Mastodon Mastodon Mastodon Mastodon Mastodon POLL : What did you think of Revolution - Chained Heat?
Sign Up


    Enable Dark Mode!

  • What's HOT
  • Premiere Calendar
  • Ratings News
  • Movies
  • YouTube Channel
  • Submit Scoop
  • Contact Us
  • Search
  • Privacy Policy
Get In Touch
 Join SpoilerTV
Support SpoilerTV
SpoilerTV.com is now available ad-free to for all premium subscribers. Thank you for considering becoming a SpoilerTV premium member!

SpoilerTV - TV Spoilers

POLL : What did you think of Revolution - Chained Heat?

25 Sept 2012

Share on Reddit

-
Sign Up for the SpoilerTV Newsletter where we talk all things TV!

130 comments:

  1. ScottA25 September 2012 at 04:09

    Anybody know if there is a replay online anywhere?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Dahne25 September 2012 at 04:18

    There really needs to be a good button because I can't really call that great. On the plus side Nora seems to be awesome and Miles can still slice and dice at "oh yeah right" levels. I liked Giancarlo Esposito better in this episode too. On the minus side, Charlie didn't die on the gun hunt. Oh well, there's always next time.

    ReplyDelete
  3. C P25 September 2012 at 04:25

    Usually NBC has the episodes up online the next day after an episode of their shows air.

    ReplyDelete
  4. bethanny2325 September 2012 at 04:31

    I thought it was really great! I loved the twist with Rachel, even though I kind of saw it coming from the first episode. But I really like Elizabeth Mitchell and cant wait to see more of her :)
    Im holding out hope that it will gain a good audience and get to a second season. I've liked what I've seen so far and Im looking forward to next week.

    ReplyDelete
  5. ScottA25 September 2012 at 04:35

    Thanks! Got engrossed in the White Sox game and my auto tune no longer works. Missed the first 30 minutes.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Wilson Crawford25 September 2012 at 04:41

    I thought she was better this episode. The parallel story of her blowing away that guy with the rifle (and they showed some gore for a second too) with that creep that had her head ready to snap was imo pretty effective. I think just like Miles, in the beginning of the episode "Already a pain in the ass"...but there's something to work with there... I am not very fond of the actress because her face...it's so...emotive? I can't describe it but it's too much... but otherwise, I think we're dealing with "character progression"...she's smart enough to get the drop on the camp of guys with her little gun, and she was good getting "Nate" chained up and out of the way... IDK, I feel at this rate, she'll only be mildly annoying by midseason. :P

    ReplyDelete
  7. Wilson Crawford25 September 2012 at 04:50

    I felt like the story progressed fairly well... Some of the scenes really hit hard like a SPN episode...(the creep that's about to just snap a girl's neck??? whattt)...and all the violence in this show...it's odd cause there's moments like the sword fighting that just do not work for me at all,and then there's quick little neck-breaks, or Charlie's handmade gun, etc. that were pretty decent. I'm liking the cast more too... Charlie's actor is still making me cringe but the character itself is sort've getting a bit more in-depth...


    We're getting nice flashbacks too, I know everyone wants to know what happened IMMEDIATELY after the blackout, and I do too. I think that showing what happened immediately after will be integral to laying out what's ACTUALLY happening at the moment.(You know...the "mystery"...still not too invested in that actually...) I think Giancarlo Esposito is on top of his game, and Elizabeth Mitchell is great in her limited role.


    Overall, I liked this one much more than the first episode. It felt more... natural in a sense. There was more humor that was actually decent, more to the characters here and there... I'm hoping it continues to get better as it goes along.


    Also, I was kinda hoping for a more explicit "Randall" scene... I don't know who he is or what he's about...but when bringing in a new big bad, Kripke was always pretty good at showing off their brutality in their introduction scene... (Lilith scene, anyone?)

    ReplyDelete
  8. Dahne25 September 2012 at 04:55

    Ha! I'll take mildly annoying but she may not have until midseason to get there. I found Charlie equally annoying in this one as the pilot but it didn't seem like we had as much of a laser focus on her in this one. At least it felt like there was more screen time for non-Charlie perspective. Or maybe it's that I'm so pro-Nora right now that I forget Charlie is in her presence until she speaks. Either way it was an improvement. Just Kripke please do not let Charlie go into a despair spiral of "first kill" emoangsting next episode. That might kill me.

    ReplyDelete
  9. DarqueMode25 September 2012 at 05:30

    I'm going to take serious note of whoever the casting agent is for this series because they should never work again. Can you imagine having a veritable unlimited supply of actors and actually choosing Tracy Spiridakos to play Charlie?


    Then to confound things just a little more they decide to write extra annoying INTO her character????!?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Wilson Crawford25 September 2012 at 05:41

    Oh God, I hope that doesn't happen. I think it showed character that she could both do the right thing and free those people without forgetting it was at the expense of people's lives and she'd never killed before, but to continue down a spiraling slope of OMG I KILLED THOSE PEOPLE WAAHHH would be terrible and take everything away from this episode. XD

    ReplyDelete
  11. Daniel Alvarez25 September 2012 at 05:51

    i knew Rachel was alive!
    i'm really gonna enjoy Elizabeth Mitchell this season!
    i'm really liking where the series is headed
    hope the ratings stay strong just like in the premire!

    ReplyDelete
  12. DarqueMode25 September 2012 at 06:17

    Wow, seriously?
    Don't kill the guy trying to capture and/or kill you because he is unconscious? Wow!!


    Really heavy-handed writing to juxtapose the good guys who don't want to kill even the people trying to kill them vs the bad guys who kill quickly on impulse. It's only two weeks, but I hope the writing gets more nuanced since it is just sad up to this point. The always seeing the bright side and trying to do the morally correct thing is just tiresome.


    Wow...... they fell for the stuffed blanket trick? Sigh.......
    Oh for the love of god please do not let her meet up with militia hunk again!!
    Oi vey! They went there..... No......wait, did she really turn back all doe eyed and ask if Nate was his real name?


    Let's hope when Captain Neville said to "Drink every drop" he did not mean he actually literally needed to drink every drop because the gunshot victim spilled half the tiny bottle grabbing for it! XD Then not to mention this tiny bottle suddenly required 4 huge gulps to drain. Funny.....

    The over all story for the episode was okay, but so many of the scenes were so 'on the nose' and obvious.... The writing is really melodramatic at times and the music is overpowering to me. The fight scenes are still subpar. At least there was less of lil' bro Nate and militia hunk... If the series would just accept that Charlie needs to be toned down or killed off it could really improve!
    The pilot got a "Poor" from me but this episode got an "OK" so it is improving I guess....Next week is the last chance to keep my viewership. The lead actress's performance has been just terrible and the way her character is written does not help. The over all writing is overly formulaic and shallow.... Honestly though it feels more like the starting of a pattern than the end of one.

    ReplyDelete
  13. DarqueMode25 September 2012 at 06:20

    So far the flashbacks are the highlight of the series for me!
    They deal with the most interesting part of the story to me (the immediate aftermath) and they do not have the terrible acting of Spiridakos.

    ReplyDelete
  14. DarqueMode25 September 2012 at 06:27

    Ack!
    I hope that does not happen. Frankly it is too early to have a downward spiral for any character in my opinion


    Plus honestly Charlie is annoying enough as it is, can you imagine them actually writing her MORE melodramatic?
    *cringes in horror*

    ReplyDelete
  15. andy s25 September 2012 at 08:10

    I might agree with you, not yet sure. I tend to shut one eye at substandard acting and roll with it (where I'm from, compared to young actors, Tracy is Meryl Streep). But I will stick with it however long for two reasons: I stuck with Alcatraz, Flash Forward, The Event (!!!) and this is for now better than all three (though still not good enough). Second, I almost stopped watching Supernatural after few episodes because I didn't like the acting, the writing...But then, around episode 13, it started evolving and by seasons 3-5 became one of the best things I watched on network TV. I am saying that Kripke probably needs some time to warm up and I am OK with it. So I'll wait.

    ReplyDelete
  16. ShatteredOne25 September 2012 at 08:17

    I want to like this show, it has some good elements, but I haven't been able to really get into it. Voted Ok for this episode, I want to vote higher but I just wasn't captivated by anything that happened.

    ReplyDelete
  17. live_laugh_love120825 September 2012 at 08:42

    I really liked it, and I'm looking forward to seeing where it goes =]

    ReplyDelete
  18. DarqueMode25 September 2012 at 08:46

    Valid point about shows improving over time especially as it relates to Supernatural and Kripke. One caveat being NBC is not the CW and it may not have much time to improve.


    I liked a lot of the overall arcs of early SPN, but the melodrama and family themes did not connect with me at all. (I won't get into the post Season 4 themes since I lost interest from that point on.) I can see some of those same aspects in Revolution. That's great for fans of Kripke's style... just not for me.



    I will say though I definitely liked Alcatraz, The Event and FlashForward more after 2 episodes. I lost interest in The Event after a handful of episodes though when it started going no where. I lost interest in FlashForward too, but I did stay with it. Alcatraz I had reservations about from the beginning , but I enjoyed the over-arching mythology and mystery enough to keep watching.


    The mystery of Revolution really has not pulled me in whatsoever since it has not been touched on very much. It is more of a looming foundation story than a central plot, but that could change down the road of course. So far the story has been more about Charlie's adventures... easily the weakest part of the series to me.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Luis25 September 2012 at 09:04

    Great episode. The series is coming to form.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Luis25 September 2012 at 09:05

    Charlie was good in this episode. If you ever watched TWD you would know what a really annoying character is.

