Mastodon Mastodon Mastodon Mastodon Mastodon POLL : What did you think of Revolution - Everyone Says I Love You?
Sign Up


    Enable Dark Mode!

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

SpoilerTV - TV Spoilers

POLL : What did you think of Revolution - Everyone Says I Love You?

21 Nov 2013

Share on Reddit

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

38 comments:

  1. laura334121 November 2013 at 02:02

    Great episode! Cannot believe all the action this week!

    Didn't expect to see Nevilles wife again,and married!

    ReplyDelete
  2. robinclank221 November 2013 at 02:03

    Everyone says I loved it

    ReplyDelete
  3. klutzy_girl21 November 2013 at 02:04

    That was great! Whoa at Julia being alive and remarried. Honestly was not expecting that one.


    Nice job pissing off the nano technology creepy kid there, Aaron. How is Miles supposed to be healed now? And when are we going to find out Charlie is his daughter? I was waiting for it this episode!

    LOL at Monroe pulling a Dean Winchester with that "I'm Batman" line.


    AND WHAT, NO. HOW CAN YOU END THERE AND NOT GIVE ME A PROMO AND WHY DO WE HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL JANUARY. COME BACK.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Dominick Grace21 November 2013 at 04:00

    Man, that was bad....

    ReplyDelete
  5. Pascal21921 November 2013 at 12:11

    What a fantastic episode, love what Rockne S. O'Bannon (Farscape) has done with the show!


    Really hope Cynthia will still be revived, Aaron deserves a happy ending in my opinion.


    And now we have two rampant AI's on two Bad Robot shows, lol.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Darkstar21 November 2013 at 12:44

    Anyone tired of Elizabeth mitchell facial expressions? Aren't always the same?

    ReplyDelete
  7. laura334121 November 2013 at 12:44

    I don't think that's feasible,Aarons in Texas,how is he suppose to get there,and i would think Cynthia's body is already decaying..

    ReplyDelete
  8. DarthLocke421 November 2013 at 13:10

    Aaron was proclaimed dead for 2 hrs before the nanites rejuvenated him...but the after just reading an interview with Bannon about Aaron's abilities, Cynthia, and the second half of the season, the reason the nanites chose Aaron's child hood friend is because the nanites are now at a "child" stage....if they keep evolving, who knows what they could all do! Who or what they could all revive! If it wouldn't have been for the footprints Charlie was following, I almost thought that they might have teleported Aaron. I do think the nanites will Astral project her (maybe even like MIB and John Locke the nanites will be able to "re-materialize" her!???)


    Oklahoma is surely a "key" to nanites mythos! I bet they will morph into Hugh Jackman and start singing, "It's a beautiful morning! It's a beautiful day!"

    ReplyDelete
  9. DarthLocke421 November 2013 at 13:15

    Nope. She's not an overly smiley person and that makes her expressions hard to read, which allows her to be a bit mysterious, as you don't always know what she's thinking. I like shows where not everyone has to be over expressional and that there is a range of personality types.

    ReplyDelete
  10. João Paulo21 November 2013 at 14:01

    Wow great episode, really good moments, but I want more, where is the next episode.


    Julia alive was a great surprise, but I think Neville will not fully trust her.
    Aaron talking to nanobots was awesome, I need more of this relationship.
    Cynthia dying twice in a row, this is a record for Revolution characters.




    Can't wait for the next episode.

    ReplyDelete
  11. DarthLocke421 November 2013 at 14:17

    What I mean is Jason had pointed out that even when they were together during the Monroe Republic Era that she was cheating on Tom with other "high ranking" officials...I don't trust her because I think she is using Tom and that he has always been a means to end. If Julia could become the Wife of president, I think she would take it, but ultimately screw over Tom (not that Tom isn't duplicitous, but I don't think he's ever cheated on her to get what he wants. He lets her get away with murder...)

    ReplyDelete
  12. laura334121 November 2013 at 14:21

    OMG the potential is endless! When it became known only Aaron could see the child,i nearly lost my mind,ha! That was so freaking great!!!


    I don't trust Julia either, i'm not sure what her end game? But its obvious Julia is out for Julia and she'll do whatever to get ahead.


    I keep getting interrupted!

    ReplyDelete
  13. laura334121 November 2013 at 15:35

    I just finished reading the article. There has to be some time limit or something that would prevent the nanites or Aaron from bringing Cynthia back. Idk but i'm having a hard time wrapping my mind around people coming back to life a day or 2,heck ,10 days after they died....


    Does Aaron become the puppet master deciding who lives after death? That's pretty heavy. Gee,so many ways this could go...

    ReplyDelete
  14. DarthLocke421 November 2013 at 15:43

    Right and I agree, which is why I also said maybe they can make her (materialize her) out of nothing---turn a astral projection/vison into a full fledged reality, just like MIB didn't just become a image of John Locke, he became John Locke in the flesh.

