ITV have unveiled the first trailer for their new fantasy-adventure show, Demons, which was previously announced as The Last Van Helsing until Universal claimed a stupendously crappy CG mismash in cinemas several years ago gave them ownership of a 100+ year old literary character (which, seriously, is just about almost as stupid thing to do as making the movie in the first place).

Anyway, the series stars Philip Glenister, best known as the British version of Gene Hunt, stars as an American member of an ancient occult organization that arrives in England to seek out the latest in the bloodline destined to defend the world against vampires, demons and the supernatural (Christian Cooke, probably best known in these parts as Ross Jenkins in the Doctor Who Sontaran two-parter). They begin training to fulfill his destiny, all the while trying to keep the whole thing secret from his Mum.

...stop me if you've heard this one before...


Demons: Press Release and Trailer

Not only that, but the Van Helsing in the movie had a different first name, and thus wasn't the one from Stoker's book.

Anyway, sounds interesting. I'd love it if the mentor was just like Hunt. That would be funny.

Ah Christian Cooke. Will's brother.

The promo looks high-budget value. The monsters look pretty cool. I'll give this a chance if I come across it.

But, but...why does Philip Glenister have to be a bloody American?

Might tune in for godfather Gene, but they unabashedly put the words "Luke" and "destiny" next to each other, so you know, what Nuallain said.

Just to prove he could have accepted the offer to be Gene in the American Life on Mars, he just didn't wanna.

The premise seems a bit cookie cutter to me, but the trailer looks cool, and it gains bonus cool points for using The Automatics' Monster. I love that song.

Really sorry for setting up another thread. Looking forward to this. I read it's supposed to be airing in DW's timeslot as well.

I know nothing about British publishing laws in regards to the show not being able to call the main character a Van Helsing, but wouldn't the Van Helsing from the book be in the public domain by now anyways? Him and Dracula certainly are on this side of the pond.

Meanwhile, the premise certainly looks nice, though I'm worried about the acting chops on the Cooke fellow (random cute cannon fodder on Doctor Who didn't exactly require Emmy-level talent and other than that I've never heard of him).

I really hope this gets a US release of some kind.

Has any word been released on how many episodes each season will be? I'm personally hoping it's closer to Doctor Who's yearly episode count.

Sounds like he will still be called Van Helsing, but the name's not in the title of the show.

Aww, the thread title had me thinking the Harold Perrinau pilot from a couple years ago had finally been picked up.

This show has an airdate - January 3rd, 7.30pm.

Trailer ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8war3pSrQSo

Last Time Lord - the press release linked up thread said 6 x 60 minute episodes.

It looks like fun. I hope it makes it to the US too.

This looks like it's going to be great.

As for the episode count, would have liked more, but I can live with it.

It might get more if it performs well. I'm still not jumping but I'm thinking that with this, Doctor Who/Torchwood/The Sarah Jane Adventures, Primeval, Ashes To Ashes, Being Human, Merlin and Robin Hood, 2009 is going to continue with fantasy UK TV and I watch practically all of these shows religiously enough.

This should be really good. It sounds like it's copying off Buffy, but so long as it doesn't suck, I don't care.

"Ooh. Scary. My turn." Hee!

There's an interview with the cast and some behind the scenes stuff with the series in the latest issue of SFX magazine. Both Philip and Christian have some interesting quotes about the show.

Anyone else reminded of Reaper?

In what way?

Because I love Reaper, but I don't see any real comparisons between the two other than both focusing on the supernatural.

Just from the ordinary guy discovers he has to fight demons thing. Which is obviously not unique to Reaper, that's just the first thing to spring to mind. In reality, I doubt the shows will be very alike.

They showed quite a lengthy trailer for this when I went to see recent horror flick The Children at the cinema. Looked fun, if unoriginal.

I shamefully immediately recognised Christian Cooke from Echo Beach. Which I only watched like twice. I swear.

Looks like this Cooke fellow brings the pretty. I shall attend to it.

Is Cooke a good actor? I liked him on last season's Doctor Who Sontaran two-parter, but that's all I've seen him in.

He seems OK from what I've seen but I guess this series will be the deciding factor.

