Across the planet, the silver legions stand impassive in every city; mankind has sacrificed its freedoms for the sake of a distant conflict against its android creations, and now the price must be paid. On the streets, in the depths of space, a web of lies and deceit draws ever tighter, and the lines between human and android, between enemy and ally, are blurred. Only one choice remains – resist or surrender…
CYBERMAN 2: OUTSIDERS
Four years after the release of “Cyberman,” Nicholas Briggs’ Dalek Empire-like opus about the Doctor’s second most popular foes, the sequel finally arrived, appropriately titled “Cyberman 2.” Surprisingly, Briggs did not write it: “Kingdom of Silver” author James Swallow was given the miniseries, and his influence is apparent from the first moments of the story. When the first series ended, Briggs had traveled up a blind alley: we learned that there were thousands of Cyber tombs scattered throughout the galaxy, and countless millions of Cybermen waiting for the activation signal that would spark unstoppable conquest. There’s really nowhere to go from there, as such a force would easily overwhelm both humans and androids alike – so Swallow wisely papers over it and decides instead to tell a story of suspicion and paranoia, both on Earth and off. The questionable sexual politics of the previous series are smartly papered over as Barnaby (Mark McDonnell) and Samantha (Hannah Smith) are shown in an awkward yet developing relationship. I also enjoyed the introduction of Hazel Trahn (Jo Castleton), a cab driver that, unusually for Big Finish, actually convinces as a working class character caught up in a crumbling society. I also anticipate that Toby Hadoke’s character is going to end up going wildly over the top, as that’s how these stories go, but his performances always entertain me. Lastly, I’m not sure about the use of dramatic monologue for character development, but I’m willing to be convinced. Mostly, I enjoyed “Outsiders” because it discarded the increasingly silly action movie tropes of the Briggs series in lieu of a quieter, more oppressive storyline.
Recommended.
7/10
“Only one choice remains – resist or surrender”
So, two choices then?
No. It’s still only one choice as it’s one or the other, because you can’t choose both and you can’t choose more than once. To be absolutely precise it’s one choice with two options.
But then you could say that about almost anything, and it therefore becomes meaningless. You may only be able to pick one, but there are definitely n>1 choices. And it there is only one, it isn’t a choice – I don’t choose to eventually die, yet it will happen.
I agree with you that when a choice is presented that is not really a choice at all then it is as ridiculous as thinking you can have a choice over ultimately dying. Pretending you have a choice when you have none is obviously not a choice at all.
Resist or surrender is a choice though and, more to the point, can be done while still alive. Either outcome can be chosen and as long as both work the choice is genuine.
However, in this case it is ironically the setup of the story itself and the way it left things at the end of series 1 – not the wording of the play’s description by Big Finish 🙂 – that has almost eliminated the very choice it presents, as Styre points out.
Still, not the first time a story didn’t match the headline.
An overwhelming force of Cybermen doesn’t give the story any choice or anywhere to go, it’s just a silly idea. Army invades, army wins, everyone else dies or get turned into Cybermen. The end.
It’s an unsatisfying way to do things because it declares an ultimatum as if it is inescapable, then immediately has to backpedal because otherwise there is no story. They did the same with the Divergent Universe, wrote themselves up a blind alley then had to frantically try and dig themselves out of the hole they had made for themselves.
Things don’t have to be the ultimate end of everything to be a threat. It’s overused. You don’t have to constantly try to out do yourself with sensationalist annihilation threat after sensationalist annihilation threat to create either a genuine threat or a good story, but sadly BF have followed this lamentable trend of overstatement for effect. Mass murder isn’t emotive enough so use genocide even if that means using the word incorrectly because the desire to over emote takes precedence over unimportant little things like what words actually mean. It gets tiresome fast.
It’s also not what the Cybermen are about. The Cybermen are a threat because they are always on the point of extinction and that is what makes them so dangerous, not because they are destined to be the ultimate force in the universe, a point which I believe Styre has made elsewhere and with which I agree. Like the Daleks they were never meant to be an overwhelming force but a warning about the damage such a force would do if it ever dominated. Dalek Empire 3 did the best job of showing us what a Dalek dominated universe would be like and ultimately ground to a halt as a story because of it.
Anyway, rather than getting hung up on absurd reductionism and endless sophistry about definitions I would prefer it if people kept their comments relevant to the actual play itself, to the actual concepts in them, to any differences of opinion they may have with any reviews so far and where they wish to share ideas or reviews of their own. And to keep it constructive, always. Thanks.