    ReplyDelete
  15. DarthLocke421 November 2013 at 15:59

    Or Rachel will just rip open her leg and rip out some nanotech ;)


    But in all seriousness the missing hand thing could be interesting, but I'm thinking more "miracles" might start happening...

    ReplyDelete
  16. Boris Breynin21 November 2013 at 23:14

    I laughed so hard when Monroe said I'm Batman lol

    ReplyDelete
  17. laura334122 November 2013 at 00:20

    That was hysterical! :)

    ReplyDelete
  18. Boris Breynin22 November 2013 at 01:27

    I'm telling you he make a great batman and he acts like one too. Disappears on the group and reappears when help is needed lol

    ReplyDelete
  19. Donna C22 November 2013 at 03:36

    Glad I'm not the only one who felt that way. I've been disappointed with this season. I'm gonna contemplate whether or not I'll pick the show up again after the winter break.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Dominick Grace22 November 2013 at 04:14

    I've generally thought it has been if unspectacular decent this season (better than last, anyway), but this episode really was dumb--easily the worst episode in the entire run. yo're being hunted by psychos who have already killed your girlfriend once, and you discover that you have the ability to control ubiquitous nanotech with godlike powers, so what do you do? Why, you tell it to go away, of course! I mean, why would THAT be useful against the army with machine guns and the utterly psychotic "doctor"?

    ReplyDelete
  21. DarthLocke422 November 2013 at 13:23

    I did not know that. And even though I'm not a fan of botox, that's her choice and in this case it doesn't take away from her acting IMO simply because she's not really playing a happy character to begin with. And to some degree her characters also rely on her voice and her voice is also not an enthusiastically one so it still matches her looks.

    ReplyDelete
  22. DarthLocke422 November 2013 at 17:27

    It's not that I don't agree that Rachel isn't consistent, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it's not intended in the writing department, since not every Revolution character is written like that.

    For whatever reason, it's easy to that Rachel is a broken person. People who are that way aren't always rational. She also didn't just go and killed her dad last week. She struggled with it, but felt she had to.
    Her story with Gene is reflective to Charlie's and Rachel that is why in this weeks episode she tells Charlie she loves her and insists on going back to save Gene, because she realizes that just like Charlie she doesn't always see eye to eye with her father and maybe now finally this opened her up to not want to be like him and try harder to explain herself to Charlie.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Dominick Grace22 November 2013 at 18:46

    I certainly agree that she's damaged. I guess where we see things differently is that I don't see HOW they are writing her damagedness as reflective of the irrational inconsistencies one might expect from a damaged character. I see it as instead driven by what they want/need from her in a given episode, plot-wise. That is, if such a thing is possible, her inconsistent irrational behavior does not come across to me as organic--as consistently inconsistently irrational, if you will--but as constructed around the need for some particular moment of melodrama or conflict. That is, it does not seem to me like she's a well-written damaged character but that she's a poorly-written character.

    I don't see this as a problem exlusive to how Rachel is written, btw (there's been some very bad Charlie writing, as well, though less so recently), but she is currently the one they seem to have the poorest handle on depicting plausibly--to me, that is; YMMV, of course. Though admittedly for this episode, the badly-written award of distinction has to go to the massively brainless way Aaron was presented.

    ReplyDelete
  24. R Vassilissa22 November 2013 at 19:23

    "the actress couldn't smile or make normal human facial expressions if her life depended on it. Botox and other fillers are more common than not here in Los Angeles, however, this actress has overdone it to a level that is not at all common"

    Clearly you haven't seen her interviews.


    Even if she's had Botox or plastic surgery, it doesn't look unnatural. It doesn't affect her acting, either - a woman who's lost her husband & son, and lives in constant danger of losing her loved ones as well as her life, doesn't have many reasons to smile.

    If you don't like her acting - fine, but don't stereotype her and don't make unwarranted comments based on your own experience. Btw, why did you refer only to women who've used such beauty treatments? I'm sure the number of men using them is increasing rapidly. Vanity is not an exclusively female trait.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYGDaJgTPXI
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sibrJ-W4TnU

    ReplyDelete
  25. DarthLocke422 November 2013 at 19:41

    I think every character has to take a turn at being 'stupid', because that's how you create a drama and that's how you don't ever let any one character have all the cards/get to big.

    Aaron was true to Aaron here. We know that he's a guy with more atheist beliefs along with the idea that he's at times cowardly, -possibly due to the fact that he doesn't want to ask himself those 'bigger' questions. It's a way for him to not have to take responsibility for himself.

    The whole season is forcing it's viewers to consider what the nanites really are. If there is a metaphysical aspect to them in which they have been created for a purpose (to lead these people back to their humanity--or to perhaps a humanity that never really existed depending on how any of us view the history of humanity).

