Mastodon Mastodon Mastodon Mastodon Mastodon Revolution — A modest assessment, by Bunky Bunk (The Unrated, Unfiltered Edition)


    Enable Dark Mode!

  • What's HOT
  • Premiere Calendar
  • Ratings News
  • Movies
  • YouTube Channel
  • Submit Scoop
  • Contact Us
  • Search
  • Privacy Policy
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

Revolution — A modest assessment, by Bunky Bunk (The Unrated, Unfiltered Edition)

Sep 6, 2012

Share on Reddit

Firstly, I'm sorry, I meant to include my review in this thread, then my message became overly long so I thought I'd update this post, but that thread would have been way too long afterwards so instead I'm creating this thread. Whether you agree or disagree, if you read my review (and perhaps leave a comment afterwards), that'd be very kind of you.

Revolution (NBC) : 4.14/10.

So this is it, the new "high-concept" (as opposed to "old / lazy ideas") serialized drama of this fall, backed with big Internet buzz and Lost connections. It has become a habit. Back in 2009, I liked, hell I loved, the pilot of FlashForward, I thought it was amazing and showed an incredible potential for a series. Turns out, I quickly started to hate the show because of many things (Joseph Fiennes' diarrhea face is at the top of the list) and the way it was obvious the writers thought viewers were brain damaged (or that they were occasional viewers, in which case we wouldn't want them to be confused, would we?). Back in 2010, I loved the pilot of The Event… and I'm going against the majority because I liked the whole series. Yes, it was sometimes stupid and the acting wasn't always top notch, but the story was going somewhere, it kept me interested, it was filled with twists and turns and it was entertaining, something Revolution's pilot is far from being. Back in 2011, I disliked the pilot of OUAT, I gave it 4 episodes and then I stopped (I'm sorry, I'm not that old but this is a show made for kids or teenage girls). I'd give an average of 3.5/10 to FlashForward, an average of 6.5/10 to The Event and an average of 3.5/10 to OUAT's first 4 episodes - yes, I guess I become less tolerant as time goes by, 2 years ago I might have watched all of OUAT like I did with FlashForward, which to be fair had a concrete objective in sight (arriving to the famous day seen in the flashforwards).

Anyway, I'm giving 4/10 to Revolution's pilot. This is not smart TV. The acting was bad, the special effects should have been better (especially for a pilot, usually more expensive than the rest), the action scenes were bad, the story was predictable and so not taking advantage of the potential of the premise (reminiscent of the work of René Barjavel, especially his 1943 sci-fi novel Ravage). It had no style, no personality. Just because it is sci-fi shouldn't mean we have to jump all over it. When it's done in the cheesiest, cheapest, crappiest way, it's best to watch a movie.



I'm already craving for lines like "you're not my mother !" during their numerous arguments.

Who said a 44-minute pilot had to set up the entire series ? How about the first 6-7 episodes delve into what immediately followed the blackout, the direct repercussions and people's first reactions in a power-less world (I thought that'd be more interesting than anything else), and then we see them trying to rebuild a society, instead of having that society already in place 7 minutes into episode 1.01. Or they could have introduced flashbacks (3-4 per episode), showing the lives of the people right before & right after the event (not sure that it's sending positive signals to NBC to refer to the blackout as The Event :D). But by giving the lead role to a teenager and setting the show 15 years into the future with no trace of flashback in the pilot (other than the one used to brilliantly introduce Monroe), they clearly didn't consider that option, which would have allowed the story to breathe a little more, instead of having to fill time starting at episode 1.02 (yes, I bet 50% of the upcoming episodes will have terrible B-storylines to fill time). And, oh right, allowing time isn't an option on network TV.

I'm not totally convinced by the way they exploited the premise so far. Steam engines should still exist, guns should still exist, so why are they living like a tribe in the middle of the woods with bows and stuff ? Like they're on an island far from everything, actually. And because we don't have electricity doesn't mean cities have to be filled with vegetation in 15 years (scissors and good will, anyone ?). I understand why people would leave the cities (with no electricity, thugs could get away with robbing homes) but why does it feel like many people have died in 15 years ? If not (I don't see any reason why), where did they go ? It's not like there are that many woods or unoccupied farms.



From now on, I'm going to refer to them as Annoying teenager #1 and Annoying teenager #2.

There was one action sequence I thought was well executed, that's when Gus Fring killed 3-4 guys, the camera moved smoothly between his victims falling down. Or maybe it's just because Giancarlo Esposito is such a badass, he'd make anything look great, but anyway, I thought that was pretty cool. Otherwise, Jon Favreau's directing is quite generic. I liked that Esposito's character isn't a complete villain, his brief conversations with Annoying teenager #1 (who just had to reply something bitchy) and the woman hiding Annoying teenager #1 (explaining what was his job before the Event, thus humanizing him, was a great idea) were nice additions to otherwise completely bland dialogues ("Because we're family !", oh please…) and bad character introductions. I'm not pissed about the lack of development yet, it's just a pilot, but I can say that after 44 minutes I don't give a rat's ass about any of the characters… I guess I'm rooting for Esposito's character.