    ReplyDelete
  21. andy s25 September 2012 at 10:04

    I see your point. Another thing with Kripke is that it takes a long time for arches to finally come to a fruition. For example, he picked up on a 'father' theme from pilot of SPN only at the episode 13 or 14, and then expanded it throughout the entire second season, with us learning some key details at the very end of s2.
    Now, the core idea is fascinating (at least for me) - how would a society look without energy (I also found the documentary and the series 'What if there were no people', or something like that, very interesting. This is the next best thing). Now, I guess they will only slowly fill in the details. I was very encouraged with the 'week after' flashback, and I hope for more of that.
    Of course, there has to be some drama and Kripke's favorite theme is 'family', which cannot get old if you approach it right. For example, that theme was not pervading in SPN in the first ten or so episodes, we were introduced with what kinds of things are out there, how do brothers operate...
    You need, naturally, good actors to find personal themes compelling, and Tracy isn't doing a really good job. But the two actors in SPN were very suspect at the beginning (I also, to digress, didn't initially like Caviezel's approach in POI, though he is a different story altogether, of course) and they improved as the season went on. So will Tracy, I hope. If not, I could still stick with it in case bigger themes of social morality, state organization, source of the (I almost said blackout :) ) energy loss, etc.
    All of this goes to say, I guess, I think this show deserves at least half a season of attention (and it's not as if there are tons of good programs coming up before winter comes...except the Last Resort, Fringe and Homeland, I see nothing new that is particularly worth watching)

    ReplyDelete
  22. Bec25 September 2012 at 11:28

    Same, I'm giving it the 4 episode test otherwise I'm going to drop it haha

    ReplyDelete
  23. lsbloom25 September 2012 at 12:44

    I like her quite a bit. And I think they've gone out of their way to write out anything annoying that in a more "gritty" or "high-concept" show they would have included.

    ReplyDelete
  24. wtfsignmeup25 September 2012 at 12:45

    i really want to like this show, i love survival shows but some of the minor details are really distracting to me.
    Clothes all look a bit too new, everyone is a bit too clean. I don't
    know, but if they're making soap, shampoo and clothing i need to see
    how. lol. I kind of drifted away from this episode after about 15 - 20
    minutes so i need a rewatch but i'm not ready to write it off.

    ReplyDelete
  25. lsbloom25 September 2012 at 12:49

    Um...if I have a choice, I'd prefer to not watch soapmaking???? Cause my day is really busy with the watching of paint drying.

    ReplyDelete
  26. lsbloom25 September 2012 at 13:04

    I'm totally loving this show. It's not trying to be something it isn't. It's fun and approachable and they've made almost every character likable. Good quips, feisty action, and a bright fun world. I don't understand the Charlie hate. Of all the supposed to be feisty teenage/early 20s girls on television she is the best, by far and away, in a long long time. She's young, but she's self-aware. She's out of her league, but she's willing to step up. She's idealistic, but dealing with reality pretty "drama in a corner being seen and not heard." And for everything that she does which as a character she has to do, like not want defenseless people killed--silly naive girl, Billy Burke gets a good joke out of the life lesson in dangerous times instead of enabling it. Wouldn't it be GREAT if OUAT and TVD did the same thing?


    The show is funny. Miles is wry. And the girls are kicking butt. I loved it when Charlie tricked not-Nate. She was hurt because she wanted to believe that people are inherently good and that saving her meant something. But that didn't stop her from self-preservation, and a pretty good trick at that. I was sooo annoyed that she'd fallen down and hurt herself and wasn't doing anything but waiting for help and then she WASN"T cause it was a trap. And I was happy. The entire show is taking one idea and showing you the most probable course and you see that standard disaster coming at you and you worry, and then they do just what you are screaming at them to do instead and everyone gets to be really likable instead of obnoxious.


    I can't wait for next week, because Mark Pellegrino looks awesome in the clip.

    ReplyDelete
  27. lsbloom25 September 2012 at 13:08

    "The mystery of Revolution really has not pulled me in whatsoever since it has not been touched on very much. It is more of a looming foundation story than a central plot, but that could change down the road of course."


    I'm pretty sure it seems that way because it is that way. This is an adventure story and the "no power" is what made the world, not what we're spending years trying to come to terms with.

    ReplyDelete
  28. DarqueMode25 September 2012 at 13:09

    Wow seriously?


    I guess everyone is annoyed by different things, but I find her the most annoying character I have tried to watch in years if not ever. At least the Terra Nova kids had some not-so-annoying scenes... Charlie annoys in almost every scene. If not the acting ... the writing of her character.


    Plus even the other characters on the series remark on how annoying she is.... If a character is so annoying that the other characters around them mock them you know that character is annoying.


    I can accept different tastes, but she is the worst actress I have seen cast in the lead role of a drama series ever. She makes the Secret Circle actors look good by comparison.....

    ReplyDelete
  29. lsbloom25 September 2012 at 13:21

    I'm gonna go with you didn't actually watch the secret circle past an episode or two? Charlie killed people and didn't even cry about! In the fight, she didn't whine and beg for help or gasp and cry constantly, she took care of two guys, no hesitation, just got it done (and I don't know the last time I've seen a female star do that in movies or TV--without gasping for five minutes? come on it doesn't happen). And she was sad she'd murdered people, but no "what have I done? OMG I'm a horrible person!" She tricked not Nate, and she was sad because she is a sweet naive girl who is human and wants to like people and she wants to trust people and he saved her, so she thought that should mean something, and when she is wrong, she accepts it!!! And moves on.

    The other characters acknowledging her being naive and idealistic--as she has to be--is the way of making it funny. They aren't caving to her every wish and being like you are right that's the moral decision I'm a bad person. She had one line about slavery. She delivered it and sat back. No harping. It was awesome. Seriously if TVD and TWD and OUAT had heroes this likable my TV would explode.

    ReplyDelete
  30. klutzy_girl25 September 2012 at 13:50

    I loved it! Saw the twist with Rachel coming, but I'm still happy about it. Love Elizabeth Mitchell.

    And oh God, how long is Charlie going to be naive? It's driving me crazy.

    Can't wait for next week!

    ReplyDelete
  31. DarqueMode25 September 2012 at 13:53

    I watched 8 or 10 episodes of TSC and I know exactly how bad they were. I said as an actress she is worse than the actresses on TSC. Her performance is worse.Not speaking of the character alone. Her bad performance enhances the annoying character.


    I also saw preteen character kill someone without gasping after on Copper just the other week I saw another preteen girl (the character I mean, the actress is a teen) kill multiple people the last two years on Game of Thrones without hesitation and she was less annoying in her scenes before and after. In fact she takes a leadership role in her life and gets people to go along with her without whining. I have seen many heroines control their own lives (or kill others) without being so naive and melodramatic. It does happen....

    You say naive and idealistic... I say annoying. That naive idealism is what annoys me.... The "jokes" do not make her any less annoying to me.She may have only made one remark about the conscripted prisoners, but she has whined about family persistently... It is a pattern with her and not isolated instances.



    I have to disagree about her learning and moving on too. Her attitude almost got them killed in the pilot... put them in danger in the next episode and appears to do the same in episode 3 by the preview. Is that the adventure aspect you mention in the other reply? Every week she will want to make the world better and her idealism will put everyone she knows in danger to do it? XD

    ReplyDelete
  32. lsbloom25 September 2012 at 14:16

    The TSC girls were horrible (acting, American accents, clip-cloping down the street, writing all of it). I have to agree that Arya is lovely and the best hero character still [spoiler] but given what they do to her, I'm not sure it is a reasonable analogy. Try comparing her to Sansa. Who got her dad beheaded and still didn't learn her lesson. And all she could do was whine. We'll believe that kids are more resilient and malleable. So they can sculpt Arya into an assassin, she grew up learning to do stuff from a father who believed in performing his own executions. Charlie has a "slightly" different worldview. You keep persisting with the assumption that Charlie and Danny grew up in a harsh unforgiving world and that they should be raw and uncompromising and stark. She didn't and they aren't. They grew up in a happy little hamlet and their Dad (or whatever) protected them. They were isolated and insulated from war and rebellions and work camps. So, I think being annoyed with the idea that she is naive is unrealistic. She's a sheltered kid, if she went all Rambo, psychopath, that would be a really strange characterization, it wouldn't feel real. She's made some bad calls, but it is really hard to kill a defenseless man--it's way past kicking them when they are down. And Miles could have overruled her if he really thought it was a problem. When it came time to kill, she killed. and moved on.


    But in the end, we have radically different tastes in TV. So, I'll watch, and luckily you don't have to.

    ReplyDelete
  33. DarqueMode25 September 2012 at 14:16

    Again. I do not see your point....



    I was stating the reason I stayed with those other shows (Alcatraz specifically) was because the mystery elements kept me entertained and Revolution does not do that.....


    Why would it matter if the show was not designed that way? That was not the point of my comment. I was commenting on the fact that the mystery element of a series - any series - can keep me tuned in even if other aspects are sub-par


    Obviously I know it is more of an adventure series since I wrote the show is "more about Charlie's adventures.".... So what I was saying was that I could not stay with Revolution like I did with Alcatraz (and other series) because it does not have that central mystery element. Whether or not it is by design is completely irrelevant.

    ReplyDelete
  34. lsbloom25 September 2012 at 14:24

    My point is that a lot of people think that the mystery is the point of the show and based on my interpretation your comment, you included. It isn't FlashForward or the Event or Alcatraz or Lost. It matters that the show wasn't designed that way because many viewers are extremely tired of that formula, and it is one of the main reason that all the shows that apparently kept you tuning in, didn't keep other people tuning in. It matters that the show wasn't designed that way because if what you are complaining about is a fundamental design element, you shouldn't expect it to change.


