lewis was excellent as the archetypal wise old man trying to broaden two people's horizons -- literally and figuratively. He brought a great deal of interest to a fairly sketchy character. The fact Pak was dying and on something of a reverse pilgrimage also gave the episode some heft and, later, some emotional spark. The fact Pak has been "hallucinating" his dead golden retriever also subtly developed the storyline with Tate (Liam Cunningham) seeing visions of his dead children. It seems likely the planet is somehow capable of generating these illusions, giving it a similarly mystical vibe to the Island on Lost. Or is it more Solaris? I'm not sure if Outcasts was created with an eye on Lost and Battlestar Galactica, but it certainly resembles a loose fusion of those two shows in some areas. If Pak's dog had been called Vincent, it would be case closed.

Still, Outcasts has delivered decent cliffhangers that keep me coming back, and this episode's felt particularly game-changing, as we saw Julius Berger (Erica Mabius) open a communication device in his quarters and make contact with transport ship CT10, with a warning that Tate's losing control of the mission. I guess it's not totally shocking to realize there's another batch of emigrants on the way to Carpathia (these transport ships probably leave Earth at a regular evacuation pace), but Berger's words could be construed as meaning he knows Tate has a specific "mission" beyond leading these people. Or is he just trying to subvert people's faith in Tate so he can assume control? Why is his codename "Alchemist"?

Overall, episode 5 was pretty good, although it's beginning to feel that Outcasts is skilled at making you ask questions, and not much else. And are we asking questions out of desperation to find form and reason to the show? How many of these questions did the writers intend us to be asking every week, and how many are just shrewd viewers noticing gaping plot-holes? I just hope Outcasts has a satisfying answer for the core mysteries in play (the skeletons, the fossils, Tate's hallucinations, Berger's plan), and the majority is answered by episode 8. I think it's safe to assume Outcasts won't be renewed for a second series by the BBC, so will it leave us with a maddening cliffhanger? That does seem likely, to me, as there's a lot to cover in three episodes if they intended a largely self-contained miniseries.

Asides

• In case you didn't hear, in the face of bad ratings the BBC are pulling Outcasts from its 9pm Monday night timeslot. It will now air on Sundays at 10.25pm for the remaining three weeks.
• Pak told a story of an AC called "Tigger99" who was actually the first person sent down to Carpathia, back when they weren't sure if the environment could sustain life. Tigger was a character in the Winnie The Pooh books by A.A Milne. He was also a tiger, which is the animal Mitchell's son was obsessed with in episode 1. Coincidence? Or is this a clue to something..?
• Does anyone else think Outcasts would work a lot better if Forthaven had been around for 30-50 years instead of a mere 10? It would have been much better if Baxter had landed on Carpathia as a young man, and was now aged. The decadal gap appears to have been decided on because they want to show the growing pains of a community, but I still think it would be better if Forthaven had been around a great deal longer. I think the planet needs some human history behind it, beyond the AC situation: like other aborted communities, splinter groups, nomads, mineral mines, a prison, stuff like that.
• What was on the stone Stella found on the beach, that she described as "a time machine"? An etched drawing of something? A fossil?

written by Ben Richards & Jimmy Gardner / directed by Andy Goddard / 21 February 2011 / BBC1/HD

'OUTCASTS' 1.4

Largely freed of the need to "world-build" and introduce characters, episode 4 was markedly the best hour of Outcasts yet. It was able to tell a simple story without too many dull subplots, because the groundwork's been laid and everything established. This episode, written by Jack Lothian, was still a little sluggish in places, but I blame the hour-long runtime BBC drama's expected to fill. Most TV writers seem to have a natural rhythm for a commercial 40-minutes, as every episode of Outcasts would be improved by removing a third.

In this installment, a burly "AC" called Elijah (Nonso Anozie) collapsed on the perimeter of Forthaven, where he was taken into custody by Cass (Daniel Mays) and Fleur (Amy Mason). Tate (Liam Cunningham) was quietly grateful the defection of Elijah from his people means they now have an adult AC for testing, to aide their research in determining why the supposedly infertile AC's have been able to procreate in the wild. However, after the mentally-unstable Elijah broke free and accidentally killed a cleaner (shades of Frankenstein, no?), Tate ordered Cass and Fleur to recapture him before Forthaven's population realize there's an errant AC in their midst. Unfortunately, Lily (Jeanne Kietzmann) is feeding community radio DJ Tipper (Michael Legge) intel straight from her mother Stella (Hermione Norris).