    Fear of the unknown is usually at the heart of a lot of problems. Aaron's a character that just can't yet conceive of being some type of savior, because obviously the power is something that IMO should be feared.

    Plus getting back to rachel. Really you don't have to be broken to act irrationally. Half the time it has to do with the social norm of any culture's acceptability of certain behavior.

    I'm not saying that Rachel's story doesn't also serve the melo-drama aspect as you say, but what drama does not? Last season it was Monroe that was more of the sociopath and now he comes off as more stable, but most people do not complain about Monroe (not you, I have read comments where you are fair all around) or Miles, but rather Charlie, Rachel, and Nora. Because for whatever reason women aren't ever suppose to be melo dramatic anymore, because feminist movements have in more recant yrs pretended that they have to fight for the modern female, when in fact they just changed the definition of what that is, instead of accepting ALL types of women...

    ReplyDelete
  26. DarthLocke422 November 2013 at 19:57

    Thank you :)

    ReplyDelete
  27. DarthLocke422 November 2013 at 19:58

    Not everyone is comfortable playing God.

    ReplyDelete
  28. R Vassilissa22 November 2013 at 20:03

    My pleasure. :)

    ReplyDelete
  29. João Paulo22 November 2013 at 22:13

    I think will to much obvious Monroe be Charlie's father, I still think Miles is Charlie's father. Another thing, Rachel always hate Bass, so I don't think when this could be turn to a relationship, so this not make sense for me.

    ReplyDelete
  30. DarthLocke422 November 2013 at 22:23

    I think this episode confirms Miles is Charlie's father more than any other episode, but there might be a reason she hates Bass, which has more to do with hating herself and possibly blaming it on Bass. The truth is we don't know if she ALWAYS hated Bass...

    ReplyDelete
  31. Dominick Grace24 November 2013 at 19:09

    True, but then, if it's a choice between letting the guy who already murdered your girlfriend once do it again or giving a little specific direction to the virtually omnipotent forces at your control--"protect us without hurting anyone," say--you just might want to consider it.

    ReplyDelete
  32. DarthLocke424 November 2013 at 20:38

    Sure, which is what he does through pout the episode. He debates and considers it. -The difference is though it was one thing when they just responded to his conscience thoughts, it's another thing to manifest someone from your past and have a chat with you.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Dominick Grace25 November 2013 at 17:32

    Well, I guess I see it differently. I would not say he thought about it at all but that he did just about the exact opposite of thinking about it, which was to react emotionally--irrationally, to use a word we've been bandying about in a different thread in this discussion! Now, Aaron's supposed to be a smart guy, but this just wasn't smart behaviour. It is of course entirely plausible that one might react emotionally/irrationally to a situation like this, but him doing so was problematic for me not merely because he is supposed to be so smart but also because by now the fact that something nanite-ish is going on with him should not be news, and the actual manifestation of the nanites in human form to him should--it seems to me, and of course ymmv and of course your reading is just as legitimate as mine (maybe moreso, given your far deeper knowledge of and engagement with Bad Robot)--actually make a rational response easier. "No, this is not some weird, uncontrollable supernatural thing but a scientifically explicable (insofar as the science here makes any sense) phenomenon that I can now control consciously, instead of having it just manifest without my knowledge." I'd have hoped/expected that getting this answer would have facilitated a rational response for Aaron. I also do find it highly implausible, given how Aaron has been depicted hitherto, that his first CONSCIOUS use of the nanites would be to kill more folk in thirty seconds than they killed acting on his unconscious desires before. If I thought that that was supposed to be revelatory of his character rather than a typical moment of melodrama, it might have engaged me more. Instead, all I thought was, "You idiot! your girlfriend is lying there DEAD! Your first response ought to be to ask the nanites to save her, not to go all darkside!"
    Anyhoo, different strokes, I guess! :p

    ReplyDelete
  34. DarthLocke425 November 2013 at 17:44

    Arron's "school smart" not emotionally smart. That's why he is not leading the group, Miles has been. (although we see him do something pretty stupid in this episode too!)

    Aaron told the nanites to go away AFTER they healed her the first time. He asked them to heal her again, but they refused, even though they responded to his request to "kill" Horn...They met him half way and then questioned him, perhaps because he himself is "contorted" and is questioning himself and they are "reflecting" him.

    Plus there's an argument on what "smart" is in a world like this, because someone might argue that someone who is smart, is someone who questions and cares and is "concerned" with the implications of power, even though I agree he acted irrationally by just telling them to go away and not "face" reality...

    But at the end of the episode it is "them" that chose to not complete Aaron's requests. It's their halfway response that actually gives Aaron's initial response some credibility, because they could have just not responded at all, but the part of his request they responded to was "the killing" part and not the saving part...Just like Aaron, they learned not to follow through...

