Fan Forum
Remember Me?
Register

  New Forum Poll   |     Request a Forum   |     View New Forums

 
 
Tags Thread Tools
Old 05-12-2014, 04:32 PM
  #31
Elite Fan

 
Hamburgo1001's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 37,849
IMO, all the romances or potential romances on Revolution were more or less unwatchable. It was one of the show's many failings. I know Rachel/Miles had their fans, but personally, I could never get past how the writers established in season 1 that Miles was abusive towards Rachel, but then completely ignored it as they moved forward with the story. To me, that was cowardly and it insulted my intelligence as a viewer. The prospects of a Rachel/Monroe thing crept me out for the same reasons...
Hamburgo1001 is offline  
Old 05-20-2014, 05:31 AM
  #32
Elite Fan

 
Hamburgo1001's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 37,849
Quick question: Now that Revolution is cancelled, do we want to open a appreciation thread for the cast where we can follow their post-Revolution careers?
Hamburgo1001 is offline  
Old 05-20-2014, 05:54 PM
  #33
Fan Forum Star

 
Hawthorn's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 134,090
I completely agree that there isn't one really sane couple/potential pairing in the whole show, I just meant to say that but compared to others and their baggage, Monroe/Charlie might not even make it into the top 3 in my eyes.

When it comes to Rachel, I feel like the way they expanded her screentime and storylines almost did her a disservice rather than help fully flesh out the character. Inconsistencies and badly handled romance are part of the messy deal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hamburgo1001 (View Post)
Quick question: Now that Revolution is cancelled, do we want to open a appreciation thread for the cast where we can follow their post-Revolution careers?
We could use any opportunity to have something to talk about, and we all seem to be fond of the cast or part of it at least (especially David and Giancarlo), so I'd say - let's go for it.
__________________
"Stop it! Stop it!"
¤ Fran ¤ | icon ©
Hawthorn is offline  
Old 05-21-2014, 10:09 AM
  #34
Extreme Fan
 
IloveJules!'s Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,033
There is a thread for the V cast. I think it's okay to have a thread for the Revolution cast too.


Yes, Rachel/Bass is not exactly pretty. There is abuse. It is very twisted and sometimes, it was a little bit creepy. The way they were presented to us was a little bit creepy. I can understand people being disturbed by the idea, considering the things he did to her.

After that 2x19 Revolution Revealed, I'm not sure anymore. But I often felt that Liz herself, based on her interviews, didn't like the idea of Rachel/Bass.

I ship them in a sort of shameful way. You know, "this is wrong, you shouldn't ship them. I do ship them. Oops." way. With all that sexual tension between them, it was impossible to not ship. And as twisted as it is, it was exactly the prisoner/captor dynamic, the antagonism between them that made me more curious and fascinated by their relationship.

Although there are things that I wouldn't accept and would make me stop shipping them in the blink of an eye. If Bass beat on Rachel or attempted to beat. If he personally tortured her or attempted to personally torture. If he raped her or attempted to rape.

The Rachel/Miles pairing turns me off exactly because of those things. He attempted to beat Rachel and he wanted to personally torture her. And he did it with the woman he always loved. The brother/brother-in-law angle also became nauseating during the second season because of the way it was written.

Unlike Rachel/Miles, I don't think the writers ever ignored anything bad that happened between Rachel and Bass. It's the contrary. They highlight all the bad things. And if there was a season 3... who knows what they would do. They would probably make me stop shipping them. And Bass paid for some of the things he did to her.

Now I didn't want them to become canon after they established Rachel and Miles as the couple. I have a hard time to understand the point.

And I don't think there would be a love triangle between Miles/Rachel/Bass. Simply because Rachel loves Miles and only Miles. She's not divided between Miles and Bass like in a classic love triangle. Rachel and Bass is not a love story. Even if there was something between them, I think it would be about desire, sex and some psychological issues. And only if Miles was absent. Absolutely and completely absent from Rachel's life.