As I said, the simplicity of this episode's story was key, as it was much easier to focus on the story and simply enjoy the flourishes around it. In particular, flashbacks via Elijah's suppressed memories revealed that Tate was aware nasty experimentation was being performed on the AC's before they were so cruelly sent to their intended deaths. A big part of Outcasts is the ambiguity over who the villains are on the show (Tate's regime or the feral AC's), and with every passing episode it seems that Tate's who we should actually be condemning. Of course, nothing's black-and-white, and the show benefits from asking us to question Tate's morals. He may have been wrong about the AC's being the carriers of the deadly C23 disease, but the virus did vanish the moment they were packed off to be killed by Mitchell. Coincidence?

Divisions are also forming within Forthaven. Obviously there's the ideologically opposed views of secular Tate and religious Berger (Eric Mabius), but it's becoming clearer that Fleur's siding with the plight of the AC's, jobsworth Cass has decided to stay loyal to Tate, and Jack (Ashley Walters) is revealed to have been secretly allied with Berger, who is promising regime change. I'm not sure what Berger's opinion of the AC's is, which will hopefully become clearer in the episodes to come. As cloned humans, are they part of the Universal Spirit he follows, or unholy aberrations he'd want to annihilate?

Episode 4 was also more blatant with the weirdness surrounding Tate, regarding the hallucinations he's been having of his two dead sons. There were two creepy sequences here: incorporeal laughter in Tate's bedroom, a child's hand print on a kitchen worktop, and the final scene with Tate outside Forthaven's gates actually watching the ghosts of his children play. It still seems likely Tate's going crazy (his final words "just don't leave me yet" could refer to his kids, but perhaps also his sanity?), although there remains the possibility something supernatural is going on. Carpathia's an alien world, so who knows what affect the environment is having on the human mind. Or are Tate's reverie's related to overuse of Stella's Deep Brain Visualization machine, which seem to provoke highly-detailed memories in subjects?

I was also pleased to see this episode gave us a broader view of Forthaven, particularly when Elijah was being pursued across the town's rooftops. The use of CGI to expand the world worked nicely, together with more original sets, and for once it felt like the scale of the place was more tangible. We even had a nice throwaway comment from Cass about pioneer Patrick Baxter, the first man to set foot on Carpathia, whose shuttle is now part of Forthaven's architecture. It's superficial detailing some would argue, but you kind of need that stuff to sell the reality.

Overall, this was a decent episode of a series that, you have to admit, is getting incrementally better every episode. I was particularly taken with Jack's discovery of a fossilized human jawbone in the ground outside Forthaven as his team were laying water pipes. Human have been on Carpathia thouands of years before? How can that be? To be honest, there are similarities here to Battlestar Galactica, if the answer ends up being that humanity started on Carpathia and we actually left to colonize Earth millennia ago, but maybe there's another explanation. Either way, Outcasts suddenly got interesting and I find myself slightly anticipating the fifth episode.

What did you make of this episode? A turning point? Proof the show just needed time to find its feet? Or is this still a smorgasbord of ideas stolen from other shows, in your opinion?

Asides

• After next Monday's episode, the BBC have announced they're moving Outcasts to a new timeslot for its remaining three episodes: Sunday, 10.35pm. This comes after episode 4 only attracted 2.6m viewers (down from the 4.4m who watched episode 1), although it was facing a particularly competitive evening with ITV1's coverage of The Brits and Channel 4's wildly popular Big Fat Gypsy Weddings.
• It just occurred to me: where are the female AC's? If they've produced a baby, surely there must be women. But I can't recall seeing any in Rudi's team! Is that an important clue about something? Is the baby not of AC origin?
• There are cleaners employed at Forthaven? Obviously this is an important job that needs doing, but you have to wonder how humble cleaners managed to get one of the precious tickets to Carpathia! Or are the cleaners actually Nobel prize winners and quantum physicists on some kind of agreed rota?
• I liked the comment from Tate that every time planted seeds fail to germinate on Carpathia, they're losing entire species of plant life. A clever reminder of how precious everyday things are on this world.

written by Jack Lothian / directed by Omar Madha / 15 February 2011 / BBC1/HD

'OUTCASTS' 1.3

The third episode of Outcasts again walked that line between tediousness and mild perkiness, eventually delivering the show's best half-hour once this week's deadly "whiteout" storm hit Forthaven. Ironically, everything felt more relaxed and settled than the previous two episodes, but it still suffers if you give anything more than cursory thought.

There are still too many times when you stop to wonder why, for example, the outcasts don't have any form of transport. Then you remember it’s probably because high-tech buggies are beyond the production's budget, which is likely stretched given the location filming in South Africa and erecting large standing sets. It's a shame, but it wouldn't matter if the characters and drama were so absorbing you didn't have time to contemplate transportation issues. But I still find most of Outcasts' characters underwhelming, with the possible exception of President Tate -- partly because Liam Cunningham's voice and mannerisms are naturally captivating, but also because he's the focus of the show's best element: the weird hallucinations Tate suffers regarding his dead children. This week, Tate discovered a drinking cup his kids used, resting on the ground outside Forthaven, only for us to realize it's all in his head. I suppose that explains episode 2's memorable moment, when a picture Tate's kids drew revolved on his table of its own accord. Is the President cracking up?