    It feels like you came into the show wanting something else. Something dark and mysterious and edgy, trying too hard high-concept with no teenagers and no family. And you keep complaining that the show isn't what you thought it should have been. I was simply trying to explain how I think the show actually is, because the odds of the show changing course to more fit with your vision isn't likely, but maybe if someone could explain how it actually is you could adjust your expectations and maybe see the show that's on.

    ReplyDelete
  35. DarqueMode25 September 2012 at 14:32

    Honestly I find Sansa the character just as annoying, but the actress is much, much better.


    I simply cannot understand why you keep saying the character of Charlie is sheltered and therefore is less annoying to you. I am not commenting on how you feel about Charlie. I don't recall ever saying she should be a psychopath Rambo-like figure..... that would be odd for her character indeed.


    I'm saying I find her the most annoying new character on TV regardless of whether or not it is by design. It is irrelevant that she is designed as a girl that was sheltered. There are people who are pacifists or filled with idealism that were not sheltered. If she was not sheltered and kept saying "but we're family" or "Stop! Don't kill the man trying to kill us" I would find her just as annoying.


    Charlie's reasons for her actions do not concern me because her actions themselves are what annoy me....not her reasons. Well, and the performance of the actress.

    ReplyDelete
  36. lsbloom25 September 2012 at 14:40

    Um...because motivations are what drive actions, ground actions in a consistent and developable character and influence how "real" an audience perceives an action to be? Ignoring motivation is like ignoring the fact that one, the guy wasn't trying to kill them, and two, the guy was unconscious and easily defeated. They make a difference in storytelling and perception.

    ReplyDelete
  37. DarqueMode25 September 2012 at 14:58

    Ahhh, nope.
    I was just responding to the andy s and commenting on my opinion of the shows he mentioned. It was not some blanket statement about the structure of Revolution.


    You seem to be a person of extremes.... Just because I don't like someone whining about family does not mean that I don't want any show to have family themes or have kids in them. Many brilliant shows deal with family issues. They just deal with them in a less annoying way than having the lead pout about family.




    Again I cannot see you point. I see the show that is on. That is why I am commenting about the bad actress etc. I have only made a few comments about what I would have preferred the show to be, however I knew going in that it was not going to be about that. Seeing the show as an adventure series does not make the writing better, the actress any better or her character any less annoying. That is just silly. XD

    ReplyDelete
  38. DarqueMode25 September 2012 at 15:48

    I've seen a few documentaries like that... Life after People I think was the most recent. Very interesting stuff I agree. I think the writers of Revolution could learn a few things from that series!

    ReplyDelete
  39. DarthLocke425 September 2012 at 17:57

    I liked it, but especially the second half...I am almost done with my review (should be posted by tonight), but was wondering if someone could get me a couple of screencaps, or if anyone knows if there is a screencap gallery for Revolution?


    I need caps of Grace's notebook and schematics by the computer, and one with Maggie holding her iphone.


    Thanks so much to whomever can help me with this!

    ReplyDelete
  40. DarthLocke425 September 2012 at 18:00

    I think this episode plays to the Kate Austen factor of her character...she's a little bit of contradiction, as Miles points out, but it doesn't mean she isn't right about her beliefs, it's just she has to play to win and I think her moral compass is coming from people who may not really have one, so I hope her position changes, or at least their is an acceptability that she has to fight to survive.

    ReplyDelete
  41. DarthLocke425 September 2012 at 18:06

    I agree with your assessment of Charlie. I really liked her once she left Aaron and Maggie behind. There was something really captivating and resilient in those later moments, like something just kicked in. It's curious.

    ReplyDelete
  42. DarqueMode25 September 2012 at 18:14

    I don't archive this show so no caps sorry...
    I did a quick scan for pics you need and did not find any, but I did find a couple Rev sites that may have something for you now or in the future.
    http://revolutiontvshow.com/
    http://revolutionison.blogspot.com/

    ReplyDelete
  43. Ricky Terry25 September 2012 at 18:47

    http://www.free-tv-video-online.me/

    ReplyDelete
  44. Pia Cabanillas Veloso25 September 2012 at 19:02

    Charlie , is really annoying !! and such a bad actress !!

    ReplyDelete
  45. Lou25 September 2012 at 19:07

    Petition to make this show about Capt Tom Neville rather than focussing on the increasingly annoying really can't act Charlie. The actress who plays kid Charlie does a much better job than present day Charlie.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Lou25 September 2012 at 19:09

    Really agree with your assessment, the show is full of clichés and characters making silly mistakes and that gets boring fast.


    I am holding out that Uncle Miles kills Charlie in a fit of justified frustration!

    ReplyDelete
  47. DarqueMode25 September 2012 at 19:09

    Agreed.
    I said the same thing jokingly after the pilot, but now that I have seen Young Charlie in more scenes this week.... I stand by it! XD


    The lil girl is a better actress.

    ReplyDelete
  48. irisheyes14325 September 2012 at 20:01

    I really like the show and plan to continue watching. I also knew Rachel was alive. ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  49. Jordana3325 September 2012 at 20:29

    I completely agree. The actress who plays Charlie is annoyingly bad, to the point of distraction. I'm not crazy about whoever plays Nate, but thankfully we don't see him half as much. The main thing keeping me watching the show is my curiosity over what caused the power outage (although I'm skeptical about any explanation making scientific sense). On the positive side, I'm really happy to see Elizabeth Mitchell in a new series and I think that Nora's character was a good addition.

    ReplyDelete
  50. omabin25 September 2012 at 20:34

    Very enjoyable episode! The best parts were the ones involving my lovely Elizabeth Mitchell of course, I especially enjoyed her flashback scenes. I also liked that they let Maggie and Aaron went on a separate journey, gives a better dyanmic for the show. Also enjoyed the Nora character. The show is not perfect, I can see that (the Nate-Tracy stuff is sooo forced down our troats) but I enjoy it a lot. I don't hate Charlie as a lot of you do or anything, but I think that if the show focuses on Elizabeth Mitchell and Billy Burke more it can only win.

    ReplyDelete
  51. João Paulo25 September 2012 at 22:18

    I loved it the second episode, great action scene, the plot still intrigue, Rachel is alive, wow, can't wait to see the next.

    ReplyDelete
  52. wtfsignmeup26 September 2012 at 00:00

    I don't want to watch soap making either :P i just don't think it's realistic for them all to be so shiny and clean and in new clothes (no fraying or anything) The shelves wouldn't still be stocked with shampoo and clothes 15 years later?

    ReplyDelete
  53. TheHindu Times26 September 2012 at 00:16

    The second episode is great! I still think the actors need to find their place though. Some of them give weak performances.

    ReplyDelete
  54. laura334126 September 2012 at 00:17

    loved it! Just finished watching it with a lot of interuptions

    Really enjoying the flashback scenes,and i know a lot more are coming,thank you Mr.Guniee!

    ReplyDelete
  55. Ricky Terry26 September 2012 at 00:40

    Also I guess all the hairdressers have survived too. I would assume in a society like this there would be a lot more longhaired men, and how does one explain the buzz cut on the not Nate dude. Not to mention the lack of beards. I guess shaving is still a priority in this new old world society.

    ReplyDelete
  56. ScottA26 September 2012 at 02:24

    C. Thomas Howell sighting. Just need Macchio, Cruise, Dillon, Lowe and Zombie Swayze.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Ricky Terry26 September 2012 at 02:35

    You bet!

    ReplyDelete
  58. ScottA26 September 2012 at 02:37

    Myles said to meet him on Main St. in Lowell, Indiana. About 10 minutes from my house. Can't go back after busting my way OUT of a bar once.

    ReplyDelete
  59. DarqueMode26 September 2012 at 02:40

    It's somehow comforting to know that the tweezed eyebrow is still in fashion after the world loses power......

    ReplyDelete
  60. lsbloom26 September 2012 at 03:01

    I have clothes that are 15 years old and they are fine. Plus, no longer using dryers would drastically improve the lifespan of clothes. The militia uniforms, the prisoners' pants there are examples of more homespun clothing. I might not know how to do some things, but I can sew and knit and quilt. And, you know, brush and style my hair.

    ReplyDelete
  61. lsbloom26 September 2012 at 03:02

    I'm going with...'cause scissors and razors don't use electricity?

    ReplyDelete
  62. ScottA26 September 2012 at 03:02

    Funny thing; they're going to Main St. in Lowell, In. I used to drink beer at the Sidetrack Saloon on Main St. in Lowell.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Lilith Hellfire26 September 2012 at 03:19

    I would kill for an Outsiders reunion. *Sigh*

    ReplyDelete
  64. Ricky Terry26 September 2012 at 03:22

    Yeah, but clippers do...Also I was just pointing out the fact that everyone is still so fresh faced after having survived fifteen years without the luxuries we are accustomed to. Yes Razors don't need Electricity, but they do require some kind of lubrication, hence @
    wtfsignmeup 's comment about soapmaking. But that aside, with 15 years of uncivilized society creeping back into play, in reality how many people would actually take the time out of their day to shave regularly? What with all the having to hide out from the militia, and having to swordfight at a moment's notice. Let alone how many trendy hairstyles would you see making the rounds in such a society? I know, I know, this is television and we can't have a bunch of ugly bush people running around on our TV's, but come on, they could make it a little more realistic.