Oh, ITV. Why are all your cult shows so naff?

Well, Demons didn't make my blood boil like Primeval does, but blimey was that episode... not good.

For one, it just comes across as being cheap and lazy. Crap special effects (Mackenzie Crook's weird prosthetic nose that you could see his real nose underneath?), uninteresting camerawork and clunky directing really didn't help what was a pretty poor script in the first place - saying cliche lines and adding "you freak" on the end does not an intriguing character make.

Otherwise, it's just ripe for mickey taking to make it more enjoyable, with everyone's accents sliding all over the place and a hideously unlikeable female lead being chief concerns. I tried to itemise everything stupid and pretty much listed the whole episode, alas.

As always with these things, I'll watch again next week because it's an undemanding way to spend a Saturday night. But oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. Not good at all.

Hmmm. Buffy with Gene Hunt indeed.

I'll freely admit that I went into this expecting a low budget look because I'm well aware that US productions get a lot more money than British ones. For the most part, it lived up to those expectations. Nothing was TOO egregious, but there were a lot of little nibbling things. Such as the fact that it was clear that the director had no idea how to stage an action scene, and they couldn't really afford proper makeup for the Type 4s that jumped them in the alley.

But good god that nose was bad. How did nobody on set stand up and say that in no way did it look real? I mean, it's as bad as those stupid novelty classes with the nose and mustache. I was half-expecting to see a string attached to it. Then again, that shot of it dropping may mean it was supposed to look fake. Doesn't change the fact that it was majorly distracting.

In terms of the story, it really, REALLY suffered from something I call Pilotitis. Pilots have the unfortunate job of dumping a TON of exposition on the audience, sci-fi pilots especially, and Demons didn't exactly do the greatest job hiding it in the plot. In fact, most pilots are generally rubbish, IMO. Because of this I tend to give shows the benefit of the doubt for the first episode.

I think one of the major problems with the show is that it takes itself WAYYY too seriously. Buffy's major strength (beyond its sparkling dialogue) was simply that it knew when to balance the dramatic with the comedic. Now, let me be clear: I am not asking for camp. I DESPISE camp. But a little more light-heartedness wouldn't kill the proceedings.

I will say that they're kind of blatant in the Buffy rip-off. I mean, the mentor is named Rupert? Come on. Plus, you can see Mina as a total Angel analogue.

Overall, not as good as I hoped, but about what I expected. We'll see if they can improve. Of course, the short British series means that they'll have to improve FAST.

Last thing: Whoever told Philip Glenister that he could do an American accent is crazy.

Edited because I apparently have been watching too much Hustle lately.

I was sure from the start that the fake nose was supposed to look like, and be, a fake nose. Or some kind of cover-up. I've actually seen somebody wearing one of those after surgery or because she had some kind of major problem going on, and the plastic helped shield the real nose from further damage.

I will watch Philip Glenister stand against a brick wall and stare at the camera for two hours, and in most ways he didn't disappoint tonight, but, oh Phil! The accent! I think I caught at least three regions coming through in a single line, and not all of them were even American. It's to his credit that it got less irritating as it went on, not because the accent was any better but because I was having such fun watching for Gene-isms.

I really only decided to watch this last night because of Phil Glenister. Not sure how much I liked it yet. Pilots are always fairly exposition heavy and I've never had much faith in ITV's Sci-fi shows (I hate Primeval) but I am gonna be watching next week. I think the trailer for next week's episode looked better anyway.

Hated Mina but found myself quite enjoying the always-going-to-be-kidnapped sidekick.

And Philip was amazing as usual, despite the ridiculous accent.

I'm so glad I watched Doctor Who Confidential instead of this yesterday. Sheesh, it was pretty bad. I couldn't see much Buffy influence... whereas with Doctor Who the influence is extremely blatant but in the RIGHT ways. The worst thing about this Pilot was the dull direction and how fucking disjointed the episode was, one minute Luke is at the party with Ruby and the next cut is to them standing outside ready to leave? It was just really poorly put together, there was nothing interesting or particularly different about it.

