Hamburgo1001

Is it that bad? I have to admit I don't spend much time in the Revolution fandom, but from the little I have seen and experienced, it seems to be a much more harmonious group than many of the other online fandoms I have been a part of (Smallville, Arrow, The Walking Dead, etc.) or heard about (OUAT, Teen Wolf).

Hawthorn

I don't know why Liz keeps bringing up the screw-driver scene, I thought it was a very powerful and well done moment, and I don't really see people commenting to blame her for what she did there.
My main issue with the character, besides the fact that I agree with Cristiane that I struggle to see a coherent arc her her, is that I don't really feel the two relationships most important to her/her story. I don't really care all that much for the Rachel/Charlie dynamic, and I was willing to roll with Rachel/Miles until the writers felt the need to show us that she never gave a damn about Ben.

I don't see that much hate towards Rachel, but I don't read other message boards so can't say my knowledge of fandom is big. I mostly check tumblr, sometimes twitter and the comment section underneath some Revolution articles.
She doesn't seem one of the favourites, though. I see people discuss Miles, Monroe and this year's "revamped" Charlie, mostly.

IloveJules!

I think Liz doesn't like when Rachel kills innocent people. She said it when she was interviewed by South Magazine. I don't think it is related to what people think about Rachel or the screw-driver scene. It seems to be her personal opinion.


I don't follow the Revolution fandom that much either. Just on tumblr to see the pretty gifs/arts. And I check out the Revolution official tumblr, facebook and twitter from time to time. Also read the comments section from some articles/interviews.

Based mostly on tumblr and the official facebook page, I'd say that the Revolution fandom doesn't like Rachel the same way that the Lost fandom didn't/doesn't like Kate. I think it's a fair comparison. It's very similar.

People hate the character. Want her to be killed off. Think the show would be better without her. Say she gets too much screen time. Say Nora was better.

The usual name calling is there, especially when Rachel confronts Bass and/or confronts Charlie. I think this season when Rachel pointed a gun at Bass, told Miles to get out of the way and then got really mad at Charlie for bringing Bass with her. I think that's when the fandom attacked the character the most.

I'm not sure if Liz reads all these stuff though. It seems unlikely. At the same time she seems to be aware of Rachel's unpopularity.

Or maybe I got everything wrong and she's talking about the other character's POV. Because the characters are often like "WTF?!" when it comes to Rachel and her secrets/opinions/decisions/actions.


That all being said, I'm not talking about Fan Forum. The Revolution board over here is great. The moderators are really nice and the most frequent posters are very nice too and I feel that most of them like Rachel. They might have some issues with the character here and there, but they seem to understand everything she's been through and why she does/says the things she does/says. I have seen some dislike towards Rachel, but it's not very strong. I dislike Miles much more than people dislike Rachel over there.

And I understand why people cannot sympathize with Rachel. It's fine. I don't sympathize with Miles. I just think she gets too much unfair and mean hate. Especially when you compare with characters like Bass and Miles.

Balian

I saw this too, in other places. Though I don't know if the Revolution fandom is that big either, as much as the Revolution hatedom, or rather hatedumb. Every character gets some hate at some point, and strangely the ones that get killed off become the most popular, just to say that the writers always do the wrong choices.

It's possible that Rachel get more hate because her character is not as tongue-in-cheek, ironic as Miles, New Monroe and New Charlie, and Neville is untouchable because Breaking Bad.

I have other explanations too, but I fear going too far.

IloveJules!

It could be. But I'm not sure if that's the reason Rachel gets more hate. Because Nora was very much like Rachel in this aspect. She was more focused on her mission and more serious. But the fandom really liked the character. Not as much as Miles, Bass and Charlie, but they liked.

As I said, I think it has to do with the writing. With not writing a very consistent arc for Rachel and not showing much of Rachel's inner feelings in relation to the morally questionable things she did and also in relation to the things Bass did with her.

But I also think there is a lot of unfair dislike.