There was (maybe there is) the underlying attraction. Mostly during the first season. And I can see Bass being attracted to Rachel. He kissed her. He spent 4/5 years only with her. Bass said it himself that he enjoyed to have her as company. If she wanted him, he would definitely want her. But she doesn't want. She loves Miles. That's where it ends, IMHO.

I also think it is not like the Miles/Emma/Bass thing. Maybe it is a little bit similar. Because both women were involved with Miles before being involved with Bass. And we know that Bass likes the same women that Miles likes. Although I think with Rachel is much more about Rachel than Miles. It's a Rachel and Bass thing. But Emma was with both of them at the same time and erm, same space. This didn't happen with Rachel. And I believe it wouldn't happen. She wasn't with Miles when she slept with Bass. She wasn't even with Ben. She was a prisoner and alone.

But I'd accept a Rachel/Bass thing easier than a Charlie/Bass thing because I ship Rachel/Bass it makes sense. It makes sense that they had sex. It makes sense that Bass would kiss her. The way he did it was horrible though. *sigh* There was something sexual going on between them since their very first scene together and since the beginning of the show. There was always this attraction between them. It wasn't something that came out of nowhere.
It makes sense because of the 4/5 years in Philadelphia. Rachel only had Bass and Bass only had Rachel during 4/5 years, basically. It creates this weird emotional connection between them. Especially considering they were friends before the blackout. From Rachel's POV, you can put some Stockholm Syndrome in there. From Bass' POV, you can say he became emotionally attached to Rachel in a similar way he is emotionally attached to Miles.

All of this happened before Ben's death and Danny's death, so it makes sense that something could happen between them even after their deaths. Also because I see Rachel and Bass on the same level of destruction. Both caused destruction and chaos. There is no excuse to what Bass did to Rachel. But if Rachel ends up becoming his prisoner, it is also because of Rachel herself. Because of her choices, because she gave herself up to the militia, because she ended the world, because she wanted to keep the power off so Danny could live. The same applies to Ben's death and Danny's death. Nothing excuses what Bass did. But Rachel's choices led to their deaths too. Rachel was a prisoner and a victim, but she's not completely a victim and innocent, IMHO.

When it comes to the idea of Charlie and Bass, I can't wrap my brain around it. Not only because of the things I already said that turn me off. Charlie being a "kid" to Bass. The Connor/Charlie and now the Rachel/Bass thing. But also because I remember how the show started. It started with Charlie as this complete innocent girl having her world destroyed by the militia. So her father died and her brother was kidnapped and then he died because of the militia. Under Bass' orders.

Charlie has no past friendship with Bass. No emotional attachment. No Stockholm Syndrome. There is nothing in there to explain a possible relationship between them. They fight together and I think Charlie is grateful that he is often saving her and they sort of respect each other now. She's changing her mind about him. She is seeing this new side of him that is similar to Miles, but that's it.

I can't see how Charlie would chose to sleep with or fall in love with the man who was related with the deaths of her father and brother. IMHO, Charlie is more victim than Rachel when it comes to Bass.

I can understand why people would want them together though, since they were together a lot during the first half of the second season. But I just can't see how it makes sense for Charlie. And Bass too.

I wrote much more than I originally intended. As often happens.
__________________
Child of the wilderness. Learn to find your way in darkness.
Learn to be lonely. Learn to be your one companion.

IloveJules! is offline  
Old 05-22-2014, 06:37 PM
  #35
Elite Fan

 
Hamburgo1001's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 37,849
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawthorn (View Post)
We could use any opportunity to have something to talk about, and we all seem to be fond of the cast or part of it at least (especially David and Giancarlo), so I'd say - let's go for it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IloveJules! (View Post)
There is a thread for the V cast. I think it's okay to have a thread for the Revolution cast too.
Good. I'll try to open the thread within the next couple of days.
Hamburgo1001 is offline  
Old 05-30-2014, 01:52 PM
  #36
Elite Fan

 
Hamburgo1001's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 37,849
I've been reading the Revolution thread on TWOP because the site is going to shut down tomorrow and one of the users posted some interesting snippets from a recent podcast interview with David Rambo. I figured I would copy and paste the more interesting parts:

Quote:
The plans for season 3:

"Season 3, we never got a chance to write it, but we did get a chance to formulate some ideas that Eric and Rockne pitched to Warner Bros.; Warner Bros. loved them, pitched them to NBC and also got a very, very enthusiastic creative response. Our cancellation really had nothing to do with creative... the show was in the right direction and we were doing the job.