Speaking of names and such, was naming that girl Ruby a Supernatural shout out? Seeing as SPN airs on ITV2 I wouldn't be surprised. Although SPN Ruby pawns this Ruby -- she was awful! I wanted to smack her most of the time she was onscreen. And I think it's safe to say she'll be the resident damsel in distress for the rest of the episodes!

I quite liked Luke although I was very distracted by his apparent Nate Archibaldness. The blind girl was sort of likeable. The Gene Genie ahh... yes the accent was quite bad in places.

Apparently, I am easily amused. Because I liked that, as far as pilot episodes go. Loved Mina actually, the icy coldness coming the actress (beautiful too) and Luke wasn't that bad...would hazard a guess that Christian Cooke will grow into the roll. The male version of the Hannah person in Primeaval in regards to walking around wearing little...

I thought the same, especially once it fell to the ground after the critter was (apparently) killed near the end.

Overall an entertaining diversion, but Gene's accent did irk me. It's not that it was bad (he sounded just like a relative of mine actually) it's just that U.K. and Aussie actors almost always lose a certain tonal quality to their voices when they do a U.S. accent. It makes mousie sad.

I thought so too, and how cheesy was the scene of Luke running to save her with the Kaiser Chiefs playing in the background. I nearly put my foot through the screen.

And...

Another SPN shout out was the ability to kill demons with a special gun and bullets (the bullets looked like the antibiotics I'm taking for a tooth abscess).

I just caught the repeat on ITV2. I wasn't impressed.

- Christian Cooke is cute and has been good in other stuff but he seemed a little wooden as Luke.

- Philip Glenister's US accent is going to bug me a lot. I like Rupert but that accent is going to take some getting use to.

- Ruby just bugs full stop. Nothing against the actress but the character was just too damn whiny for my liking.

- Mina however is worth the hour alone. I'm really liking Zoe Tapper. She made me sit through most of Survivors as well

- Mackenzie Crook kind of camped it up a bit too frequently as the main vampire and he was killed off too quickly. Plus it seems that the monsters on this show are easily killed and not that menacing.

- Some of the dialogue bothered me. Half the time, it came across as bad fanfic and I've written not so great fanfic myself.

I watched it. It was so-so. Rupert's accent was hard. At times I thought it was Irish. They need to shoot Mina better to better sell her blindness. Luke was OK. Show won't be my first choice yet.

Yeah, I didn't realize Mina was blind until they told me. And even then, I kept forgetting.

I take it most of you posting are in the UK? If so, greetings from Canada, where the pilot episode of "Demons" fell off the back of a truck last night called the internet; smile.

Despite its various faults & failings at times, I loved Buffy the Vampire Slayer. So too, Angel: The Series. And albeit unrelated to the Jossverse, I utterly adore CW's Supernatural; as damn good writing, that! I also loved a pilot which aired on BBC3 last year called "Being Human". And while it's more soft porn at times than I'd care to see, I liked season one of HBO's vampire series "True Blood".

All of which is to say, I've long since enjoyed the creepy/spooky/supernatural genre, and I'm always looking for a modern take on it; as adults like this genre too! And as one, all I've ever asked of a screen writer is to aim high enough to entertain me too.

Sadly, it seems the suits over at ITV are convinced the world contains only the likes and dislikes of 14 year old girls looking for another "cute guy" to project their fantasies onto. For based on the first episode, it's clearly aimed at teenage girls who won't care how bad a script is, as long as they've got someone to squeal over. You can tell as much via the casting: Christian Cooke is eye candy akin to an underwear model. I've never seen him before now, so if he can act I'll take your word for it. Though it was hard to tell - as the dialogue was so lame!

That said, I didn't like the pilot episodes for a lot of the series I ended up liking, so I'm willing to cut the production some slack while it finds its feet. But there's only 6 ep's so I'm not sure if there's enough time to, you know?

