Eric Kripke's 'Revolution' | First Impressions
Eric Kripke’s new post-apocalyptic show Revolution is currently airing on NBC and, like most Supernatural fans, I felt compelled to check it out. Not only because it is Kripke’s new baby, but also because the dystopian setting appealed to me. Now, so far I’ve only watched the first two episodes - both have been penned by Kripke himself - and I have pretty mixed feelings about it, but I think there is a lot of potential for the show to grow. So, I thought I write down some of my first impressions of the show.
First of all, I like really the premise of the show. A mysterious global blackout throws the world into chaos, forcing humanity to adapt to a life without technology and resulting in drastically changed societal structures. The show centres around the family Matheson, which is pulled into the power struggle between the ruling militia and a rising rebel organisation that wants to restore the old order. Driven by the need to save her younger brother Danny, who has been abducted by the militia, Charlie Matheson tracks down her wayward uncle Miles and convinces him to embark on an adventurous rescue mission with her (and a group of their friends). Now, Revolution does a decent job at creating interest in the central mystery - the blackout and how and why it came to pass - and in the societal structures that emerged after the blackout. I also enjoy that the show sets itself visually and tonally apart from other post-apocalyptic shows like Falling Skies or The Walking Dead with a colourful, bright look and an atmosphere that isn’t quite as bleak as one would expect for this kind of setting. I will admit, however, that in some instances the show’s 'glossy' look does undermine the credibility of the world Kripke tries to create here; for example, the characters look way too well-groomed and well-dressed for people who have been living off of hunting and farming for almost fifteen years and who have no access to newly fabricated clothes or, you know, washing machines. In that regard, Falling Skies, for example, does a much better job; the characters wear dirty rags and look like they haven’t seen a shower, let alone a barber, in months.
My minor issues with the world building aside, the main draw are always well-written, relatable, layered characters for me, and so far the majority of the show’s characters are simply too bland to become invested in them. Charlie, in particular, is grating on my nerves. She is obviously conceived as the moral centre of the show, a strong and independent young girl with idealistic ideas, and there is no doubt that she is supposed to serve as a contrast to the jaded people that surround her, especially her uncle Miles. However, her hand-wringing about Miles’ kill-or-be-killed mentality feels completely out of place for a girl who supposedly grew up in a violent world ruled by the 'survival of the fittest' principle. Even taking into account that Ben Matheson somewhat sheltered Charlie and her brother, thus fostering idealism and innocence in his children, Charlie’s naiveté is hard to fathom. It doesn’t help either, that she goes from one extreme (refusing to dispose of a very real threat to her and her companions) to the other (killing two men to acquire a rifle and free some slaves) within the span of one episode. It’s obviously supposed to show that Charlie learns from her mistakes and quickly adapts to the circumstances, but without the necessary build-up and development, her sudden change of heart is simply jarring. It just feels like a short-cut in the characterisation, and I find that frustrating.
Then there is the relationship between Charlie and Danny. The fact that Kripke uses a sibling relationship as the driving force of the story creates the impression that he tries to recapture what made Supernatural so successful, and the parallels to the Winchesters are painfully obvious. From Rachel Matheson telling Charlie that it is her job take her Danny’s hand and never let go, to Charlie’s passionate speech about how she became the sole caregiver to her younger brother after their mother died and how he is her responsibility, it all just sounds way too familiar. Of course Charlie feels guilty for Danny’s abduction and is willing to do whatever it takes to save him, even if that means crossing some serious lines. Basically, Charlie quotes Dean verbatim. However, Charlie’s words don’t really strike a chord at this point, because so far the viewer has no reason to be invested in her relationship with Danny. The characters have one scene together before they are separated and even that one scene doesn’t give the viewer much to latch on to, emotionally, so Charlie’s speech, although clearly designed as an emotional character moment, simply has no impact. It just feels like Kripke is trying too hard. It’s possible though that the writers will establish the siblings’ relationship more thoroughly in flashbacks, so that, with hindsight, this moment becomes more meaningful. It’s just that, so far, the writing for the main characters isn’t very convincing, and it doesn’t help that Tracy Spiridakos’ performance as Charlie doesn’t really make an impression on me, and neither does Graham Rogers’ performance as Danny.