Now, about Annoying teenager #2, he acts like a pancake, and his character is beyond laughable : he's a bad buy, but a tormented one who saves our hero because… he found Love. How tormented, how cute, how unpredictable it promises to be : I am totally shipping them ♥♥♥ ! No seriously, I'm a little disappointed : no love triangle in sight, that is sloppy work. Too bad Annoying teenager #1 is Charlie's brother, that's such a waste of a possible love triangle… well, there's still a possibility for a love triangle that is not incest (not that it wouldn't be entertaining, it totally would be), but NBC have got themselves covered from the associations with another new show (and a lame one, based on the first 10 minutes of the pilot).



AC/DC T-shirt, beard & glasses (nerd ? Yes, he worked at Google), not shaped like a stud : the comic relief guy ! Thank goodness, the overly dark tone of the show was bumming me and thus turned me off buying the excellent products advertised in the commercials.

The lead actress is pretty, but I can't say that I thought she was great in that role (like when the dad died, I felt she wasn't convincing - btw, don't you think Tim Guinee looks like Nathan Fillion ?). She wasn't helped by the writing for sure. Her uncle might be an "anti-hero" but it doesn't stop him from being is a walking cliché : the reluctant guy who drinks whisky (because he's dark/complex) who runs a bar (because, you know, he's a quiet man who wants no trouble), who doesn't want to help (because he's an anti-hero) but who eventually does after decimating 15 guys (there's hero in anti-hero). The choreography/editing of that fight was pretty lame. Oh, and they used long dissolves twice - I don't remember when, but one of them was Charlie talking => dissolve (for way too long) => Charlie walking. That's plain amateurism, it didn't look good at all, it felt like unfinished work.

Btw, at the 33rd minute, when Charlie begs his uncle to go somewhere else and he gently tells her to "go" twice, I told myself "if he yells at them 'GOOOOO!!!!!' after she begs him to go for a third time, this is officially a bad pilot" (yep, I try to maintain myself entertained any way I can). And while Charlie didn't ask a third time (she just stood there), Miles did exactly that.



Drinking whisky in a dark environment ? Oh, you must be the reluctant anti-hero (who has a good heart deep down) / complex character with a troubled past.

About that fight, I love how when they come to get Miles on the stairs, the guy in charge sends 3 guys with swords to take him, Miles takes them out, so the guy tells the other guys with guns to shoot him. Yes, in that order, that makes sense, you want to have 3 of your guys killed before using a weapon you know your opponent can't face. Oh, and I don't get why Miles would put his sword right next to your crotch : I'm no knight, but if I were I would put my sword on either one of my hips. Plus, it must be tricky to sit down with a sword going down your inner thigh.

I was talking about the two cheesy, overly long dissolves earlier, or the mess that was the choreography of some sequences, but those weren't the only editing problems. The slow-motion after Monroe showed his tattoo in the flashback and the slow-mo literally a minute later when Monroe is pouring himself a drink in his tent were nothing but pure cheesiness, it felt like someone was screaming to me "hey, dummy, this is the big bad guy now, you got that, right? Right?".

There are things I liked, though : Giancarlo Esposito, the environment (open spaces all around), the ice-cream scene (btw, when Young Charlie was watching the cartoons early in the pilot, I immediately thought of FlashForward, anyone else did ?), Charlie looking at photos of enlightened buildings or cities, and the possibly intriguing mystery unveiled at the last minute. This was quite reminiscent of Fringe S2/S3 or Lost S2. And Revolution clearly wants to be compared with those two shows, so I'll do it : Lost's pilot was brilliant and Fringe's pilot was good whereas while Revolution's pilot is bad and doesn't show many signs of hope for the future.

FACT : When you try to please everyone (kids, moms, Twilight fans, Hunger Games fans, NBC execs, advertisers, etc), you please them all alright, but only in a very small capacity. Whereas if you have balls, take risks and try things, you might displease some people, but the people you please will be very satisfied. That is not the case here, and obviously no network would ever work to achieve that divisive result (or purposely anyway, e.g : Community). It was a predictable, clichés-ridden pilot. On top of being bad at least it's not a procedural in disguise (Alcatraz…), I guess that's something.

I'll be watching the next episodes hoping it becomes much better, because I want to believe they will use all the potential lying there in the premise of the show (and I hope for recurring flashbacks showing us the repercussions of the blackout minutes/days/weeks after it happened). Because so far, this show doesn't revolutionize TV in any way, if I may say so.

1/ Go On (NBC) : 6.16/10.
2/ Revolution (NBC) : 4.14/10.
3/ Animal Practice (NBC) : 3.03/10.

57 comments:

  1. You really had me laughing there, mainly with the comments about the pictures.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'm so agree about Nate's character (but not Danny) he is the most annoying character of the show, and making him a double agent will not changing my mind, and his chemistry with Charlie is nonexistent (they should bring a new love interest for her). If they want to kill off a character at the end of this season, it should be him.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I watched the pilot again and found myself liking it less than I did the first viewing and that is NEVER a good sign to me.


