I presume you mean by the humans ?

Must of missed that, too busy gazing into Anita's green eyes.

Playing sentient synth Mia after regular synth Anita, has been one of Gemma Chan's strengths in my view.

Although the sentient synths are different from regular 'dollies' they are nonetheless still synths, so a certain amount of robotic behaviour would be expected. Their eyes are still green of course (Voss/Beatrice is the exception here and she really is a one off ... and of course Niska inserted blue haptic lenses when she first broke out) and they still have super strength - remember Fred at Hobb's house?

I don't think any of the other sentient synths has been portrayed as a regular synth, with the possible exception of Niska in the brothel, so the Anita/Mia persona has needed to be that much more convincing. I think Gemma Chan has done a really good job in this part.

You're in a massive minority there, fella!

Or maybe you've strayed across from another thread by mistake and haven't actually watched Humans at all!

Well we have loved this series sometimes I wonder whether we watch a different show to some of you though

The acting has been very suspect in places (mainly 'the family' and the Jill Halfpenny story - although Maskell is really good overall). To me, it seems very 'soapish' during those moments - with clunky and cliche dialogue.

However, pretty much all the actors playing synths are really good (very convincing too) and William Hurt is wonderful too.

I'm still enjoying the series but wish there was more sci-fi involved and less of this ropey drama.

I couldnt quite put a pin on my feelings, but that is exactly how I feel.

Yes, although I'm enjoying this show well enough, the story all seems to be very condensed in comparison to the original with quite a bit of corner cutting with the tale.

I appreciate that it is a fresh slant undertaken by different writers from the the original and it does stand alone in its own way, but I do miss quite a few of the vital elements from Real Humans that made it so entertaining and unique.

Whereas I've been glad that there hasn't been more sci-fi and that the focus has been on how the synths interact with humans, particularly in the family environment

For instance:

Laura's concerns over the introduction of the synth who could be a better mother to the children in all the practical ways

Joe treating her as a servant and an object

Sophie treating her as one of the family and not seeing her as a synth

Mattie only seeing her as a synth, a code to read, and then finding the humanity in her

Jill thinking that her synth could be better than her husband as a partner


I'd much rather this approach than the standard . . . Ooh robots are good! Oh dear, we have a rogue robot. Ooh robots are bad!

But those concepts were also covered in the original Swedish series anyway.

I think that the numbers tell the story with this show. In just over 2 months this thread has become the 5th largest thread on this forum - in terms of both replies and views. The four that beat it have been around for much longer (in two cases for years longer).

This show has generated a huge amount of interest and thought-provoking philosophical discussion so to dismiss it as clunky, cliche or perfunctory writing just seems way off base, to me.

Who cares what was covered in a version most of us won't get to see?

It doesn't make them any less worthy of merit in the version we're currently watching!

I wouldn't disagree.

I'm only sad to think that the original has been sold to many other countries but no tv channel in the UK had the sense to buy it.

Thanks, both. And for the review link - very interesting.

I have no issue if someone doesn't like the programme; I doubt there is a show that has been made that appealed to everyone, but I think the programme makers have been very clever in making something that appeals to the widest possible audience.

I speak as someone who has never posted on this sub-forum before, has never watched any sci-fi (nope not even ET or The Matrix) and, frankly loathes the genre - or did before this show. I tend to watch police dramas (Morse/Lewis/Endeavour) and BBC4 subtitled things (Wallander/Spiral (early series) / The Killing / Borgen) and selected other dramas (Casanova/State of Play / The Long Firm etc). It takes quite a lot to get me to watch a whole drama series as I much prefer to see live theatre but Humans interested me from the start. The production values remind me of some of the other dramas I have watched and enjoyed over the years and there are enough good actors to keep me watching from scene to scene. I'm not sure I've kept up with all the sci-fi stuff - but I've got enough to be able to follow the story (especially with help from this thread).

There will be those who think it shouldn't be on because there is an (apparently far superior ) Swedish version but how many viewers would that have got? It didn't last beyond two series in its own country so it wasn't that popular even there (not that popularity and quality are synonymous of course). C4 and the American co-producers have managed to make something that has captured a signficant proportion of usual sci-fi viewers AND has got viewers such me, someone who would normally knock over a lamp in my haste to get to off button at the mention of the genre.


I suspect they have done that on purpose for the reasons I have said. Any more sci-fi and they'd have lost the non sci-fi viewers like me.

@striing

What about Humans do you feel makes it appealing to as wide an audience as possible? I'm not disagreeing, as people in my circle are talking about it which is just unheard of with a telly drama. I watch next to no serials/drama, just the odd one will catch me like Black Mirror or Broadchurch.
Sucker for some good sci-fi, though.

I think it's just because it's a quality drama (ie good acting/directing/cinematography) with characters and a story that most people can relate to. The sci-fi stuff is part of it but it doesn't overtake it so much that you can't follow the relationships between the characters. It's captured the old fashioned art of story telling, revealing just enough to keep you wanting to know more at each stage.

For the non sci-fi viewers like myself, it also integrates the sci-fi bit into the story in an interesting way (eg the is she or isn't she with Voss for the early episodes).

I don't really buy the whole, you can re-create the human brain with computer code (not that I'd understand if if you could) but it doesn't matter as I can believe it within the parameters of the show. They have created the world exceptionally well by making it something so relatable with just the one sci-fi element.

It was actually very popular in Sweden as well as other the other 50 countries who bought the show.

Swedish viewers in particular who followed it were very disappointed that there wasn't a third season, especially given that there was a script already written. The Swedish channel stv cited budget funding problems. It was then determined that selling the show to Kudos/Channel 4 was the best way to go. It all came down to business decisions.

Believe you me, I am enjoying Humans, but it's difficult not to make comparisons if, like me, you've been lucky enough to have watched the 2 seasons of Real Humans.

I have to say I've really enjoyed this programme far more than I thought I would (hubby has been watching and I couldn't be bothered to go upstairs and watch something else). I've actually been eagerly awaiting the next week's episode. For me it has the right balance of sci-fi/drama and I like all the acting. My favourites are Gemma Chan and Katherine Parkinson.

I guess that's why they made the decision not to show it in the UK. I'd probably have given it a go if it was on but I've been able to enjoy the C4 one without feeling like it's second best. The fact that it's a world I recognise has also given it added value for me.

I haven't watched the swedish series; from what I can gather, Real Humans had a slightly broader scope and looked at societal consequences of Hubots (synths) as well as the familial. That's just an observation gleaned from synopses I've read tbh - whaddya reckon Gilly/Real Humans viewers? Or is that off-piste.

Who are you referring to in regards to the wooden acting?

You might get more responses if you post in the comparison thread. This thread was getting a bit derailed with 'the Swedish show is better' comments early on so the comparison one was set up. It's inevitable that comparisons come back in now it's nearly the end - but it's not quite the end yet!

Ooh ta, I'd forgotten about that thread. *nosies*

Don't want to worry all the fans, (I am one too).

But just been looking at the AMC Network (the co-commission partner with Channel 4) and the US ratings are catastrophic, first week 2.6 million, which is meagre by US standards, and later weeks not much more than a million. That is a turkey figure.

They will definitely not stump up the cash for a second series with Channel 4, the Americans just can't grasp the subtle plot.

And it is nearly 2 million pounds an episode to produce, that is a monster figure for Channel 4 on its own.