I guess if we continue this discussion, we may go too far, yes. We will probably end up talking about Rachel and Bass, that's inevitable. About double standards and stuff like that.

Balian

But precisely, Nora didn't get much focus to begin with. She didn't really have an arc for herself, and was always following the decisions of Miles or Charlie. She did have the resistance angle in the first episodes (my memory could be a little fuzzy), and it led to the infamous explosive log episode, I think I remember she got criticized for that. This was brushed aside in favor of the other characters.

I would do the distinction between characters and character arcs, I may be mistaken but I think that in the case of Kate it was more her arcs, episodes and flashbacks that got much hate, than the character herself. After all, with all the love triangle criticism, Skate and Jate were still popular ships. I understand that bad writing lead to disinterest and dislike in a character arc but if we're really talking about character hate it is an irrational thing, which personally I think has nothing to do with bad writing.

I do think that Rachel would get far less hate if she was a man, because her character is very much stereotypically masculine, smart, independant, awkwardly sociable, without a very apparent maternal instinct (very much unlike Juliet and Erica, for the last two attributes right). Women in fiction are not allowed to be flawed or complicated, but either pretty, virtuous and maternal romantic interests or perfect sexy badass. I think a comparison between Rachel and Neville is more adequate though, as they both could be considered normal but pragmatist people willing to make sacrifices and hurt others to protect their family in a difficult world, while Bass is shown to be screwed up because he lacks a real family. A good example is how they both killed people to get food, while Bass massacred a whole camp because he was very angry.
And here I would say that Neville character arc is very much more inconsistent, it flip-flop every episode or so, I do get he is above all on his own side but they're taking it too far, it seems to me that he backstabs anyone he encounters just for the sake of it. But it's cool with him because Breaking Bad.
I do love Bass too though, actually I already loved him before it was cool back then in season 1.

IloveJules!

I totally agree with this. I also believe Rachel wouldn't get much hate if she was a male character.

The comparison between Rachel's personality/actions and Tom's personality/actions to show how unfair is the hate for Rachel is fine too. They have similar personalities. Although I think Rachel is much more emotionally broken and unstable than Tom, given everything she's been through and her guilty conscience because of everything she's done. I think Tom when he wants to achieve something, he is more strategist. Whereas Rachel is more impulsive and obsessive, like Bass. She is more calm now though. I guess it's like Liz said, Rachel is starting to regain her consciousness and her morality.

I mentioned Bass because his level of destruction is basically the same as Rachel. She destroyed the world and he became the feared dictator of this destroyed world. Both have done horrible things. However, the female character gets hate and the male character gets love. Not to mention that the female character was a prisoner of the male character during five years and he indirectly killed her son and her husband.

Yes, I still ship Rachel and Bass.

I don't think a better and deeper writing for Rachel would stop the unfair and mean hate, but I think it would make much more people sympathize with the character or at least understand more her side of things.

From what I've seen, people seem to get mad at Rachel because she often blames Bass for Danny's death and lashes out at him. They feel she doesn't have the right to do it because millions of people died through her actions. People also get mad at Rachel when she confronts Charlie because she abandoned her daughter/family, so they also feel she actually owes an explanation to Charlie instead of being mean with Charlie.

So I think the writers should explore more of Rachel's feelings regarding those things. Writing episodes focusing on how she feels about abandoning her family, how does she feel about Danny's death and why she blames Bass so much. You know, besides the obvious. I do think Rachel blames herself a lot too for Danny's death. She once said it. But people don't remember this. She blames herself for everything, really. So showing more of this would be good.

There is also her time as a prisoner. If we got more of Rachel's feelings and more flashbacks about this too, people could sympathize more with Rachel.

When I talk about a consistent story arc, I'm talking about consistently focusing on her feelings regarding the morally questionable things that she did. Like they did with Miles and are doing now with Bass. I think Rachel deserves a very clear redemption arc as much as these two male characters.