    I agree with almost all of your critique. It really bothered me that they made everything so desolate after only 15 years too. I can see some areas being overgrown, but cities in ruin etc is just beyond logic. The state of ruin would me me think many decades had passed not just 15 years.


    The move to black powder guns annoyed me too. I would think that if the government (or various militias) confiscated all firearms and made having a gun illegal that there would be enough ammunition stockpiled to last a very long time, decades. At least in the common ammunition calibers. I guess maybe the idea of black powder guns appealed to JJ or Kripke? It was silly to me.


    Like you I am more intrigued to see how man would adapt to this power down than seeing the world 15 years later. That aside.... I am intrigued by who powered down the world and why. I think it could make for a good series, but I'm not sure Revolution is that series.


    It all felt overly familiar to me.... outside of the actual premise it was all cliche and contrived. The fight scenes were awful like you said. I'm glad I was not the only one that thought so.... most of the reviewers thought they were good or even great much to my shock!


    I think the whole series would have been better served if they jumped 20 or maybe even 50 years into the future. The 3 "teen" leads would be adult and hopefully better actors! XD


    Honestly I found Charlie far more annoying than either of the male teens. The sheer level of walking cliche that is the militia spy Nate did annoy me to be sure, but Charlie was equally cliched and had more lines to show off Tracy Spiridakos' "acting skills"..... or not. The character of Danny does not bother me as much, but the performance by Graham Rogers was equally bad on second viewing.


    My most cringe-worthy moments...
    1 - "... blah, blah, wah, because we're family..."
    2 - One of the villagers running at a militia man and being shot by an arrow and launched violently backwards into the opposite direction.
    3 - See, we are showing you pollen surrounding Danny so you know it is an asthma attack and not just a dry throat because we think viewers are dumb.
    4 - Every torch being lit in the lobby stairwell but all the light shining directly on Miles Matheson as he awaits battling the militia.
    5 - The choreography for the entire fight scene between Miles and the militia highlighted by Charlie's life-saving shot and pose to the camera... followed by Maggy's life-saving sword-thrust... only to be outdone by militia spy Nate's life-saving rescue of Charlie.


    I rated it a B-/ C+ on first viewing and a C- after watching it again.


    I still have some hope it will improve since I like conspiracy sci-fi series, but I have no hope that it will be great or a hit.

    ReplyDelete
  4. BECAUSE WE'RE FAMILY.
    BRRCUDS FKJS FMARURH.






    Ugh.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I was thinking the exact same thing about Tim G. the whole time. I also thought it seemed very much like a Hunger Games knock off with the bows and the lead being a teenage girl. I want to like this show. I'm all for sci-fi on network TV but if this is what they are going to be giving us, I'd rather watch Star Trek: TNG re-runs. Just saying.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Not a surprise that I disagree. As I have started to talk among others and pre-draft my own recap and speculation article, I find that philosophically people either disagree with, or don't understand that there is something interesting in a younger generation, that doesn't have electrical power, could somehow hold onto their youth, innocence, and faith in something 'good' and that these young people who seem naive, actually have something that has been stolen from the older generations and can give it back to them--Hope, a reason to really live. (Which is similar to the themes in Once Upon A Time)


    Perhaps it's unrealistic, but I think some of the viewers are cynical (Like Uncle Miles) in not seeing the hope and spirit of these younger people. It's not that I don't want the characters to develop, but apprentices need masters and that's what is also set up here.


    I have no problems with Nate either. Sure he's obviously our James Ford in the sense, he's not initially on the right side and he will be a love interest of Charlie's and so there is a danger in this relationship. I don't think there's anything wrong with having love interests...that's how families get made after all and part of show is about that.


    A Pilot needn't be a perfect spectacle, it just needs to convey a style and an idea in a way that is clear. Even though Fringe's pilot had great special effects, you can see that the actors hadn't found their places yet and it's not until a few episodes in that you can feel them more deeply and easily step into it. Obviously nothing can touch LOST's Pilot with it's 14 million dollar budget, but even there it takes time for some of them to find their places too.


    Obviously people can't help to feel annoyed, when they are. But if this is a coming of age story that celebrates MANY Dystopian turned Utopian novels, then we have to give the characters time grow and find themselves, as Bad Robot works are always about that.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I saw a couple of promos and knew I didn't want to watch the pilot. From what you say, I made the right choice. Meanwhile, you gotta be kidding me--Monroe? This show has a character named Monroe, just like in that other, way better syfy show? They didn't even work hard enough to find a unique character name.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Monroe is actually a historic reference, the final founding father and fifth president of the United States James Monroe, who served in the REVOLUTIONARY War. -The fifth president also came up with "The Monroe Doctrine" which is how the United States started dividing up territories and laws --this parallels the concept and political aspect of "Revolution" and it's Monroe Republic.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I agree I hated that line (cause were family...), but I really enjoyed the fight scenes. I'll have to rewatch for the village guy being thrown in the opposite direction, didn't notice that. I actually the know the guy that is directing the fight scenes. He's the last guy that gets killed in the big sword fight scene. Really nice guy. I gave the first episode a B+/A-. I thought the acting was pretty good on the whole. On a 1-10 scale I probably rate it an 8.5. I'll watch it again. Hey here's something I'm sure everyone can agree on. It was damn better than Animal Practice.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I think you are more able to enjoy interpreting the philosophy while ignoring the inadequacies than I am. It's not either or to me - it's both. In the case of the pilot the poor execution, few below average performances and cliches stood out to me more than the interesting premise, few above average performances and original elements.