    So thank you for your sarcasm, it was exhilarating. What a waste of bandwidth your comment was...jeez.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Ricky Terry26 September 2012 at 03:27

    I also noticed that quite a few of the militia men were sporting cool sunglasses. I guess there must be a raybans factory still punching those things out somewhere...somehow.

    ****Disclaimer****
    Just for anyone who might take this comment seriously and get their panties in a wad, I'm just pointing out some of the nuances that really should be taken into consideration before production actually films an episode.

    ReplyDelete
  66. DarqueMode26 September 2012 at 03:29

    Agreed.
    Within 5 years of not having power or the convenience of electric razors, shaving cream and clippers etc most men would have perpetual 5 o'clock shadow or a beard.


    If I had to hunt for razors and sharpen them every time I shaved I would not shave nearly as often... I dare say most men would be the same way.


    Every series, especially Sci-Fi series, should strive to attain as much realism as possible. That is what makes the difference between good Sci-Fi and bad.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Lilith Hellfire26 September 2012 at 03:29

    I want to like this show, I mean come on, it's Kripke. But the writing seems stifled and too forced. I don't know if I'm going to make it to the 5th episode or not. If I get a little more Elizabeth Mitchell in the coming weeks, I can be persuaded to stick around. I'm also super interested in General Monroe. Is it wrong to be rooting against the rebels? Katniss, I mean Charlie needs to step up her game and get on par with the little girl that plays her in the flashbacks. I loved the flashbacks this week. Her mom is/was a bad ass (or the way I look at it in this case, a pragmatist) and she isn't going hesitate like her father was is what I took from it. If she can learn to be more like her uncle Miles and the sooner the better the faster this story can stop being a bad fan fic Mary Sue concoction.

    ReplyDelete
  68. DarqueMode26 September 2012 at 03:33

    You are not alone.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Ricky Terry26 September 2012 at 03:35

    Ha! Nice. Maybe they'll make it down my way eventually.

    ReplyDelete
  70. ScottA26 September 2012 at 04:05

    Oh yes. Took a bus load of kids to see it back in 1982 I think. Working at the Boys and Girls Club out of college we usually took the kids to action/family type movies. I was never so impressed with a bunch of 10-12 year olds as I was with them. They understood the movie, had salient conversations and some even wanted to red the book. Very fine movie.

    ReplyDelete
  71. lsbloom26 September 2012 at 04:22

    This whole discussion got started after I made a joke. You posted a comment about being annoyed that people on a TV weren't more grizzly as though fashion, beauty, hairstyles, cosmetics, and shaving were recent inventions that we'd just ditch for no apparent reason. There are a lot of things the show might want to address, shaving and soapmaking aren't really my top priorities.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Ricky Terry26 September 2012 at 04:44

    Great. But as I mentioned shaving and soapmaking, although not literally something that needs to be elaborated on, are part of the nuance of a powerless society, and my point is that Revolution fails to realistically portray what said society would actually look like. Instead going for a more polished look which anyone with sense would know is not going to be anyone's priority in said society. The point of the matter is that it reflects on the inability of the writers to create a realistic environment for the story being told, and that they have only half thought this through. That or they don't think the audience will notice these things which would mean they are looking more for the dumbed down casual viewer type audience. This show is interesting to me right now, but I also see a nice helping of the "Terra Nova cheesiness" going on too. I plan to give it half a season to work out the kinks I don't like, and if they do, then I'll stick around, but if they don't then I'll drop em' like I did Terra Nova, & Alcatraz last year.

    I'm just trying to hold the show accountable. I am a fierce judge when it comes to concept television.

    ReplyDelete
  73. DarqueMode26 September 2012 at 06:54

    I'm not sure what to think of JD Pardo yet since every scene of his has been written with so many cliches we can hardly see his performance as Nate! XD


    Brother Danny is bad too. That actor annoyed with those stupid AllState "Can I get a hot tub?" commercials and he has yet to show me he should be acting in more than commercials...


    Love Elizabeth Mitchell too and I'm glad they gave up the thinly veiled ruse of her being dead. Sadly we still won't see enough of her as far as I'm concerned....

    ReplyDelete
  74. MeatyStakes26 September 2012 at 10:16

    For the people behind the show, the show kinda seems superflous. Like, too cookie cutter to be of impact. I mean, when I heard Kripke and Bad Robot I was expecting a menage between psychological and philosophical issues. And It just hasn't delivered. It just seems so bland, almost generic. Most characters are just stock archetypes, thus far none of them have caught my attention.


    The only moment that gave me hope for this show was the scene of Charlie killing the leader with the flashbacks of her mother.


    Charlie's actress needs to step up her game; till now she is as alluring as a lampshade, not really much charisma there.


    And something that might be stupid, but still bother me: Charlies little brother just seems so... ripped. Why? You would expect people in a post.apocalyptic world being less preoccupied in appareances, not looking like coming out of a menswear catalogue, even more so for a kid with asthma in a world without inhalers.

    ReplyDelete
  75. lsbloom26 September 2012 at 12:42

    If you are going to judge TV "fiercely" than you should play by the rules of television. Every show gets to create it's own world, and it's own rules in that world: be that if vampires exist or parallel universes run along side our own or high school students like to sing and dance, but never go to class with teachers who never teach. Every genre has different assumed tropes, expected differences in characterization, and levels of writing and acting that are required, allusions that color our interpretation. This is because television isn't exactly real life. It should feel "true to life," but we don't expect to see people sleeping or grocery shopping or paying their taxes or cleaning the restroom, because if those aren't important to the story, they aren't a top priority for the story telling. Because as much as television needs to feel real, that goal is all part and parcel of a higher goal, that of entertainment. The world of Revolution is only partially formed as we are only 2 episodes in and it is a hugely different world. But some of the rules of an adventure quest apply--we don't question why they don't carry food around on them (it's heavy, it's bulky, it doesn't keep, it looks bad on film and it isn't fun to watch people serving basic needs), we don't question how long it takes to get from one place to another or why everything they seem to need is within a travelable distance given the episode's time frame (it's like on House, every patient had to be sick with something curable or House couldn't do his job), etc, etc. I personally could care less how they make soap, because the world of Revolution is lush and bright so it stands to reason that for the most part the people would be lush and bright as well. Because in a ton of military movies you have the scene with the type-A commander carefully shaving every morning to show that he is precise and regimented and particular, so it's really easy to jump on board with Cap. Neville being clean shaven and the rest of the militia boys with him having scruff--it's an expected part of the characterization based on the genre and style of storytelling. You don't sit around annoyed at the Walking Dead that these people have somehow forgotten how to bathe and wash clothes and brush their hair, or how Carol (and all the rest of them) keeps her same haircut all the time. Or why they keep wearing white when it will show dirt so much worse than a darker color, because color is part of character and has meaning. And I don't care how realistic it is supposed to be I would kill for Cullen to wash and brush his hair in Hell on Wheels--everybody else seems to manage it--the world is dirty and he is dirty it fits and it creates a nice darkness and light starkness with Lilly. This isn't a show about what the world would be like if the electricity went out, this is a show about a girl and her uncle trying to save her brother from a ruling militia that takes place in a world without electricity. From what I can tell they put a great deal of thought and consideration into building the underworld and it needs to be thorough and complete. But in less than 2 hours of storytelling, I don't think they need to have laid out all possible explanations for what and why the world is.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Lilith Hellfire26 September 2012 at 14:32

    Hey. Glad to hear I'm not alone. I hate being out on a limb all by myself. This show has a lot on it's shoulders all the way around. I'm all about supporting the sci-fi/fantasy genre. But I'm tired of jumping on the bandwagon just because it's sci-fi (or it's a JJ thing *cough* Alcatraz *cough*). I'm desperate for something on network TV in the sci-fi genre that is well written, well acted, has a decent budget and a cohesive plot with a purpose and a plan. I'm starting to feel like that is too much to ask. I'm glad to hear the ratings are spectacular, I really am because if I bail after the 5th episode I won't guilty that I'm not out there spreading the word. This show needs to EARN my loyalty because to be honest both Kripke and JJ have at times been on my s*** list and have a little making up to do with me in my mind. So, we'll see how this goes. Fingers crossed but, I'm just saying that 'Lost', 'Flash Forward', 'V' and even 'The Event' had me hooked at the first episode (although the later two devolved into a hot mess by the fourth episode I stuck it out through the entire run and right when it got good and back on track it was cancelled, story of my TV viewing life) so maybe this will be the opposite and right at the point where I'm ready to tune out something marvelous will happen (I already see we Mark P. aka Jacob aka Lucifer and of course my sweet little Colin Ford aka little Sammy Winchester so they have my attention, let's see if they can hold it).

    ReplyDelete
  77. Daryl Smith26 September 2012 at 14:36

    Less Charlie, maybe they will kill her off. More Captain Tom Neville. He is the most interesting character on the show. More sword fights. I thought they were excellent. More story line about figuring out what caused the blackout. More storyline about the necklace power source and who can communicate with the computer.

    ReplyDelete
  78. the dane26 September 2012 at 16:11

    I agree. I´m not sold on this series yet. But like you said - more Elizabeth Mitchell will make it a whole lot better.

    ReplyDelete
  79. DarqueMode26 September 2012 at 18:07

    I think you touch on my main issue (aside from Spiridakos) with the series.... the showrunners only went half-way. They did not take the world or the cast to a believable post-power level, they went about half way.


    They gave them basic clothes instead of designer trends okay, but most is not dirty or worn very much. Yet they decided that the militia would wear some silly armor pieces that stop neither bullet nor sword when scrap metal is all around in this world.