    ReplyDelete
  35. Dominick Grace25 November 2013 at 17:51

    I see what you're saying and don't disagree, I guess, so much as I just see it differently. I like your analysis of Aaron, for isnstance, wihthout really buying that the show has sold it--that is, your reading gives the show more credit than I think it deserves, I'd say. (Take that as praise for your ability to make a case, as that is how it is intended!)
    And I say so because I guess i repspond in part somewhat differently to the sorts of choices the show makes than you do. I think you're right, for instance, that the show has its characters pass the stupid stick around so that no one character emerges as too much the obvious voice of authority. However, there are other ways to create characters who are comparably limited in their authority/success than rotating stupidity--they're just harder to achieve. You have to construct internally consistent, coherent characters (in which of course irrationality/inconsistency can be core traits) whose actions emerge organically from context and their established characteristics, rather than from (more or less evident) plot requirements. It's easier just to have someone do something dumb to get us there than to build up more plausibe, internally consistent reasons for their different choices. This is of course an entirely subjective thing, but when I find myself thinking things like, "how can they have had him/her do something so dumb?" rather than, say, "man that was dumb, but I can see how that character could have made that choice anwyay" or, even better, "wow! That sure didn't work out well, even though it was clearly the only thing that that character could do in that given situation," then, for me, that speaks to poor/inadequate writing. I mean, my assumption is that the writers hav etohught a lot more about these things than I have, so if, sitting in my living room watching something for the first time, the dumbness of something is so evident to me that it dominates how I experience the scene, I have a hard time grasping how the writers couldn't have anticipated how dumb it might seem and built in compensations for that, to sell it to an audience--unless not making it seem dumb is just not a concern for them.

    Which leads us to melodrama. For me, here's where the show's propensity for melodrama occasionally leads it to fail. For one thing, no, not all drama engages in melodrama--if it did, we wouldn't need separate terms ;-).And I tend to prefer drama to melodrama (so, there's my upfront acknowledgement of bias). Now, granted, Revolution has skewed in the direction of melodrama from the beginning, and melodrama is a form that places plot ahead of consistent or logical characterization, so insofar as we might call the show melodrama, we should perhaps not fault it for using melodramatic devices of characterization and ploting--so call it, if you will, my own personal impatience with melodrama rather than an inherent flaw in the show that leads me from time to time to object to melodrmatics--at least, when they seem to me to become too overt.

    ReplyDelete
  36. DarthLocke425 November 2013 at 18:08

    It's totally fine that we disagree. :)


    The only thing I'm going to say is that it is the "flaws" that make us human and being stupid and not responding to the most "practical" advantage is something I think we are all guilty of. Like even now, "you" may believe you would never do what Aaron did, so you find that choice irrational, where as I can see how Aaron would do this, because I have seen him do this before and see how uncomfortable he is about the concept of God, let alone the implications of now thinking of "a child killing/leading". It's subjective, like you say, because it is about "relatability". If I'm honest with myself, I don't know how I would react. It's easy to think that I would think ahead and not be put off by an astral projection that I might have created and responds to me, but at the same time I also could see myself being very scared of such power and such responsibility...


    I do think that in shows on network TV the writers have a much harder job to write what they really want to write, because they have to meet the network and whatever their executives want at least halfway and I def think sometimes there are things started that never get followed through, which allows there to be this lack of cohesiveness that can deminish the series...However, at the same time, if you keep your themes simple and broad, then you can always make up for losses down the line, because it's easier to pick it up in another way.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Dominick Grace8 April 2014 at 06:55

    Also, it's kind of hard to figure out what Rachel is thinking, since she apparently can't hold on to one thought for longer than an episode or so. Last week: willing to dispasionately murder dad. This week: desperate to go back and save dad. Next episode: who knows? Depends on whatever convenient melodrama or plot coupon the writers want to throw in, I guess, since clearly anything like logical or consistent characterization isn't a priority....

    ReplyDelete
  38. J J19 August 2014 at 02:53

    Where exactly did I say this is an exclusively female trait? I didn't. I referred to women I have known like this and did not mention men I have known like this... because I have known women like this and I have not known any men like this. While appearance is important for both male and female actors, Hollywood is an especially cruel world for women past a certain age, regardless of their talent. While vanity is not gender exclusive, it is not about vanity, it is about securing acting jobs. You clearly missed my point, which was the OVERUSE of Botox/ fillers is not doing her (or any other actor) any favors in regard to their acting.

    Lastly, before posted links to interviews as 'proof', you may have wanted to educate yourself about Botox/ fillers. They are not permanent. There are actors who make the choice NOT to get their regular injections before an acting job if they are truly dedicated to their craft and want to be able to show a full range of expressions. However, a very common mistake in the very unforgiving world of HD tv and film, which shows every flaw, is to overdo it before filming.

    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.