Anyway, episode 3 concerned the discovery of scientific data from a Professor Rosen, who died on the transport ship before he could deliver his calculations to Forthaven in person. Julius Berger (Eric Mabius) instead brought the late professor's research to Stella's (Hermione Norris) attention, and she had genius-turned-DJ Tipper Malone (Michael Legge) decipher the complex mathematics, deducing the professor was predicting a devastating period of "whiteout" storm activity. How could Rosen have predicted such an event, having spent years aboard a transport ship without ever having set foot on Carpathia? Don't ask. In the future, scientists can apparently forecast weather patterns of distant planets. Why couldn't Rosen communicate his findings to Carpathia from the transport ship when it was in orbit? Don't ask.

Meanwhile, Fleur (Amy Mason) was tasked to hand the Advance Cultivars' (AC's) baby back to their grim-faced leader Rudi (Langley Kirkwood), after her people's bungled handover with hostages Cass (Daniel Mays) and Jack (Ashley Walters) last time; and Stella made slow progress with her sulky teenage daughter Lily (Jeanne Kietzmann). The take-home here was that Rudi is clearly fond of Fleur, making her the ideal emissary of Forthaven, although Rudi still mistrusts the community that tried to have his people killed. For some reason it didn't click with me that most Forthavenites don’t know the AC's exist (Tipper spoke of people beyond the settlement like it's an urban legend), but that became clearer here, leading to the moment when Tate admitted everything to his citizens. Hopefully there will be repercussions and questions asked about all that, as nothing really happened here, because everyone was focused on the approaching whiteout. I'm still a little confused about why Forthaven's scientists would create the AC's (cloned humans, better able to cope with Carpathia's environment) and not tell anyone what they were doing? Why the secrecy? And is Carpathia really so inhospitable that you'd bother creating another sub-species? Was slavery intended?

I feel like I'm asking a lot of questions about Outcasts, which is the curse of an inquisitive mind. I suppose that's a good sign in some ways, but it's also evidence that Outcasts has holes in its premise, or just hasn't explained things well enough for answers to have stuck in my memory. The weird thing is that the premise is sublimely simple: humans living on an alien world together, struggling to build a utopian society now they've been given a second chance. So why aren't the flourishes and details just as lucid?

Still, I enjoyed the subtlety of how the story introduced the idea Forthaven's a secular society, with Tate worried that Berger will use an opportunity he's given to calm citizens to preach a religious message. Indeed, it was an opportunity Berger couldn't resist; calming everyone about the imminent whiteout with talk of his Universal Spirit again. This idea of Berger slowly ingratiating himself with Tate (he ends the episode with an invitation to join the general council) feels like a decent storyline to pursue; with Berger likely intending to become more popular than Tate and the figurehead of his religion. So has faith has fallen out of favour back on Earth? Were most people chosen to travel to Carpathia atheists? More questions, sorry.

What made this episode marginally better than episode 2 (if not quite better enough to justify a higher star-rating) was the handling of the whiteout in the second half. These whiteouts are quite puzzling phenomena (smoke-dust electrical storms caused by the gravitational pull of the planet's moons?), and have an unfortunate visual similarity to Lost's Smoke Monster, but Outcasts teased the threat well and delivered on the promise. I particularly liked the inclusion of real-life footage of mist pouring over some mountains, and the CGI for the whiteout thundering into Forthaven was great. It also reminded you of how large the settlement actually is (when CGI is employed), as the physical sets don't give you that feeling of expanse. I'd love to see more areas of Forthaven -- perhaps different districts with their own identities and points of view on Carpathia, Forthaven, and Tate's administration?

Overall, episode 3 wasn't a huge improvement, but it was an improvement. The only problem is the improvements had nothing to do with my attachment to the characters, which is proving the biggest obstacle to fully embracing Outcasts and accepting the BBC can't afford to "world-build" effectively. But, c'mon, would some restyled buggies have been too much to ask for? It was also very strange to include a subplot about Dr Trix (Fiona Button) and her imminent marriage to Leon (Jamie Sives), who got lost outside in the whiteout, because both characters have made zero impression, so it was impossible to care about them and feel any elation that they got married in the denouement. You need to earn those moments from audiences, but I don't even remember Trix from the preceding episodes.

What do you think about Outcasts so far? I know the general feeling online is that it's a damp squib, fuelled by brutal press reviews last week, but is anything about it working for you? Is there enough promise to make you continue watching? Is the fact it's only an 8-episode commitment the main reason you're sticking with it? Or do you think it's a good show just learning to walk, so best give it time?

written by Ben Richards / directed by Omar Madha / 14 February 2011 / BBC1/HD