Hamburgo1001

Nora was popular? It always seemed to me as if she was just "there" for most people and they didn't really have much of an opinion about her on either side of the spectrum.

As far as Neville is concerned, I think audience response might be a little bit more favourable towards him because he isn't being presented to us as a heroic figure that we are supposed to like and root for. He is a slimy and sketchy character and the writing doesn't hide that fact. That being said, I do agree that female characters are generally judged more harshly than male characters and sadly, a lot of the dislike towards female characters tends to come from the women (or should I say fangirls?) in the audience. I have seen and experienced a lot of female-on-female hatred in various online fandoms and it really makes me sad.

A new gif set:






Source

IloveJules!

I think people like/liked Nora. Not as much as Miles, Bass and Charlie though. But maybe it's because of what Balian said. She was mostly in the background and just supported Miles and Charlie. Nora didn't affect the story the same way that Rachel does. And she was a very heroic character.

I feel the same way about Tom. I think he's supposed to be seen as someone who will always be on his own and choose what benefits himself and his family the most. He will never be faithful to a side. It's one day with you, then the next day he will betray you. He's not trustworthy. And the writing has been very consistent for the character in this aspect. And he's another character that doesn't affect the plot as much as Rachel.

Rachel's polemical opinions and decisions really affect the plot and also affect the three most popular characters on the show (Charlie, Miles and Bass) because her story is very connected to these three characters. That's probably one of the main reasons people dislike her so much.

But using just the last two episodes as an example. If the situation was different. If Bass was the one with boundaries and the one deciding to help the kids and Rachel was the one saying they have to win this war at any cost and being the one that doesn't want to help people. I believe most of the people would still hate Rachel and dislike her decisions/opinions.

It makes me sad too to see women unfairly hating the female characters.


I really enjoyed this conversation between Rachel and Charlie.

For me, it was the best moment of the episode.

Very emotional and powerful and real moment.

I love when they have those moments. Because it's so rare. It's like the writers don't care about developing their relationship.

I really liked how Charlie said Rachel is the scariest person she knows. Because yes, the mom that was behind the destruction of the world. The mom that abandons her family. The mom that leaves a friend (Nora) to die. From Charlie's POV, I can totally understand it.

I think for the first time Charlie really realizes how much Rachel cares for her. I mean, Charlie always knew Rachel loved and cared for her. But it often seemed like there was someone else (including dead Danny) between them.

What's so beautiful about this conversation is that here we have Rachel showing (for the first time, I believe) that she cares about Charlie above anything. And it affects Charlie to the core.

Hamburgo1001

Just some quick thoughts from me about the most recent developments in Rachel's storyline. I'm hoping the Rachel/Monroe thing will remain a thing of the past and the writers won't go down the dreaded Miles/Rachel/Monroe love triangle path. I am not a fan of love triangles in general because they get really annoying and tend to swallow the person in the middle (that would be Rachel) whole, but what makes it even worse in this case is that both Miles and Monroe have abused Rachel horribly in the past. I know the show loves to pretend that some of the abuse never happened, but it doesn't change the facts. A full-fledged Miles/Rachel/Monroe triangle is just too icky for me and would be the point where I check out of Rachel's storyline completely. There are so many more interesting things that should be explored. I am prepared to be disappointed, though.

IloveJules!

If there is more between Rachel and Bass, I won't say I don't want to see it.

But I don't think there will be a love triangle.

They spent an entire second season trying to convince us that Rachel and Miles are OTP material and now they're going to throw Bass in the middle of it? I think it's very unlikely.

Rachel slept with Bass only once. And she seems to regret it.

Not to mention the dubious consent implications. Which I hate.

Can't believe they did it with Rachel and Bass.

Not even I wanted them to become canon at this point. Just wanted them to have scenes together.

If it is stated that the sex was without consent and/or Bass raped Rachel, I stop watching the show.