    I stayed with Flash Forward and The Event despite having reservations, and I may stay with Revolution as well, but I thought that both were executed better and were more original. I think Revolution may be more ambitious than either of those series though.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I honestly preferred Animal Practice surprisingly. Just by a nose though.


    Animal Practice had a lot of cringe-worthy moments and would get annoying week to week I'm sure, but I had some good laughs at parts I was actually supposed to laugh at. Unlike Revolution where I was laughing at how bad things were in spots that were not supposed to be funny.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I think Bad Robot works are often full of cliche's, but I have never had issues with that, because I think life itself can be a cliche'.


    I didn't think it was poorly executed, because the plot itself is kind a pill to swallow, not because of the plausibility, but because even scientifically/politically looking ahead at why, what, and who caused this electrical blockage, there's almost know other way to get into it, with out starting it out like this, to make the ideas clear from the beginning (which is the goal since a lot of people complain about the unclarity and drawn outness of Lost). I think they were afraid to let the mystery over shadow the introduction to the characters.


    I think we don't know that even if Nate did that because he cared for her, that he didn't also do it ti get close to her later (when maybe it matters more to the militia). I think Nate could be a flip-flopper, or a character who may die for Charlie...I can't tell if he's in it for the long haul, if he is our Hans Solo or not? We really didn't get very much about him --I also almost wondered if Aaron would also become a love interest, even though it may be unrequited, or if his wife is still alive somewhere...So I am not sure if everything is as predictable as it seems.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I gotta say being surprised that a scifi/fantasy show, and a pilot at that, would deal in archetypes is a odd to me. You could make the argument (and many critics and theorists have) that all characters are basically archetypes. Nowhere is that more true than on network television. In a television season that includes the opening monologue of the Mindy Project, it is unfathomable to me that anyone would be complaining about derivative television. The main complaint of the review was that the show didn't "surprise" or "it wasn't anything new." First off a post-apocalyptic world that is lush and green and bright and that is based more on the Wizard of Oz than it is on Brave New World is a radical change of pace. A fantasy show that isn't filmed in various shades of grey darkness is a refreshing breath of air.

    My main complaint of the pilot was it was basically premise setting. They probably could have used another hour for exposition. But I'm going to wait for a full episode before I make a decision about the show. And I'm going to wait for them to explain what happened to electricity before I start picking apart what works and what doesn't. We just haven't gotten enough to make anything but a knee-jerk decision about the show based on preconceived notions of what we wanted or did not expect to see.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I think one of the reasons that people are finding too much cliche is because they are trying to figure out what is going on and who is who, so they are pigeon-holing characters into established types. You are right, we don't know Nate's motivations. He never made a move on Charlie, so we are just assuming he's "fallen" for her. Making assumptions about where the show is going relies on the utilization of tired ideas; however, those are not necessarily rooted in the actual writing.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Historical_MaterialistSeptember 7, 2012 at 4:55 AM

    I'm just going to refer to annoying teenagers 1 and 2 as Tyler and Douche.

    ReplyDelete
  16. is anybody here old enough to remember all the Y2K hype? i've always been a bit of a luddite anyhow, but i learned how to make lye soap from wood ashes and bacon fat, how to make ink from pokeberries, learned how to snare rabbits and tell if they had tularemia, etc. etc. etc. so the mix of weapons, black powder and bows seems like things bright ppl would make given the lack of transportation to go foraging for supplies.
    the overgrowth in the cities didn't bother me as much- i let the back field revert cause i was too lazy to mow and within 3 yrs. it was hard to walk through. so for 15 yrs. this amount of overgrowth seemed reasonable.
    the lack of ppl didn't bother me so much because the dying nathon fillion look-alike told his kid to avoid well-traveled routes, to take back ways. as soon as they got to chicago, there were ppl. the walking to chicago seemed compressed though- how long did they travel, and how far did they have to go?
    odd things bothered me. where did the ppl in the cul-de-sac village get their water? i saw nothing that looked like a well. and the aerial shots didn't show any creeks or ponds that i could see. the ppl we did see were too clean and neat. home made lyse soap is harsh, it'll do the job but it's hard on clothes as well as skin. not enough smoke/soot stains on the interiors. these were modern houses retofitted for candles, wood stoves, etc.
    the thing i really disliked as the repeated insistance that "we're family!" i wanted to burst out w/ sly stones We Are Family after a while, and that was a wildly inappropriate reaction.