    The makeup and hair people make most of the cast look like they just woke up with clean faces and clean hair instead of oily or dirty skin and hair that most people would have without an abundance of showers and/or chances to bathe on their various journeys.


    They try to make the fights super action filled with too many quick edit cuts instead of making them look real. I have seen people launched backwards while running forwards after being shot with an arrow, sword slices that throw people in opposite directions instead of slicing them where they are... and I won't get into the lack of blood since I know it is a network show, but no blood whatsoever? Miles Matheson took out like 12 militia with a sword and a coupl point blank shots and he walked away with little to no blood on him. Seriously?


    Bad Robot pays attention to details... usually.... and this show certainly does not. So it feels half-assed and does not pull in a discerning viewer. In fact for many of us, it pushes us out of their world frequently.

    ReplyDelete
  80. DarqueMode26 September 2012 at 18:13

    Abrams comes up with good (usually) ideas and broad strokes for fun series, but in the end he is fairly hands off and the shows he helps to create end up being more about his showrunners I think. I know many love Supernatural, but I always found it consistently mediocre, that is not to say it is not entertaining. It's just it's production quality, writing, acting etc are rarely brilliant and usually not terrible either. It seems like that is how Revolution may be shaping up. Middle-of-the-road Sci-Fi that plays out like Charlie's Choose-Your-Own-Adventure novel where she makes all the wrong choices.

    ReplyDelete
  81. DarthLocke426 September 2012 at 18:23

    It's an artistic choice to have the young generation represent "revival" this is a Utopian story. They are suppose to bring hope back, by being energetic, vibrant, and alive looking (but there are some scenes where TS has looked a little messy -so it's not completely fantasized)

    ReplyDelete
  82. DarthLocke426 September 2012 at 18:26

    I find it the execution and the directing more than the actress. There are scenes IMO where she does well, but there's something going on with her and BB lines together that are OVER expelled to the audience. Let alone their spending to much time on their arguing, then on the story itself. It's only the second episode, but it's something I think needs to change if their going to do well down the line.

    ReplyDelete
  83. DarqueMode26 September 2012 at 18:38

    I could not watch house for the reasons you point out. I do wonder why it seems like Charlie and company are always about 30 seconds walk time from their next destination. Those things do bother many people and rightfully so.


    I disagree about adventure quest rules applying. I hate when shows do not pay attention to details. Yes they need to hunt sometimes and show it, or they need to gather berries or vegetables. Showing them at a river once in a while getting water is enough, we would not need to see them do it every episode. It's like Supernatural with the brothers always having money despite not having paid jobs. It's just silly.

    Shows like TWD and Hell on Wheels have just done better creating their worlds because they pay attention to detail. OF course I do not get mad at the characters not washing their hair or clothes... that is my very point! XD
    Their clothes are stained and their actors are dirty because that is how those characters would be living in the worlds of their shows. Many of the characters hair styles have changed from beginning of the season to later episodes.... or we have seen them being shaved or clipping their hair.


    You keep going back to this being an adventure show about a girl trying to save her brother. That simply does not matter or apply to 90% of your arguments. Other aspects like poor writing, acting, lack of attention to detail and the rest of the list do not suddenly get better because it is an adventure series about Charlie.


    I do agree one cannot judge an entire world by 2 episodes, but likewise when there is a pattern of not paying attention to detail one cannot ignore that because one has only seen two episodes. One shouldn't ignore the shortcomings and only see the well done aspects or worse yet, the possibilities of well-done aspects in later episodes without also seeing the possibility of future shortcomings. It is not a fair critique.


    There is potential as most of us "nay-sayers" have said. I think the less the show is about Charlie's adventures the better.... even if that is the show's original format. She is terrible. Shows do evolve from their initial formats and change and begin to play to their strengths no matter how a series starts out. Fringe started out as a show about weird cases of the week and evolved into a much better show with season long arcs that dealt with larger mysteries. Revolution could do something similar. Concentrate less on their week points (Charlie, Danny and Nate) and go deeper into their strengths like Captain Neville, the older Mathesons, Monroe and characters involved in the power down like Grace and Randall.

    ReplyDelete
  84. DarqueMode26 September 2012 at 18:52

    It may be the direction and the writing like you say....
    I have wondered which is the main cause of the Charlie character being unbearable. I think it is not one or the other but both personally.


    Even if that is the case.... the actor or actress is responsible for making the most of the material they are given and finding a way to make bad lines good or at least not as bad.. It's not Spiridakos' fault she does not have the experience (and possibly the talent) to do that. It is a lot to ask of a young and inexperienced actress. The writers and directors need to see how badly she is coming off and adjust their M.O. I think.... or just feature Charlie less since the current formula is not working well.


    She may have been somewhat better in the second half, but not because of her acting IMO. I think it was because she was not as featured in her story anymore like she was with Maggie and Aaron. In the scenes with Nora and the conscripted workers, Nora was featured and Charlie was in the background for the most part. She reacted to things Miles and Nora said. I think it goes to reinforcing my point about that she may be able to be a decent supporting cast member, but she struggles as a lead.


    Although I have to be honest... her leaving Maggie and Aaron annoyed me on multiple levels. It was once again selfish and childish and it endangered Aaron and Maggie since she was the "capable" one that could hunt etc....

    ReplyDelete
  85. DarthLocke426 September 2012 at 19:17

    I think there's a debate in that. On one hand, yes she left selfishly motivated again, not thinking about the implications of leaving Aaron and Maggie behind, but looking at the flashbacks and what she explained to Miles, we see it's not a completely selfish motive, because she needs to make up for a promise she broke, the one she broke to her mother. Additionally she becomes Danny's mother, so I can't really blame her for not wanting to wait around, despite that she doesn't understand or have the experience to think of another way, or the consequences of leaving Aaron and Maggie behind, which is thrown back at Miles earlier in the episode with this whole need to not kill thing...


    Personally I think they're just dancing around Miles and Danny and their moral compass too much...I think once we get a bigger cast and we get to see what kind of person Rachel really is, is when we have the capacity for some changes in Charlie's belief system and her antagonistic approach towards Miles (which I suspect will actually be deserved, but doesn't do well now, since we don't know that, but that could be a talent Charlie has)

    ReplyDelete
  86. MeatyStakes26 September 2012 at 19:35

    Well, then your threshold on willing suspension of disbelief is higher than the rest of people, good on you, Glenn Coco!

    ReplyDelete
  87. DarthLocke426 September 2012 at 19:45

    I agree. I felt that the kinks are starting to be worked out.

    ReplyDelete
  88. DarthLocke426 September 2012 at 19:49

    I agree that Alcatraz had a better mystery hook. One thing I don't like, although it's kind of not fair of me to make this analysis with out a few more eps, but they seem to be keeping the mystery parts towards the very end of each episode, like we're being rewarded for sitting through the first 3/4 of the episode...like waiting for a weird story at the end of the news broadcast. It makes it feel too procedural.

    ReplyDelete
  89. DarqueMode26 September 2012 at 19:56

    Ha! XD
    Rewarded for sitting through 75% is about right. I won't be able to keep watching if they don't go into the serial elements more. It's fine as an adventure of the week show for some people I'm sure, but I won't watch it if that is "ALL" it is.


    Right now there is too much misadventure and not enough mystery for me to keep watching since the focus of the show does not entertain me much and in fact annoys me.


    I won't watch many of the other procedurals on TV and some of them have characters that actually can entertain me! XD

    ReplyDelete
  90. MeatyStakes26 September 2012 at 20:04

    Yeap. The world feels, to put it simply, too costum-ey; as if they are not really aiming for a realistic approach, not even a premade convention of realistic. For example, Firefly, almost all clothes are in faded earth tones; it is not necessarily realistic, but it sets the tone and builds the world even in its small measure: Clothes are a commodity. It sacrifices a bit of realism for flavor and enhances the contrast between characters and their backgrounds.


    But it seems that Revolution is devoid of these world building conventions. Garments do not looking practical, lack of use, etc. They are just going for cool clothes without much consideration to the world they are part of, certain dissonance. At the end, it robs the building of the world of substance; its the little things that add up, and again, there's major dissonance between the goals of the writing and how the setting and costumes support that.


    Point of comparison: Even the cast of SPN (A CW show, you know the implications, everyone is beautiful) looks more in tune with their world: weary faces, mutted colors, used clothes.


    And is this weak world building that causes other problems, like the lack of blood and ultra stylized fights:The world building is weak.


    And this is not even touching the plot points that come off as shortcuts. But I won't say more about them for now because there's always problems with greasing the narrative at the beginning of a story-maybe next week- I have to pace myself if I don't want to end up disliking the show at once.

    ReplyDelete
  91. lsbloom26 September 2012 at 20:12

    Shows like the Walking Dead and Hell on Wheels haven't done any better job of filling holes or being realistic or taking a documentary approach, all they've done is smear some dirt and arrogance around and you give them credit for trying. Could people sit around and debate all the holes and the haven't tolds about how the zombie apocalypse started and how everything collapsed? About timelines and engine maintenance? About how they get any food whatsoever? Why no one is carrying anything but a weapon? Yes, but you don't. We don't question why a nice protective intelligent dude, didn't build fences all along his property that a random unthinking walker couldn't just break through or walk around. No, because nobody knows how a zombie apocalypse would really work, all you have is the arrogance of your own opinion, you didn't do the research of how many Raybans exist in the states of IN and IL and how long is the average lifespan of one pair of sunglasses and determine that whether or not if the people with the power decided to hoard sunglasses they could parse them out and it would be reasonable for the guys to guns to have cool leftover vestiges from an earlier time. You didn't design the world, you are guessing about how you would have designed the world, but none of that is fact because the "facts" don't exist. In the world of the Walking Dead it happened just as they tell us it happened, we accept it because it fits within the realm of traditional genre rules. For me the same goes for Revolution. You can accept that or not, you can find things that you like in the show or not. I enjoy the show for what it is.