Because I live in Canada, it's always fun to see stuff shot outside of the States; as 99% of what we get to see, comes from Hollywood. So I'm less inclined to quibble over some of the observations posted in here about the locations and what have you; as I've never seen those places before - so they score points for sheer novelty. As did some of the sets - that underground lair with all the books - that was neat. And while some of the CGI and doggie make-up was cheesy, I did enjoy the demons as they made me laugh, but for being akin to a parody of baddies in a Dicken's novel. I recognized Philip Glenister from his work on other shows, but I wasn't especially impressed with his character Rupert; too one dimensional. Or any of the characters for that matter, for the same reason. Basically, the pilot plays more like an outline for a series - an appetizer as opposed to a meal. Note: Glenister's American accent was good enough to pass. Although Hugh Laurie and Damian Lewis do theirs better.

My main complaint with Demons is that it's obviously designed to appeal to ITV's targeted demographic. The sort of show a bunch of Network suits invariable green light in the wake of marketing research and based on what's currently popular. While at the same time, always with their eye on grabbing ratings - so don't be too dark or too creepy, don't offend, don't do this, that etc. And that's okay as long as the writing is strong - then you can get away with "aimed at teenagers" as there's enough there by way of subtext for viewers to intuit more's going on in between the lines, ya know? The way Whedon often did.

But this is just a flatter version of a Buffy wannabe. There's nothing going on, underneath the surface. Not yet, anyway. At least, Whedon had the theme of monsters as metaphors. But this... ? So far, it seems to be about not wanting to do a job you didn't sign up for. Zzzz. Although at least it's not as bad as "Twilight" - shudder.

Note: I've since learned that BBC3's "Being There" has been revamped, and they've reportedly changed some of the cast, including Guy Flanigan who played Mitchell (Vampire) with another guy who also looks like an underwear model. What a disappointment! Every time a show dares to be even a little different, some suit decides it's not mainstream enough. Sigh. Bad enough Showtime recently castrated "Dexter" in season 3 - is there no room anywhere anymore for something that doesn't pander to pedestrian interests?

I mean, why even bother? What's the point of doing a series about vampires or the creepy or supernatural, if you just water it down and homogenize the crap out of it? What's entertaining about looking at the surface of something?

Demons consequently wound up making me hungry for something better.

Well put. The same could be said of most dramatic and comedic TV today.

Does anyone know how this did for ratings because Doctor Who Confidential totally got 6.3 million viewers?

Great googly-moogly, this was bad. It made Primeval looks like a work of genius, which is pretty bloody scary.

I really wish ITV would just accept that Dr Who blows anything they could ever hope to produce out of the water and stop trying. It's not pretty, any of it. But if they must insist on churning out bilge masquerading cult telly, can they please stop casting actors I had previously really liked, nay, fancied? Primeval totally did for my crush on Douglas Henshall - much as he's the best thing in it by a country mile - and I'll lose all respect for Philip Glenister if I keep watching this.

Balls. I'll still give this a shot if it comes to Aust or once I get back to school where I have no download limit, but I'm looking forward to it less than I was. Is it at least fun, if not good?

Absolutely. Sad, isn't it?

I mean, I understand why it happens in the States; their Networks are essentially held hostage by the easily offended and those looking to be, aka: conservative minded viewers akin to Mary Whitehouse who find it easier to give lip service to tolerance, than actually share the planet.

And while I agree that there's a lot of gratuitous sex and violence to be found on television, it's also true that you need to take things in context and "think" about what you're watching. WHY is this or that happening, in a scene? What purpose does it serve? It is just there to shock and create a controversy for the sake of generating hype so people will tune in and watch? Or is it there to make you stop and think? And if all you do is stare at a reflection of your own morality in the guise of characters and storylines which never push you to examine and explore the behavior & choices of others, you'll never learn to see beyond the surface of life, let alone develop the social skills required to get along with people who are different from you. And that's what great writing does; it gives you something to think about!

No; you don't have to like everything you see. But it's also true that intolerant people are often in deeply denial about it and thus loathe to examine themselves less they discover ugly truths. And whenever a series is thought-provoking, why it tends to offend in the States - a byproduct of countless viewers being raised for decades on programming designed to entertain them, without asking them to think too much.

England, on the other hand, always struck me as being more open-minded and less knee-jerk, in that respect. And why it's sad to see the extent to which your networks seem to be pandering now to a similar demographic; the intellectually lazy. Ie: "we just want you to watch our shows". That's the bottom line. Watch our shows, so we can make revenue selling commercial air time.