    ReplyDelete
  17. In my opinion the main point was not that nothing was new, it was that the performances of three actors, the action scenes and much of the dialog were bad.... and cliche. Not that those elements were bad only because they were cliche.


    It is no more fair to base the pilot episode review on what may improve down the road than it is to judge a series by the pilot alone.


    One cannot base a review on what may or may not happen in future episodes, one can only base it on what happened in the episode being reviewed. Better acting, dialog and fight scenes in later episodes will not improve the acting, dialog and fight scenes in the pilot. However, I do think it is possible to appreciate story elements more after events in a later episode shed new light on them.


    Honestly though my issues with the pilot were not with the story for the most part. I like the over all premise, I like the reluctant anti-hero uncle (even if it is a cliche), I like the militia being after Miles Matheson, I like that militia being led by Matheson's old buddy, and I particularly liked discovering that there is a clandestine collective of people that can override the power outtage and communicate via computers powered by multi-purpose amulets.


    I hope it will improve, but it was a rough start.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Star Wars CERTAINLY didn't deal in archetypes.

    ReplyDelete
  19. InvestedInYourFutureSeptember 7, 2012 at 8:03 AM

    The pilot was horrible. Not only for reasons written above,but also for tons of sexism in the show.

    I mean, seriously? So far we have females ONLY using subterfuge to get by and then you have "heroic" male taking down a few dozens of enemies right on?

    Then we have the supposed "lead female" being patronized, saved and told what to do by male figures for ENTIRE episode.

    The show is just...horrible.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I agree with almost every single word you said.
    And the mom is SO not really dead.

    ReplyDelete
  21. The muskets got to me too. I was okay with "guns are outlawed" but then the general's henchmen pull out muskets!?!? Seriously? Why? I think part of the problem is that they were so vague about what happened. Everything stopped....they seemed to be working hard to give the impression that even mechanical devices were not working. Why wouldn't guns work? They're not computerized; there's no electricity...so huh?


    Honestly, Charlie was such a cliched character that couldn't offer up enough focus to judge her acting. The 'because we're family' thing didn't stick out to me because it's so close to how my family operates. :-)


    #2 cringe moment.. bwahaha....that whole sequence was hysterical wasn't it? for several reasons...not the least of which was the blatant stupidity it required of the character.


    It only got a D from me. (well I voted OK on the poll attached to the preview posting) the mystery sounds like it might be interesting but, at this point, I think I would be just as happy reading about in the recap.


    (I hate it when NBC's publicity machine starts telling me that a show is 'the best pilot of the new season.' For some reason it's just annoying coming from NBC. I think because they did it so constantly with their sitcoms that I didn't find funny...Scrubs, Office, Sienfeld. I finished this pilot realizing they were wrong again.)

    ReplyDelete
  22. I was in working in Silicon Valley during the Y2K hype. ( I have a theory about the real reason for the hype. ;-) Gotta say, when you mentioned it I did NOT expect you to discuss making lye soap. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  23. I dunno the idea of NOT complaining about derivative television doesn't seem ridiculous to me. True the television landscape is full of product that seems to be aiming at the middle, but if the audience doesn't demand and reward those shows that aim for the stars we'll never get anything but the middle.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I haven't seen the pilot so there's no way i can comment on it but I just wanted to answer you on the point you made about what happened to the population.

    Well I think most of them would be dead.

    Can you imagine what would happen just on the food side of things?
    After all the supermarkets and stores had been emptied, where would people find food?
    They would get to the stage of killing each other over a crumb of bread.

    It would take time for land to be changed back into fields , crops planted and harvested and bread produced.
    Then how many people would have the know-how to go back to that type of arable life.
    So in my opinion, the majority of the population was probably wiped out fighting each other over food and of course, medicines would no longer be availabe, so it's logical that only a healthy elite survived; those who had special skills that could be adapted to this energyless type of existance.
    Sorry if I butted in. :)

    ReplyDelete
  25. Not at all and I agree with the basic assessment. Even so I thin kthat they should have encountered more than 4 people.....


    I really would like to see a series deal with that time period right after electricty was lost... Maybe the show will show more in flashbacks.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Finally, I thought I was the only one...

    ReplyDelete
  27. I hate to beat down even more on the not too great reviews this pilot is getting, but in my opinion it has been cloned from "After The Fire" by SM Stirling, a book which I read a few years ago, as the idea is basically the same.
    Perhaps the author gave them permisson to use it, who can tell.
    There is an underlying mystery of why all energy disappeared in the book too.
    Maybe the story-line here will develop differently, and the characters will surely be different too, but the idea is definitely the same.

    ReplyDelete
  28. A lot of people on this site like the pilot too honestly. I know most critics panned the pilot though. At least the ones I read or saw video of.


    I think the show has potential, but the lead is a let down... that is always the risk with casting young inexperienced actors in the lead!