    ReplyDelete
  92. DarqueMode26 September 2012 at 21:23

    I'm glad you enjoy Revolution, but you seriously rationalize things to the point of not even being logical. By your own admission they have in fact done a better job XD

    They have added some dirt on them. That alone is attempting to make a more realistic world for the show. That acknowledgement that they should be dirty or have stained clothes... or be sweaty with imperfect skin and stubble is exactly what I am talking about. That is more attention to detail.
    I have said repeatedly that Revolution could do more and should do more to be more realistic. That is what those other series do... MORE. I never said they do everything... of course they do not do everything, nor does anyone expect them to. Quit being so extreme please. My point, and of others as I understand them, is that Revolution does not do ENOUGH. Not enough means not enough for me (or the others commenting in a like fashion) to take the show seriously or enjoy watching it..... not that is not enough for you.
    It is in no way arrogant to say that the show has been a let down to me on many levels. It is my opinion. Judging from many of the other reviews I have read online and/or the comments in this room it is a shared opinion of many, many people.
    That does not mean the show is almost un-watchable in its current format for everyone in general, it just means just not very good to me and many others.
    IF as you say "You can accept that or not, you can find things that you like in the show or not. I enjoy the show for what it is" applies to people other than yourself, you should start by applying that attitude to yourself. Others have as much right to see negative things as you do to see positive.


    Oh well, I'm done on the topic with you.
    Feel free to enjoy it. I am not telling you not to. People are entitled to not enjoy something as much as you are to enjoy it. I have said (and many others) what I find wrong, you can look past those faults or somehow even enjoy them. I get it... move on.

    ReplyDelete
  93. lsbloom26 September 2012 at 22:25

    What is the point of this? You are again making not very nice comments about me being extreme and now illogical, which I guess is better than calling me silly. But why did you even need to jump onto a discussion I was having with someone else?
    It doesn't make a lot of sense to me why you'd start talking to someone and then be annoyed when they responded to you. I already let you have the last word twice just in this thread alone. I gave you a "let's let bygones be bygones" final statement on the last post that you felt necessary to turn into condescending personality advice.


    I like the show. You don't. I really don't think anything else needs to be said.

    ReplyDelete
  94. DarthLocke426 September 2012 at 22:47

    I disagree with this, because it is suppose to be a fantasy. It is suppose to be a Utopian revival story and not a realistic doom and gloom existential-end of the world story. I have no problem with the artistic approach in the appearance and what it signifies, as film and television can be an art form and so it's the audiences preference if they can get on board with a light out of dark story, despite their own beliefs of how it "should" be, or not. Even the out door scenes I love because of the vibrate nature playing to man in wilderness themes.


    My gripe is with the execution of some scenes and more importantly diolgue between Charlie and Miles and how the mythology aspect is being handled in a rather procedural way and really the current story hasn't really gotten going. But like you, I feel I have gotten ahead of myself and should wait to let it play out.

    ReplyDelete
  95. lsbloom26 September 2012 at 22:55

    Agree. xD Except I think Miles is hilarious. I love his snarking at Charlie.

    ReplyDelete
  96. DarthLocke426 September 2012 at 22:56

    She was less of a cliche here IMO. --She didn't get upset at all that Miles was cruel to her (she could have gone off an pouted some more) and she didn't cave into Nate just because he saved her life, she was quick to handcuff him and leave him behind. Even at the end of the episode where she helps Nora out, there was something in the character that went along with her childhood counter part that kind of goes outside of all of her disapproval. (it really was very Jedi)


    The whole episode though played to moral implications of killing from both Charlie and Danny confronting Miles and Neville and then seeing Rachel kill the guy trying to take their food...I just think the show is not going to do well unless these characters justify violence in some way, rather than just mouthing off to the older characters. -I am hoping that's why the resistance is introduced so soon. Charlie's face lit up when Nora divulged that, almost like Charlie could get behind it.

    ReplyDelete
  97. MeatyStakes26 September 2012 at 23:14

    I like the point you make that is supposed to be a revival story, so aesthetically it shouldn't be similar to a dystopian/ apocalyptic future. I can agree that it is refreshing that they don't go for that route, even when is such a popular convention.


    The problem lies in that I don't see the aesthetic they are going for yet; its indecisive and it's not adding to the world building. If they are going for the utopian revival feel, I'm not feeling it. Most characters look like people you would see on the streets, Put Charlie next to Emma from Once Upon a time: Who leaves in a world with no electricity for the past 15 years, and who lives in lovely small town?


    The aesthetic aspects of the setting convey very little about what life is supposed to be, it's like a conversation with no gestural cues. There's an epic going on, but the "mood" is hardly being set. Back to signaling Firefly: Cowboys in space speaking chinese is a pretty cool aesthetic, it gives the show flavor, body.


    So far Revolution's setting seems just bland, If they are aiming to a revival story, why not call back to the american revolution in some aesthetics? /they are already doing in with the military scenes, and Charlies mom prison had that feel as well) So far, it seems that the setting is stuck in default. The setting has to be fleshed out, it has to create its own convention if is not going to pick one from the stock.

    ReplyDelete
  98. DarthLocke427 September 2012 at 00:59

    They are doing it with references (Star Wars, Monroe Republic, The Stand, Lord of the Rings, ect) which I listed here in my recap articles:


    The Pilot: http://www.spoilertv.com/2012/09/revolution-pilot-recapspeculation.html


    Chained Heat:http://www.spoilertv.com/2012/09/revolution-1x02-chained-heat.html

    I agree with you about the mood though...their spending SO much time with Charlie and Miles verbally duke'n it out, that it takes away from what could be a pleasanter mood.

    ReplyDelete
  99. DarthLocke427 September 2012 at 01:04

    He got me laughing a few times too.

    ReplyDelete
  100. laura334127 September 2012 at 01:09

    That's right i forgot its taking place in your neck of the woods! (supposedly)

    And just how many bars have to had to bust your way out of,lol...? ;)

    ReplyDelete
  101. Ricky Terry27 September 2012 at 01:14

    He, and I, and others have jumped into the conversation because this is a public discussion forum. We have as much right to state our opinions on the show as you do. No one is saying you are wrong to opine the way you do about the show, but you ARE saying we are wrong to do so. As I have said several times in this thread, I don't like the lack of attention to the small details in this show. Period.


    You don't have to agree but you have to accept my opinion. I accept your opinion that this is the greatest show since sliced bread. I just don't agree. I do agree that it is a fairly good show with an awesome concept, but it needs some tweeks in my opinion.


    Shows like TWD and HOW are doing it perfectly in my opinion. Fringe does an almost perfect job of attention to detail in my opinion. Once upon a time does an outstanding job too. There are countless other examples, but I care not to mention them all. Point is: for me to hold interest, the show needs to be more realistic. By that I mean when the whole concept of the show is what would happen if all the power in the entire world suddenly ceased to exist, then there should be less focus on personal beauty, and more focus on personal survival. That would entail some dirty beardos, and crazy jungle women (think Danielle Rousseau LOST). Living without heated showers, and being constantly on the move would make you look rather nasty, not like you are ready for your loreal commercial close-up.

    ReplyDelete
  102. DarqueMode27 September 2012 at 01:14

    Ha! XD

    ReplyDelete
  103. Ricky Terry27 September 2012 at 01:57

    TWD is believable, Hell on Wheels is believable. Frankly Revolution isn't so believable. This is the crux of my opinion of the show thus far. It also happens to be crux of my disagreement with you.

    ReplyDelete
  104. ScottA27 September 2012 at 02:12

    Well, since you asked, just that one. It was a Saturday and we had played ball all day. One of our teammates has a wife who was "vulgarly aggressive" to say the least. She showed up with two of her friends in tow. They made his wife look like Mother Theresa. Now back in the day I was quite the savage myself but they were relentlessly annoying. The talk soon turned to what was going down when we left there. The pitcher was a little more than half full. I grabbed it, chugged it and said "I gotta take a leak." Took off for the bathroom, ducked into the kitchen and the back door was locked. The cook had no key. I ended up taking the eye bolt out of the door frame with food tongs. Ruined the tongs, gave the cook ten bucks, said you didn't see me and ran to freedom.

    ReplyDelete
  105. lsbloom27 September 2012 at 02:18

    You have every right to state your opinion and have any kind of discussion you would like. What I don't understand is why you would enter into a conversation with someone but then when they respond, tell them that they need to let it go and get over it. That doesn't make sense to me. It's like running down the street yelling someone's name and getting mad when they turn around.


    My only discussion point all along is to say that I have a different perspective when I watch television and how I define what "realism" means. I think going over and over an art direction choice is kinda sweating the small stuff. For me each show gets to create it's world--the colors, the themes, the allusions. They have to stay consistent, but they get to set the rules themselves. TWD is a very monochromatic brown and tan world. What characters wear, how the scenery is depicted all go into painting a dystopian landscape. For me it would be more realistic for group of people in the deep south in the summer who are sweating constantly and working very little, to go take a bath at least once a day, go for a swim in the creek. But they are using the dirty uncomfortable lifestyle to sell that our core group wasn't comfortable and nesting at the farm, they were still in refugee mode. It adds to the story, it makes sense in TWD's world--it's just not what I'd do. I feel like the same goes for Revolution--they aren't creating a post-apocalyptic nightmare, they are creating an happy agrarian utopia--Hobbiton. The colors are vibrant, the landscape is lush, it is a setting to tell a story in--Zelda before he leaves on the quest. The Patriot before the British come. There are a lot of allusions and genre expectations that the art direction is playing with to create a tone and establish a world and evoke emotion. But if you expect a nuclear wasteland populated with grimy people with holes in their clothes barely surviving in a harsh world, IMO you are missing those genre clues, because you are coming from a different direction at that piece. For example, Kripke said in an interview that he was playing with the idea that in a world that no longer has electricity, if you could wield electrically powered devices it would be like magic and those with that power would be like magicians. If you are looking at the world as though it is a fantasy quest, that idea has a lot of interesting implications, implications that wouldn't resonate with you if you weren't in that mindset.