And while I appreciate it costs millions to produce a show, so of course you want to see a return on your investment, how much money is ultimately flushed down the toilet each season by a Network in the wake of shows getting dumped when viewers don't watch them because they suck, eh?

And right now, as it stands, Demons sucks. Rupert is like a religious zealot, for God's sake. Die you bunch of freaks!

Corporate suits aren't artists and that's part of the problem. They can't see around corners. They can't imagine what people would like unless they've seen it succeed elsewhere, first. So they're always hedging their bets. Trying to copy something already tested and getting it wrong. If they've just leave artists alone to do their thing, they'd get the ratings they're looking for.

It's not my Network but if I controlled ITV, I'd have looked for something more akin to the original pilot for "Being Human". Mind you that said, BBC3 had it and THEY still managed to fuck that up by changing it; may the recasting of Guy Flanagan haunt them till they day they die.

I couldn't believe that was Ross at first. Ross seemed much older than Luke. As I recall, Ross was a pretty wooden, throw away character, but he did have chemistry with the Doctor.
This new show is nothing special, not great, not terrible. Christian is not a very animated or expressive actor, but he sure is good to look at. ;-D I guess the team will consist of Luke, Rupert, Mina and Ruby. I hope they don't bother with the Luke-Mina-Ruby triangle, because Luke doesn't seem interested in either.
The freaks are the weakest links in this episode. They are scary when they pop out at you, but once you take a good look, you have to try not to laugh. The show really needs a main adversary, like whoever killed Luke's father. Otherwise, it would be a wild goose chase every week hunting down random freaks.

I checked out ITV's summary of the series, and there are somethings to look forward to:
The mouldering Father Simeon (Richard Wilson – One Foot In The Grave, Merlin) is Luke’s other source on the lore and myths behind the creatures he faces.
Throughout the series, Luke faces an array of terrifying adversaries – including half-man half-rat Mr Tibbs (Kevin McNally – Pirates Of The Caribbean), who bears a deep and personal grudge.

I just watched this because I loved Phil Glenister's work on Life on Mars but this, oh my. Who wrote that dialogue? It's terrible! Glenister seems almost bored with the whole thing.
And that wholly gratuitous scene where the main character washes his face shirtlessly, then lies on the bed, shirtlessly, after having had breakfast at least that with his shirt on. I don't think I'll be watching more of this.

On the other hand, that scene was what made me think, "This show may not be for me, but I bet my teenage niece will like it."

This week's episode is a bit more entertaining than last week's with some funny scenes, but the plot is still rather convoluted and the fake-looking monster is again the weakest part of the show. Luke shows more personality and less bare skin this time around. (Damn, I was hoping for a shower scene... lol) He's snarkier than I thought he would be from watching the first episode. LOL at the final scene when he brings Galvin grapes at the hospital, starts eating them himself and almost takes them away with him.

I thought it was better, too, but I'm not sure it's my cup of tea anyway. Glenister's accent didn't bug nearly as much as it did last week, but damn! he's channeling the Gene Genie in this par.

Why does Ruby keep telling Luke "You're witty, resourceful and intelligent." He is none of these things.

If she said "You're half asleep, have little personality and no ability to convey any emotion other than slack-jawed bemusement." it would be closer to the truth.

Digital Spy says viewership was down 1 million from last week...So that means, what, 5 people watched it? And here we all are.

I don't think the kid is too bad, it's more the writing getting in the way of what could be fun, highly derivative fluff. He should be shirtless more--why shouldn't straight girls and gay boys have something to look at for a change?

Glenister's accent will always sound off to me (ideaR, thawR...is Glavin from Warshington?), but it distances the character from Gene and that's good--this role won't diminish the Manc Lion for me.

What I dislike most, aside from the writing, is the contrived stupidity of not telling his mother. I kind of understood it with Buffy, but enough already.
Hey, that was Molly from Ashes to Ashes!

Damn, if she actually said that, I would watch the first five episodes no matter how bad they were. But yeah, I hate it when we hear about how good a character is without ever seeing it. You'd think they'd have heard the saying "Show, don't tell."