I would like to see the night in Philadelphia. But I'm pretty sure they won't show it. At least not this season. And since the third season is uncertain. Maybe we'll never see it.

Hamburgo1001

I would be shocked if they make Monroe an all-out rapist. This is NBC. Not FX, Starz or Showtime. However, I do wonder if Rachel may have suffered from Stockholm Syndrome and that's what prompted her to sleep with him. Something like this would still be highly dubious, though.

BTW Cris, I wanted to ask you something. How would you feel about a Monroe/Charlie romance? I noticed that the pairing is very popular in the fandom. Are you on board with it, too?

IloveJules!

I don't know, Revolution had some almost rape scenes. Including two with Rachel. So... it makes you wonder. I'm obviously being overly dramatic because it's Rachel and Bass. If only I knew why they became canon now and what the writers want to do with this storyline from now on. I'm very confused about it.

But I 100% believe Bass when he says that he didn't force Rachel.

I like the Stockholm Syndrome idea. It would fit with Rachel's "I was your prisoner" explanation. Consensual sex but with a little bit of Stockholm Syndrome. I like the idea of better being with Bass than being alone. Liz once said she researched about it to play the scenes between Rachel and Bass and she said Bass was her saviour in a very twisted way because she had no one else to talk to. Actually, that's always been my headcanon for Rachel during her Philadelphia days with Bass since Liz said the things she said. Always thought that's how Rachel dealt with loneliness and loss of her agency.


Charlie and Bass?

Hm, I don't like the idea of a romance between them at all. I realize they're very popular and the writers know it, so they like to tease (aka Duncan and her comments about them being together and the "you chose a Monroe" comment), but I don't buy the hype. I never saw anything there between them. No sexual tension. No attraction. No romantic feelings.

It also turns me off because Bass calls her "kid". Well, at least he used to call her this way. Now he stopped it. But he called Jason "kid". And Connor too. I think he sees them all the same way. As kids. Charlie is Miles' niece and Rachel's daughter to Bass. I think he kind of respects her and values her help and he likes to have her around. But she's just a kid to him.

Never felt he was jealous of Charlie and Connor. When he finds out about them he's freaking out because he's worried about what Miles and Rachel are going to think. Even with the "you chose a Monroe" comment. I think that's Bass wondering why Charlie would sleep with his son after Bass indirectly killed half of her family and kept her mother as a prisoner. I saw it as Bass being intrigued that Charlie is accepting their (Connor and Bass) presence within the group to the point of sleeping with his son.

And the whole saving Charlie thing. I always thought it is much more about Miles and Rachel than Charlie. He promised Rachel he would never let another one of her kids die because of him again. That's when the whole Bass saving Charlie thing was born.

Charlie was definitely impressed that this man that she always saw as a bad man came back to save her. More than once. But I always felt Charlie sees him as someone similar to Miles.

Now what completely turns me off about a romance between them is Charlie sleeping with Connor and now Bass sleeping with Rachel. Sleeping with father and son. Sleeping with mother and daughter. That's too much.

I do think they made a good fighting team. It's nice to watch them working together.

Hamburgo1001

^ Yeah, I think Monroe and Charlie have good chemistry and I find their interactions interesting to watch, but a romance between them would be too creepy for my taste.

A new gif set:





Source

Rachel and Aaron are adorable together.

Hawthorn

Unpopular opinion, but here it is anyway: TPTB's claim that Charlie/Monroe would bring in the "creepiness factor" means nothing in my book after the Ben/Rachel/Miles reveal and the teasing of Miles/Rachel/Monroe. Absolutely nothing.
Actually, between M/R/M and Charlie/Monroe, I'd have stomached the latter much more.
What's the big deal about sleeping with somebody's relatives before hooking up, compared to abuse? Because at this point, the "creepiness" bar has already reached the highest level, even more if I remember Miles/Emma/Monroe, too.

And yes, Rachel and Aaron are a good combination. Both characters would've benefited from having more scenes with each other, this season.