We saw season 3 as a tale of 2 cities. Bradbury being one of them where the Nanites were in control because at that point, the nanites... having done experiments on Priscilla and everything... really wanted to control humans – all mankind – and they were going to start by doing the whole city... and we contrast that with a city that was controlled by humans, and those humans would be Miles and Monroe. And we would get a chance to give our family time to root down and become a family again. They would have obstacles, but there was a story of a certain kind of treasure, underneath the city, and [there would be disputes and challenges about that mystery]. We had a lot of fun coming up with that."

"I think the big bombshell is that Rachel's character would have become even more surprising... and we pick up things. We picked up the Rachel-Monroe fireworks and made references to a night back in Philadelphia when Rachel didn't try to stop Monroe... and thought we might try to develop some of that. Sorry, Charloe fans but that's where we were going with that."


Whether Miles was Charlie's biological father:

"We never really decided. I think it might have occured to Eric when he was writing the pilot, but I can tell you it hadn't occured to anyone until we were in the room breaking episode 4 - the one with the flashbacks where we reveal that it was Miles who took Rachel to Monroe. We instantly saw the spark between the 2 characters. I don't know what it was that Elizabeth found when she was working with Billy in that situation or vice versa, but we looked at those dalies and thought there is a story here. And that's when we first thought maybe he's Charlie's dad... and then we thought maybe he's not... maybe he's Danny's dad. That Ben was Charlie's father and Miles was Danny's dad... so that in essence Miles would be rescuing his own son whether he knew it or not. We never made a definitive decision. We thought it was more fun not to know and to leave it out there as a possibility. If you think he's Charlie's dad, he probably is and if you don't think he's Charlie's dad, he's probably not. How's that for an unsatisfying answer?"

On a dropped storyline from the season 1 finale:

"I'll give you something you don't know... it tied into our season 1 finale. This is the story that didn't happen, but might have. When we were writing 'The Tower', we wanted Rachel to be reunited with Grace and for Rachel to say "What are you doing? Why are you here? Why are you doing this?" And for Grace to say "Well, Ben told me to come back." "What do you mean, Ben told you?" "Yeah, I've been talking to Ben on our network. Ever since the blackout. You knew that." And for Rachel to say "Yeah, but you know, Ben's dead." And Grace would say "What do you mean? I was just talking to him." And they go over to the old terminal and Grace would type in "Ben, Rachel's here" and Rachel would either talk to virtual Ben or real Ben. We thought there were a couple of ways we could play that. It was such a tantalizing idea to think the guy who was shot in the pilot ... in some way... was still there. And... it just was a little too far out there. I actually think it was the studio who said "Yeah, could you rework that a little? We are not sure that's the direction to go..."

Whether Revolution has a chance to be moved to another network:

"It actually comes down to business – I have to say I don’t think there’s any chance it’s going to be able to be moved to another network. It has to do with studio economics and who’s producing and what platforms they have and what deals they have in place. It is not a cheap show to do even though we shot in Texas, which has a very generous tax credit. We were negotiating the season 3 credit when we got the news of the cancellation. I don’t think there’s a way to move [the show elsewhere] in a way that makes any kind of economic sense for anybody, so unfortunately the real finale of Revolution has to be written by each of the fans, and I’m dying to know how people would have ended it."

Source
Hamburgo1001 is offline  
Old 05-30-2014, 09:11 PM
  #37
Fan Forum Star

 
Hawthorn's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 134,090
Thanks for posting that.
Yep. Not sad at all that I won't be seeing Season 3.