    I personally feel like they are playing with some cool ideas. There are flaws--particularly in pacing and division of exposition vs immediate action. I don't think it's the best thing on television. But it's far from the worst and it is the most exciting new offering of the season (for me). I don't expect anyone to agree with me. But if you talk to me, odds are I'm going to talk back, until there's no place to go but personal insults and I don't think those are necessary.

    ReplyDelete
  106. Ricky Terry27 September 2012 at 03:00

    If you go back up to the top of this thread, and follow it to my first post. You'll see that I actually was replying to wtfsignmeup. I was agreeing with his/hers opinion on the state of the characters appearance. I in no way replied to you personally until you replied with a sarcastic remark at my original statement. That is when you and I got into it.


    Since that moment I have only tried to show you my reasoning for my opinion. I in no way told you to let it go or get over it as you say.


    Again I will say this: I think that the attention to the subtle details in this show mainly regarding the appearance of the characters is a joke. Plus I hate to break it to you but this IS a post apocalyptic world. It is not a utopian world in fact it is distopian. It is a dog eat dog world. It is a world where there are no electronic conveniences. It is a world of not only basic survival, but also survival of the fittest. It is a world that has you looking over your shoulder to avoid the militia (very much like the gestapo) It is not a free world anymore. People in this situation in reality would not be sporting trendy hairstyles, they would be sporting functional hair styles. They would not be concerned with their skin care except to a functional level. They would not trip over each other to get that daily shower and shave. They would do so only when it was safe to do so. In reality if this were to go down there would be a whole helluva lot of greasy bearded longhaired dredlocked animal skin wearing survivalists. Remember we are talking about a decade and a half of having no technology anymore. Not two weeks after the incident. I'm sorry if you cannot see it like I do. This, to me, at least points to the lack of thought in creating this world. I mean I can't believe not a single writer in the group of writers didn't stand up and say: So how should these people look 15 years after the lights went out?


    Agreements and disagreements aside, do you at least see what I am getting at? If not then I shall end my part in this discussion, because it would be illogical to keep rehashing this same point anymore to you if you can't comprehend what I am saying.

    ReplyDelete
  107. DarqueMode27 September 2012 at 03:06

    I see it the same way. It is a dystopian world.

    I know many are trying to say it is about hope and rebuilding and a re-evolution, but you cannot have any of those things without first having the power apocalypse created dystopian world. If it were a Utopian world they would need to fight as resistance and be hopeful. They would have everything already!


    Ps.S. I said "Move on" to isbloom because I was tired of the non-conversation as I said one thing and was replied to in a way that hardly related to my comment. I'm done debating or discussing it with him/her.
    *shrug*

    ReplyDelete
  108. Michelle27 September 2012 at 03:37

    I liked this second episode so much more than the Pilot, which I also enjoyed. I feel like I'm missing something, though, with all this hate on Charlie. I find her character to be one of the most honest in the whole show, and I think Tracy Spira-whatever is doing a fine job. I believe her naivete and her entry into this larger world is playing out realistically to me. She's no "Mary Sue", and she has flaws. I enjoyed pretty much every aspect of this episode and I sincerely hope people keep watching. I know I will.

    ReplyDelete
  109. lsbloom27 September 2012 at 05:06

    I am sorry there has been some confusion as to who is replying to whom. DarqueMode has also been engaged in this conversation, but he explains his point below.


    At the top of the thread, I was making jokes. I'm sorry if those came across too sarcastically for you. They weren't meant as insults.


    Yes, I understand that you feel like it is (or should be) a harsh, post-apocalyptic world. And that the creative choices being made do not reflect enough consideration of that situation. Here's what I'm trying to say (maybe very inarticulately): that assumption may not be valid for this show. IMO no one in the writers' room stood up because the fundamental creative direction is different than your assumption. You are lamenting the fact that there are no details that support the world as you think it should be, instead of, considering, that those details are missing because that world doesn't exist. The bright greens, the happy yellows, the softly glowing sunshine, these don't read like a world-ending disaster has befallen us. At the beginning, Aaron is trying to convince the kids that in fact something is wrong with the world. Ben tries to get Charlie to accept that outside their insulated hamlet the world isn't as civilized as it once was. They don't understand because their generation didn't really see the world go off the rails, they only know now. And now, we've adjusted. It's not perfect. The cities and markets are like wild west towns, but they aren't world-destroyed wastelands. I don't feel like we've seen anything in the show to indicate that that was their intention they just failed to execute realistically, is there a scene that you could point to that lead you in that direction?


    --If you care to hear my final attempt at rationalizing the genre difference for you, it is below. If you feel like you get it and disagree, I understand.--


    If the power went out, the world went crazy, there was looting and fighting and dying. One way to go is total Resident Evil, Book of Eli, The Road, etc, dark or dry landscapes, armed cannibals, every man for themselves, water is a precious commodity, and people use bones for necklaces. We're dirty and we're mean. The Revolution isn't showing you that, not even a network TV sanitized version of that. BUT if you go another way, maybe it was a way for the writers to hit the reset button. Create a landscape where a sheltered girl could go on a quest through a varied landscape, like Frodo or Link. So, maybe a people didn't go bearded dreadlocked survivalist nuts, maybe they took the opportunity afforded by vast tracks of land in North America and they got out of harms' way, and built little isolated lives for themselves. They stockpiled library books and seeds and clothes, and started over. And in fifteen years, we'd reached a stasis point. Not everywhere was safe. We don't have democracy. But natural selection had run its course and here we are at say pioneer days. Sure there are native american problems, and wildlife problems and political problems, but Pa kept the homestead safe and until something bad comes to the door, we wash our clothes and dress up for church and do our chores. (Sorry, I loved the Little House books. and this really reminds me of them.) xD


    Could you come to terms with the idea of the show being less Resident Evil and more Legend of Zelda? I think if you can, it might make more sense to you and not seem so creatively blind.

    ReplyDelete
  110. DarqueMode27 September 2012 at 06:57

    Agreed.
    The three issues I see are that 1) the show does not have a budget large enough to create the epic scope the series needs to feel real and be successful, and 2) what the producers are saying does not match what they are giving, and 3) This world they want the series to be based in does not make sense.... at least not yet.


    I know they say it is some Tolkien-like adventure series with a doe-eyed girl's hope and idealism representing a new beginning for humanity, but then they give us a country under martial law where the cities are deadly and wild, the country has bandits that will rob and rape you, most people struggle to survive, and then layered on top of all that is an uncaring military force that does as it pleases without any repercussions. No matter what color pallet they chose, that is not a pretty picture. That is a dark and dangerous world.


    More over it is not some alternate world where they can create their own set of rules.... It is our own world with known landmarks. Our current world's rules apply and should not be ignored since it is only 15 years into the future. Had they gone 100 years into the future, or even 50 years, they could establish their own rules more so. As it stands now only a decade and a half later we pretty much know exactly what the world would be like. Areas of our world have little or no power, other areas have had massive wars that left the country decimated,. We know what it would look like and the series simply does not meet those standards. We have seen how major cities and the people living their live and look after just weeks with no power. It is not Utopian! XD


    One of the first things the series should have done and needs to do in my opinion is explain why there can be no machines working. Why are there not gas or steam engines, no animal or human powered mechanisms? Even without electricity all of those things should be operational and any organized tribe of people would be taking advantage of those resources. Even if petroleum is rare or gone, older engines with carburetors could be converted to wood oil with gasonators without great difficulty. Methane can be created and gathered from mulch piles and used for rudimentary boiling of water etc.


    It is nonsensical to think that internal combustion engines no longer work because electricity ceased to exist on the planet. I can accept that there is no electric power due to some event - man-made or natural. I need to see why the laws of physics no longer apply so much that there are no internal combustion engines etc.

    ReplyDelete
  111. DarthLocke427 September 2012 at 13:37

    I also think the sun glasses may be a reference to The Matrix (and note: those style sun glasses, although slightly different, which John Lennon made famous, derive from the Victorian Era, so they had cool little opticals before electricity too!)