    I'm intrigued to find out more about the event that caused the blackout.... I hope the mystery is hinted at and touched on for a while and not just completely answered though. I want to have the mystery last a long while and just be dispelled quickly. From what I have heard others say, it seems like the answers may come faster than I would want if I wrote the show. Oh well, I guess networks feel the need to do that after LOST backlash.


    Sad that.

    ReplyDelete
  29. You said it better than I ever could put into words! Wholeheartedly agree with you!

    ReplyDelete
  30. What a joke of a review, I couldn't possibly disagree more. And referring to characters as annoying teen #1 instead of their name is just petty. Not witty as you may think it is.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Yeah it was really bad! A doctor with no combat
    training and her (step)daughter who was raised in a protective environment didn't the crap out of three thugs. This show is sexist! *rolleyes*

    And then a guy with actual combat training takes out a bunch of thugs and it doesn't sit right?

    We're you paying any attention at all?

    ReplyDelete
  32. InvestedInYourFutureSeptember 7, 2012 at 1:59 PM

    Except that they clearly had combat training. the daughter did know how to quite accurately shoot crossbows and within such a dystopian society, combat training is a given. The problem is how it is used within the show.

    And you just said exactly why teh show is sexist - the only female characters in the show right now are in "supportive". Did we see female soldiers? Why could not the doctor or the daughter have decent combat skills? Why have an overpowered uber skilled manly male and underpowered, subterfuge-based female characters? That IS sexism.

    And it STILL does not excuse the fact that the daughter is patronized for the whole episode by well, every male on the show.

    ReplyDelete
  33. She's a kid. Of course she is patronized by her parental figures that's the non-negative meaning of the word.

    ReplyDelete
  34. I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or not.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Don't you like Continuum? Or are you grading on a sliding scale of expectation on acting ability and fight scenes?

    I personally think that we are only seeing cliches because as viewers we are filling in holes with tired explanations instead of either the writers giving us enough details right off the bat to flesh it out or waiting for them to do so. I anticipate that changing the same way I anticipate the younger naive character growing.

    ReplyDelete
  36. How is combat training a given? The mother was a doctor! With the power out I imagine she has her hands full dealing with even simple aches. As to where we take painkillers or other pills. Not to mention medical equipment! I thought she was very smart to have poisoned alcohol with her, as alcohol seemingly has become a more scarce thing.

    Yes, the daughter could shoot a bow. But she obviously never used it on people before. There father told not to leave the path or other designated safe zones. Can't really remember what he called it. In any case it is obvious he has been overprotective of his children since their mothers (supposed) death.

    So we have a doctor mom and a naive young teen who has been sheltered by her dad. You can't expect them to get all badass all of a sudden. As that would be out of character. Massively so.

    Charlie's nativity is the point, it is why she is being bossed around. She's you, scared and obviously hasn't really seen the bad things of this world. So this gives her a chance to grow.

    Something you don't want to see happening it seems? Because she has the be all kick ass from the start? To me that wouldn't have made any sense.

    ReplyDelete
  37. I agree that it is always a viable complaint, but I was saying in all the pilots coming out this year this is by far and away not the worst, not even a little bit, not even at all. Things that remind me of Jericho are annoying, and every time someone mentions Lost or Fringe Easter eggs or similarities I want to turn the channel on every Bad Robot show, but I don't think that was the major flaw in this pilot. Plus, they have this weird mystery about the power so filling in details around it with ideas that seem plausible and in some ways familiar doesn't bug me.If it stays cop procedural predictable that is a problem.

    I don't see the story problems you do. It all is making decent logical sense to me.

    ReplyDelete
  38. InvestedInYourFutureSeptember 7, 2012 at 2:36 PM

    She is a teenager. The exact demographic her character is targeted to be related by. If she was 12 or 10 years old? Sure.

    Patronizing can be done in different degrees.

    Joyce was a parental figure to Buffy, Keith was a patriarchal parental figure to Veronica, but both parent-daughter relationships were treated with respect and equality. Both sides were treated as individuals and not as part of some brainwash program. Revolution smells more of John's Sexist Letter To Elena than of normal gender-equal healthy parental advices.

    The irregular dysfunctional parental relationships are interesting, but Revolution does NOT show the relationship as that. Listening and being patronized by a patriarch is taken as a given. THAT is sexism.

    ReplyDelete
  39. InvestedInYourFutureSeptember 7, 2012 at 2:43 PM

    Yep. I litterally was expecting the "fat guy" to have worked on facebook or apple. And the show did not disappoint in its genre-blindness, sadly.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Actually their either both 18/19 (Captain Nevlille gives Danny's age to grace), or Charlie is a year or two older...

    ReplyDelete
  41. InvestedInYourFutureSeptember 7, 2012 at 3:51 PM

    Which is exactly why the whole patronizing gets int he way. If she was 12, I would understand the need of it, and even then the show should portray it as unhealthy way to handle parent-daughter relationships.