I agree that the whole Relocate Revolution campaign won't lead anywhere, but I feel sorry for the fans who were truly invested in the show and have worked hard to support it in the past few months.
__________________
"Stop it! Stop it!"
¤ Fran ¤ | icon ©
Hawthorn is offline  
Old 05-31-2014, 06:06 AM
  #38
Elite Fan

 
Hamburgo1001's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 37,849
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawthorn (View Post)
Yep. Not sad at all that I won't be seeing Season 3.
Same here. I think the Rachel-hate would have reached a new all-time high with the upcoming Miles/Rachel/Monroe setup next season. And honestly, Monroe would have started to look pathetic to me for moving in on yet another one of Miles' women...

Miles probably would have come out of this storyline smelling like a rose, which makes me wonder if this wasn't just a way for EK to infuse some temporary angst in the Miles/Rachel relationship without having to tarnish his beloved pet character...

Also, I think watching a town full of nano-zombies would have probably become boring after a while.

Last edited by Hamburgo1001; 05-31-2014 at 06:30 AM
Hamburgo1001 is offline  
Old 05-31-2014, 09:31 PM
  #39
Fan Forum Star

 
Hawthorn's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 134,090
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hamburgo1001 (View Post)
Miles probably would have come out of this storyline smelling like a rose, which makes me wonder if this wasn't just a way for EK to infuse some temporary angst in the Miles/Rachel relationship without having to tarnish his beloved pet character...
But isn't a love triangle just another way to have the audience think again about these characters' past, and the mess that connects them? There were surely other ways to add angst without tarnishing Miles' reputation bringing up Rachel's captivity or even the whole cheating on Ben.

I feel like they are really overestimating how much people care about romance on the show, too. If there is one thing that I've seen most commenters agree about - more than Rachel/Miles, Charlie/Monroe or Rachel/Monroe - is the importance of the Miles/Monroe bromance. What would a triangle do to it, especially after the whole Emma storyline? Is spicing things up between two pairings with medium/small sized fanbases worth pissing off a way bigger fanbase that cares about the bromance way more than any of those couples?

I don't even care for Miles, and yet I can't buy for even a minute that Monroe would put his lust/interest for Rachel above his obsession/bond with Miles.

I swear I can't understand the logic/opportunity behind this triangle idea. It neither feels like a compelling storyline that would benefit the characters, nor like something one can explain as fanservice. It makes no sense and imo would have turned most people off.
Quote:
Also, I think watching a town full of nano-zombies would have probably become boring after a while.
Speaking of things fans haven't been asking for - I guess they missed how viewers were already bored with the nanites storyline taking over.
__________________
"Stop it! Stop it!"
¤ Fran ¤ | icon ©
Hawthorn is offline  
Old 06-01-2014, 06:43 AM
  #40
New Fan
 
Joined: May 2013
Posts: 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawthorn
I feel like they are really overestimating how much people care about romance on the show, too. If there is one thing that I've seen most commenters agree about - more than Rachel/Miles, Charlie/Monroe or Rachel/Monroe - is the importance of the Miles/Monroe bromance. What would a triangle do to it, especially after the whole Emma storyline? Is spicing things up between two pairings with medium/small sized fanbases worth pissing off a way bigger fanbase that cares about the bromance way more than any of those couples?

Speaking of things fans haven't been asking for - I guess they missed how viewers were already bored with the nanites storyline taking over.
I prefer the writers of a show telling their own story without being influenced by what the "fans" think, also I don't believe that what is written on the Internet is representative of the general opinion of the audience.
Balian is offline  
Old 06-01-2014, 08:35 AM
  #41
Fan Forum Star

 
Hawthorn's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 134,090
Quote:
Originally Posted by Balian (View Post)
I prefer the writers of a show telling their own story without being influenced by what the "fans" think, also I don't believe that what is written on the Internet is representative of the general opinion of the audience.
I repost what I wrote about M/R/M:
It neither feels like a compelling storyline that would benefit the characters, nor like something one can explain as fanservice.