    ReplyDelete
  112. laura334127 September 2012 at 13:45

    LOl,oh you prankster! ;)

    ReplyDelete
  113. DarthLocke427 September 2012 at 14:08

    Your second paragraph: That I can't deny. Which is why I think there is going to have to be some acceptability with Charlie, otherwise it's a story about a girl who just keeps dragging her feet, I think their intention to stop the wars and create peace and to fight honorably. I think there was a point that was trying to be made about what you are fighting for...not machine parts, but freedom of oppression, but it came off badly, because of the scene in the beginning where she told miles not to kill Boba Fett. Lord of the Flies is considered a Dystopian and Utopian story because you can use Dystopian landscapes to tell "positive" stories about humanity freeing themseves. (Dystopian stories don't have any happy endings, it'a all in vein) The idea of the power going out plays to an idea philosophically if it is the energy that made the world a better place, or if taking it away did? (Because thinking of Arvin Sloane and William Bell, that might be why someone did this) Or if it just has to do with what we choose to fight for?


    to your third paragraph: I don't think we know that. What i mean is it's possible that what ever caused the black out could have "accelerated growth" and/or changed the laws of physics. The AC/DC (Alternate current/direct current) reference may point to a piece of tech like a Dynamo Electric Generator (which there are schematics for some piece of tech by Grace's computer)...Additionally the all in one power button, wasn't originally the all in one power button...It was the the "stand by" button, so it could mean that electricity is "asleep". If the energy is being absorbed and/or redirected, then it stands to reason that their would be a piece of tech doing that, but then, thinking about FRINGE's season 4 finale and Olivia being used as a kinetic energy absorbing device herself, we would have to ask what the energy could be put into? (Star Wars - Building a Death Star). If you rotate the Monroe Republic Logo a quarter counter clockwise you see a circle that is broken by static (or sigma?) which could signify some frequency change or electric field being redirected by another force...

    ReplyDelete
  114. lsbloom27 September 2012 at 14:24

    With the chain gang scene, I was totally reading Cool Hand Luke. It added to the rebel feel, but also the moral ambiguity of the situation. Were those guys "guilty" and we were breaking the law and letting them out of the jail? Or were they slaves and they needed to be freed?

    ReplyDelete
  115. DarthLocke427 September 2012 at 16:49

    IMO it's not suppose to be realistic, as "realism" isn't generally pro humanism, or about enlightenment and/or revival. There are plenty of fantasy films that are not realistic, but the point of exploring it, is to try and tell a story about humanity at it's core, about being able to "create" something good out of something (a force) that constantly fighting against us (evolution/nature/spiritual beliefs-God/Devil, ect). It is about survival of the fittest and philosophically the 'better' way to do so.


    We live in dark times so I think the general consensis of viewers is going to be negative anyways, because most people are not at a good place. I would agree with you that Charlie's current viewpoint has yet to present her with complication, which is more than unrealistic, than even the setting/appearance of things.


    If I would have wrote the episode I would have done 2 things different.
    1. I wouldn't have introduced the Bounty Hunter at the train tracks...I would have just had the characters walk by it, maybe with the implication of being followed.


    2. I would have had everything after that play out the same, making the whole "putting the bounty hunter in the train car" conversation be apart of his and Miles' past. -I would have Charlie save her "don't kill him" speach for Miles choking him to death with his handcuffed hands...


    3. Everything else would go the same until after the fighting the warden scene. That's when I would have had the Bounty Hunter come back and grab Charlie from behind, then I would have had her say, "you can kill him now."


    IMO that would have made the whole episode 50 times better and the moral implications clear and more acceptable to the viewers.

    ReplyDelete
  116. DarthLocke427 September 2012 at 18:05

    100% with you Isbloom!

    ReplyDelete
  117. DarthLocke427 September 2012 at 18:22

    The way you make an Utopian world is by having people who don't believe in Dystopia... These two words are really words that imply a few things: Dystopian is associated with dark, repression. and something that is fundementally different to the viewers current state of the world. Utopian is about fighting against darkness to be "better" more peaceful way of life. It's also often in association with "wilderness"...


    The problem lies in that in any given story we have life , death, and rebirth situations in order to establish the point in the story we are. So yes we are somewhere between death and rebirth...the point then being is can we stop the cycle...can we not go through death (dystopia) again. I don't think the arguement is that this story isn't born from dystopia, but it's about escaping it and not letting happen again. (Utopia) -It's only the second episode so I think we can't expect "harmony" over night...we have to work for it, have people believe in a better tomorrow and better values to have a better tomorrow with better vaues AKA FRINGE: "Fight for the future"

    ReplyDelete
  118. Ricky Terry27 September 2012 at 23:50

    I can concede to your point. But I suspect the show will take a turn more into what I believe is less hope like. If that makes any sense. We see that in a mere 45 minute episode Charlie goes from bleeding heart to killing machine, so I think we may be seeing more of that sort of thing in the future of the show. At least I hope so. I just dislike the shine happy people approach. To me it seems unreal, which may just be what it is supposed to be doing. It may very be that there has been a false sense of security among the core group that will have to be removed much like the first season of TWD when the group felt relatively safe in the woods before all hell broke loose.

    ReplyDelete
  119. lsbloom28 September 2012 at 00:53

    I suspect you are right. :) I don't know if the quest will go full-on Mt. Doom, but they'll probably at the very least have a few "dungeon" levels. I think there is also gonna be darkness in the flashbacks, which already use a different color palate. If they do that sort of fleshing out, it might help it feel more realistic for you. I agree Charlie has a large growth curve to understanding the rules of her new world view, but she is moving pretty fast. IMO she might be going too fast for realism, but given how annoyed people are with her, I am just hoping it's fast enough to dim some of the hate. I think if they resolve some of the outstanding mystery issues it will help. But, they need to find a good balance between exposition and adventure. It could prove to be a really tricky line to walk
    , especially if they have to also balance darkness and light.

    ReplyDelete
  120. phnxgrl28 September 2012 at 00:56

    It was horrible! I can not believe anyone would watch this over Castle!

    ReplyDelete
  121. Katarzyna Skop28 September 2012 at 12:05

    You know, people managed to sew clothes and make soap/cleaning aids for years before electricity was invented. I'm actually not surprised that they're doing fine. The guys in antiquity were doing fine too; they've built PYRAMIDS with the use of slaves and horses and mules, for god's sake!

    ReplyDelete
  122. Katarzyna Skop28 September 2012 at 12:06

    Ever heard of razors? Those are pretty handy when you want to shave off your beard. Or when you shave off your hair and then it grows back, really short at the beginning.

    ReplyDelete
  123. lsbloom28 September 2012 at 17:03

    That's a very interesting point. Thank you for sharing it.

    ReplyDelete
  124. DarthLocke428 September 2012 at 18:17

    Everyone here is assuming (which after what Aaron said you shouldn't) that what is happening is suppose to look natural, as if it was made from a natural event....If it's a man made event, with man made "technology", then how can we possibly know the way anything should look? -How do you know if mass radiation of some sort couldn't cause an accelerated global warming effect? This is also pegged as a science-fiction show...and considering Bad Robot's way of story telling, I am surprised that everyone is taking what has been presented at face value. The Star Wars Factor alone points to advance tech, and the Empire was building things, like mass weaponized-space station...

    ReplyDelete
  125. Ricky Terry29 September 2012 at 00:30

    Yeah I'm pretty much done with this thread. Of course I know how to shave, and the concept of shaving, but had you read the rest of this thread you would see I don't mean like HOW could it be possible. I mean what is the point of it anymore? Why would there be so many fresh faced people in a world like this? In reality many would have ditched the razors. Men didn't start wearing clean shaven faces as a rule until the mid 20th century. Before then the majority wore some form of facial hair. What else happened in the mid 20th century? Technology began to explode. Without Technology, and not to mention with crazy militia men hunting you down, things as trivial as looking proper begin to go by the wayside. This is my point. I'm concerned with the realism of this show. It doesn't have me convinced yet. Ok I made a joke about haircuts and clean faces, and buzz cuts, but what I'm really doing making fun of the show's realism which in my opinion should be more realistic.

    ReplyDelete
  126. David Galli29 September 2012 at 16:19

    What is it that define a better actress? Really, I am ignorant on this subject of acting, because in all my honesty I didn't see her half as bad as you seem to imply she is.
    Couldn't you give the benefit of doubt and let the character sink in? There are actors/actress and actors/actress - some need time to build their way in, a process of becoming yet to be achieved.
    There was a time I really hated a performance that later on evolved and became astonishingly different and surprisingly good.

    ReplyDelete
  127. phnxgrl29 September 2012 at 18:36

    How could anyone want to watch this tripe when Castle is on?

    ReplyDelete
  128. Sharon Seymour29 September 2012 at 18:38

    People who don't like Castle?


    People who enjoy the show.


    People who record it and watch Castle


    People who watch it and record Castle.


    So lots of people

    ReplyDelete
  129. prpleight2 October 2012 at 01:25

    It's all subjective. You may never agree with anyone else's assessment of someone's performance and there's no reason any of us should. (I've talked to a couple of people who thought certain Oscar winning actors were horrible. )


    I've had the same experience on day time soaps; seen actors come in and be, IMHO, horrible, and in a few years they're doing powerhouse scenes. I have no idea how a casting director sees any of that potential.

    ReplyDelete
  130. prpleight2 October 2012 at 01:35

    I caught up with this ep online finally. A couple of story points I was happy to see...the discussion about the power...and Charlie's mom still being alive. I get the feeling we're supposed to be watching Charlie grow up...but for now I find the character massively annoying. To the point where I simply don't want to watch her...and given that she's the lead character it affects my desire to check out the show. I think my big problem is at this point, I keep wishing it were about something else. I would have been happy to completely delete the Giancarlo Esposito exposition scene. If the point was to see that that American Flag is the rebel flag...we got that in the tattoo scene with a more interesting character. Don't like the General. He just has no screen presence to me. All I saw in that scene with him and Elizabeth Mitchell was her.


    It's just a pile of stuff I don't care about and nothing interesting enough for me to watch. If they can't hook me with ep 3. I'm done.

    ReplyDelete

NOTE: Name-calling, personal attacks, spamming, excessive self-promotion, condescending pomposity, general assiness, racism, sexism, any-other-ism, homophobia, acrophobia, and destructive (versus constructive) criticism will get you BANNED from the party.