    But she is almost an adult now. By 17, characters like Buffy and Veronica were solving murders(or blowing up schools), as well as having a clear message of choice, empowerment and growth into an adult, with parental role of advisor offered by their parents. This show just takes VERY unhealthy and VERY sexist idea of ruling patriarch and controlled daughter. that is unsettling and disturbing and it continues with every male character she encounters...

    ReplyDelete
  42. We're in a situation where "if you're smart, you left the cities" -So Ben cottled her, and let her be raised in an environment he felt safer about, but Charlie actually has some wisdom when she tells him "it's dangerous everywhere"...clearly she's right, considering the Militia comes from her father...and he gets killed. -Because this situation isn't black and white, as the flashbacks tell us...Ben knows what's going on, and Miles is unknowingly pals with the current enemy.... Sebastian "Bass" Monroe...


    Miles stayed in the city, but clearly it's because he has something to hide, he doesn't want to be found, or he simply also gave up on believing in anything good.


    Buffy and Veronica really are more fantasies, than even this is, which tells me the cliche's are actually realistic. Buffy was not INTENTIONALLY sheltered from the whole wide world (it's not fair to compare them) -And actually Charlie has some experience in hunting and killing animals....she has some skills.


    Part of show (If you read and listen to interviews given so far) is about exploring generational gaps, and a lot of times the older generations do look down on and view the younger generation as "DE-generate".


    If you look to The Return of the Jedi Lunch box - it gives us our theme...Luke, even though he struggles, is able to defeat Sidious and save his father, because Obi-Wan decided to have complete faith in him, something he didn't do with Anakin, and Yoda almost always doubts, which is why the events after episode 6 go off and have Luke re-establish the Jedi Order reviving views/beliefs/philosophies of past Jedi, BEFORE the time of Yoda, because Luke believes that RELATIONSHIPS and FAMILY can vital to helping one escape the dark side, by believing in and having faith in the "goodness of others".


    By having the setting be in a time that is reminiscent to times of the past, it's clear then that this story as about REVIVAL. (The open sequence flickers Evolution to R-Eveloution = RE - EVOLUTION aka RE-Set, RE-Vival.)


    I don't see how this is sexist yet at all. Maggie rocked it with the poison whiskey and the stabbing of one of the Militia. Aaron is Older and clearly isn't a "fighter" in the physical sense, he's going to be more of the tech and strategy guy, making him not a overly masculine figure (he is older too)

    ReplyDelete
  43. I can't either, but I would think he would be, because Star Wars stepped out of the mold in a lot of ways, because it presented Eastern Philosophy in a Galactic and more Western style-settings than what was ever presented in Sci-fi/adventure on film before...It may have become a staple note of archetypes since, because of it's huge influence in pop culture, but every everything in life is usually something barrowed and reworked, so I don't think there really is much that is original, as much as re-invented, so I never understood why people get upset if it reminds them of something that came before, since one can argue that's the point, because it's something that could "unite" a lot of people?

    ReplyDelete
  44. There are SO many novels that explore extreme situations in both Dystopian (usually futuristic) or Utopian (Man in the wilderness) or BOTH, that this is going to relate to A LOT of lititure/films/ect.


    Bad Robot OFTEN goes out of their way to reference many historical, pop cultural, allegorical things, that it wouldn't surprise me if there are going to be references to it (and I think it's"Dies of the Fire" -Emberverse series) at some point.


    People got really out of shape with Super 8 because they said that it's Abrams bad attempt to "imitate" Spielberg, when first of all it is a Spielberg Co-Production, and secondly, the films isn't an imitation, it's a Bad Robot film that "references" Spielberg works. As this is what Bad Robot does, as they philosophically create works that are PRO-Humanism and therefor use the references to convey and show an anthropological bend that nostalgically connects the viewers "together" and proves the need to "be" pro-humanism in order to survive.

    ReplyDelete
  45. well, the part of the hype that hit me was the need to stockpile stuff because lack of computers would screw up the manufacturing/supply chain. i lived then in a 4 room place with no storage. so i learned how to make basic things that i could do as needed rather than stockpile. the luddite in me was thrilled! BTW, i bought my first computer in nov. '99; the only thing the kid salesperson could tell me was it was Y2K safe! and i'm still a luddite, thinking of joining SCA.

    ReplyDelete
  46. I like continuum for what it is, but I think the acting of the leads and the action scenes leave something to be desired. I found the best part of the series to be Tony Amendola as Kagame.


    I can see negative aspects of a program I like easily I am not deluded enough to think that if I like something it must be good or if I dislike something it must be bad. I can dislike a well made show (Once Upon a Time which I cannot stand or The Good Wife which I cannot watch) and I can enjoy a show that has more than its share of flaws like Alcatraz or Kidnapped from years ago).


    Poorly made is poorly made regardless of whether or not I enjoy it.