I could understand if the turn of events made sense with the characterization and previous storylines and advanced the development of the characters in an interesting way, OR if it was to please the crowds. (and call my assumption preposterous, but I highly doubt the general audience has been craving a romantic triangle - or an hardcore sci-fi nanotechnology plot - more than the internet)

The writers can tell whatever story they want, it's simply my opinion that that one would achieve nothing.
__________________
"Stop it! Stop it!"
¤ Fran ¤ | icon ©
Hawthorn is offline  
Old 06-01-2014, 09:23 AM
  #42
Elite Fan

 
Hamburgo1001's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 37,849
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawthorn (View Post)
I don't even care for Miles, and yet I can't buy for even a minute that Monroe would put his lust/interest for Rachel above his obsession/bond with Miles.
I have the same problem, Fran. I mean, in the season 2 finale, they showed us that Bass, a man who has been desperate for a family for so long, values Miles' trust and friendship so much that he would pick that over his own son, and then I'm supposed to believe that he would put all of that in jeopardy for Rachel? To me, it just doesn't make any sense and I wouldn't be able to buy it.

I think at the end of the day, and sadly in spite of David's great performance on the show, Eric Kripke had this intrinsic need to stuff the Monroe character back into the "evil and twisted villain" box. Whenever it seemed like there was a breakthrough for the Monroe character, something like this would come along and shoot it all to hell. It really is a shame...
Hamburgo1001 is offline  
Old 06-01-2014, 09:50 AM
  #43
New Fan
 
Joined: May 2013
Posts: 56
I didn't wanted to give my opinion on the Miles/Rachel/Bass triangle, I was talking in general here. I don't like when writers alter their story to please the crowds. That the story they want to tell is actually good or not is another question.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawthorn
and call my assumption preposterous, but I highly doubt the general audience has been craving a romantic triangle - or an hardcore sci-fi nanotechnology plot - more than the internet
It is your assumption, and I respect it, I don't doubt you have good reasons to have it. But consider than the number of people giving their opinions on the show on the Internet, plus that that each of us can meet in their entourage also, is a very small minority beside the total audience of the show. So, I think no one should be able to make themselves the voice of the viewers.
Balian is offline  
Old 06-01-2014, 10:00 AM
  #44
Fan Forum Star

 
Hawthorn's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 134,090
I could do with Monroe not getting a redemption if they kept him interesting anyway in a baddie role, just like I could do with "relapses", too, because it's only natural that someone's path has bumps and detours while they try to grow, but with some characters - like Bass (and Rachel, too, in different ways) - I've been feeling like the writers threw them from one extreme to the other depending on the storyline they wanted to portray that week.

And a woman coming between Monroe and Miles? Been there, done that already. Miles sharing Rachel's affections with somebody he considers his brother? Done that, too.

And seeing as you brought him up - I didn't really get where they were going with Connor, either. Tom/Jason 2.0, with somehow reversed roles? Seeing as they love to recycle storylines. Connor was introduced, then they pretty much forgot about him, then boom - twist at the end.
__________________
"Stop it! Stop it!"
¤ Fran ¤ | icon ©
Hawthorn is offline  
Old 06-30-2014, 08:44 PM
  #45
Elite Fan

 
Hamburgo1001's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 37,849
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawthorn (View Post)
And seeing as you brought him up - I didn't really get where they were going with Connor, either. Tom/Jason 2.0, with somehow reversed roles? Seeing as they love to recycle storylines. Connor was introduced, then they pretty much forgot about him, then boom - twist at the end.
I have no idea, either. When Connor was first brought on, I thought the purpose of his character was to give Monroe a family so that he could finally let go of his demons and begin to heal, but it didn't really work out that way. If anything, Connor's introduction only made him fall back into old habits, so color me stumped as to where they were going to take this in a season 3.
Hamburgo1001 is offline  
 

Bookmarks

Tags
elizabeth mitchell, rachel matheson, revolution


Thread Tools



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:50 AM.

Fan Forum  |  Contact Us  |  Fan Forum on Twitter  |  Fan Forum on Facebook  |  Archive  |  Top

Powered by vBulletin, Copyright © 2000-2017.

Copyright © 1998-2017, Fan Forum.