    Making a character naive does not mean that the actress should give a poor acting performance and have dialog written for them that is bland and hyper-whiny so it will contrast to better a better performance and material later. For a character to evolve and mature over the course of a series in absolutely no way means the actor has to start poorly as well.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Totally agree with you! :)

    ReplyDelete
  48. There are certainly no dearth of novels that deal with these apocalyptic scenarios and of the tenacity of Man to survive in the most extreme situations while still managing to keep that which makes us human, but the similarities with the above- mentioned book are very acute.I noticed it as soon as I read the first spoilers months ago

    As I mentioned I haven't seen the pilot but it definitely reminds me particularly of that book. I bet there are falling planes too as the energy is taken from all electrical instruments.
    I agree that there cannot be anything completely new. There will always be references to other works of creativity, be they books or films, so we'll just chalk this down to one of those coincidences. :)

    ReplyDelete
  49. I'm sorry, did your parents treat you like an adult when you were 17? Mine didn't. They still will go into parent mode occasionally and I'm far from 17. These aren't dysfunctional relationships, they are normal parents/parental figures protecting children from a dangerous world that they don't understand relationships. You can say it annoys you, but I have to disagree that a dad treating his little girl like a little girl is sexist. She's already a pretty tough cookie she got right up and went after her uncle to get her brother even though she'd lost everyone in the world that she cared about, and the blond doctor is strong and sassy, I'm not seeing the gender role problems.


    Buffy and Veronica and shows like them are filmed from the teenager's perspective, so the adults aren't really adults if they were they'd get in the way of the plot (which Joyce did every once in a while when she was trying to be parent-y, and she never treated Buffy like an equal, take how she reacted when Buffy came back from running away and being a waitress or the hansel and grettle episode. It wasn't until she was dying that she started to lay stuff onto Buffy and treat her as an adult or at least oldest child).

    ReplyDelete
  50. I wouldn't say it was the worst pilot ever. (three sitcoms followed the Revolution preview on Hulu and I'd give them that moniker.) And I've watched shows with bad pilots find their footing and become good shows (sadly they usually are canceled by this time because they didn't get the ratings numbers.)


    Pilots are really difficult. I recognize that. It is a lot to get done in 42 mins. No nets seem willing to do a 2 hour pilot anymore..so the script is expected to set up the world of the show and introduce the characters AND give the buyer (execs at the networks) an idea of what a regular episode will look like...all in 42 mins. So, for me, when I'm watching a pilot, the most important thing is character. Plot is number 2. (To me, the best pilots tend to be the ones where the script has been around a while. It's been repeatedly pulled out of a drawer and polished. The Buffy and Angel pilots were good examples.)


    I think that time crunch is why so many pilots use the cliches to get them over the hump of cramming plot stuff into a pilot. I accept that. It makes perfect sense in terms of the job they need to do. They didn't have to explain too much about what was going on because I easily filled in the blanks for myself. But, for me, there were no characters that intrigued or interested me. There were a couple I liked but not *enough*. I mentioned somewhere on the boards that I did NOT like the Fringe pilot. But I loved Walter. I tuned into 5 episodes purely to see what he'd say or do next...and suddenly I was hooked on the story.


    All my rambling aside...we all watch different. Not everything is going to work for everyone, even if the technical aspects are flawless. And I wouldn't want them to. But spoilerTV lets me ramble as long as I want to type about my opinion and I LOVE hearing other people's opinions and reactions. Discussing stories and what works for some people and doesn't work for others is fascinating to me. I may not always agree but I always respect.

    ReplyDelete
  51. I can see where you are coming from. If you don't have a good first impression of any of the characters, why keep watching? I tend to be flexible in what I'm looking for in a pilot. For this one, I just wanted to see a tone and a glimpse of the world and start to get an idea of how they were going to go about stuff. It certainly wasn't that in-depth. It could have done more things and developed more, but what it was, I generally liked. I think it is hard to have a preconceived idea of what a pilot should include and not adapt to a given show. How someone might want a story told and how the TPTB decide to tell a story can be very different things, but that doesn't mean they won't get around to telling a fulfilling story.


    I hope you didn't get the impression that I feel like you shouldn't have your own opinion or can't write as much as you want. That was never my intention. :)

    ReplyDelete
  52. @lsbloom:disqus: I hope you didn't get the impression that I feel like you shouldn't have your own opinion or can't write as much as you want. That was never my intention. :)



    Not at all. I got paranoid about 'talking' too much. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  53. The show does have potential, as you say as it's always interesting to watch the ingenuity of Man as he struggles in an unfamiliar world, but the best of stories can be ruined by bad casting, bad writing, bad execution and for me very importantly bad chemistry between the actors.

    I saw a couple of episodes of Once Upon A Time on holiday in the UK recently and I had to force myself to sit through them as I found them lacking in any interest whatsoever, and yet many people love the show; on the other hand I saw the first three episodes of Person Of Interest and was really intrigued by it. The leads are so good and have already established that on-screen chemistry which is so necessary when there are two main protagonists.I will definitely send for the dvd.

    As for Lost, I was very glad that nothing was revealed until the end.That's the way I like it.
    Once the plot-twist is out in the open, there's nothing more to watch for.

    Revolution has the scope to be more than good and I wish it well. If it can come to rival Lost then it will have done its job!

    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.