The only notable exception in the ensemble of unremarkable characters is Tom Neville, a militia bounty hunter, played by Giancarlo Esposito, who is probably best known for his role as Gus in Breaking Bad. So far Neville is the only character with a very distinctive voice and personality, and he commands attention whenever he is on the screen. I think what makes him stand out is the fact that, of all the characters, Neville is the only one who genuinely feels like a product of the world these characters inhabit and not just like a stereotype. Neville is a man of convictions and he is clearly dangerous, but he is not entirely without compassion, and that combination makes him very intriguing. He is definitely a character I want to know more about, and I hope we get a lot of back story on him. That said, I do see a lot of potential in the characters of Miles and Nora, too, once the writers move past their focus on the characters’ kick-ass fighting skills and add some in-depth character exploration. Of course, sword fights are cool and all, but I’d rather see the action balanced with some actual insight into the characters’ history and motivations. The show needs more moments like the one where Maggie tells Aaron the story about why she kept her iPhone; moments that give the characters depth and that feel genuine.
So, all in all, I am not particularly impressed with Revolution, but I do not completely hate it either. It’s still early days, and I am more than willing to wait and see if the show finds its footing. I mean, even with Supernatural it took three or four episodes to hook me on the characters and draw me into its world. I do think Revolution has a lot of potential, if it manages to make the characters more distinctive and layered and spends more time on careful world-building.
First of all, I like really the premise of the show. A mysterious global blackout throws the world into chaos, forcing humanity to adapt to a life without technology and resulting in drastically changed societal structures. The show centres around the family Matheson, which is pulled into the power struggle between the ruling militia and a rising rebel organisation that wants to restore the old order. Driven by the need to save her younger brother Danny, who has been abducted by the militia, Charlie Matheson tracks down her wayward uncle Miles and convinces him to embark on an adventurous rescue mission with her (and a group of their friends). Now, Revolution does a decent job at creating interest in the central mystery - the blackout and how and why it came to pass - and in the societal structures that emerged after the blackout. I also enjoy that the show sets itself visually and tonally apart from other post-apocalyptic shows like Falling Skies or The Walking Dead with a colourful, bright look and an atmosphere that isn’t quite as bleak as one would expect for this kind of setting. I will admit, however, that in some instances the show’s 'glossy' look does undermine the credibility of the world Kripke tries to create here; for example, the characters look way too well-groomed and well-dressed for people who have been living off of hunting and farming for almost fifteen years and who have no access to newly fabricated clothes or, you know, washing machines. In that regard, Falling Skies, for example, does a much better job; the characters wear dirty rags and look like they haven’t seen a shower, let alone a barber, in months.
My minor issues with the world building aside, the main draw are always well-written, relatable, layered characters for me, and so far the majority of the show’s characters are simply too bland to become invested in them. Charlie, in particular, is grating on my nerves. She is obviously conceived as the moral centre of the show, a strong and independent young girl with idealistic ideas, and there is no doubt that she is supposed to serve as a contrast to the jaded people that surround her, especially her uncle Miles. However, her hand-wringing about Miles’ kill-or-be-killed mentality feels completely out of place for a girl who supposedly grew up in a violent world ruled by the 'survival of the fittest' principle. Even taking into account that Ben Matheson somewhat sheltered Charlie and her brother, thus fostering idealism and innocence in his children, Charlie’s naiveté is hard to fathom. It doesn’t help either, that she goes from one extreme (refusing to dispose of a very real threat to her and her companions) to the other (killing two men to acquire a rifle and free some slaves) within the span of one episode. It’s obviously supposed to show that Charlie learns from her mistakes and quickly adapts to the circumstances, but without the necessary build-up and development, her sudden change of heart is simply jarring. It just feels like a short-cut in the characterisation, and I find that frustrating.
Then there is the relationship between Charlie and Danny. The fact that Kripke uses a sibling relationship as the driving force of the story creates the impression that he tries to recapture what made Supernatural so successful, and the parallels to the Winchesters are painfully obvious. From Rachel Matheson telling Charlie that it is her job take her Danny’s hand and never let go, to Charlie’s passionate speech about how she became the sole caregiver to her younger brother after their mother died and how he is her responsibility, it all just sounds way too familiar. Of course Charlie feels guilty for Danny’s abduction and is willing to do whatever it takes to save him, even if that means crossing some serious lines. Basically, Charlie quotes Dean verbatim. However, Charlie’s words don’t really strike a chord at this point, because so far the viewer has no reason to be invested in her relationship with Danny. The characters have one scene together before they are separated and even that one scene doesn’t give the viewer much to latch on to, emotionally, so Charlie’s speech, although clearly designed as an emotional character moment, simply has no impact. It just feels like Kripke is trying too hard. It’s possible though that the writers will establish the siblings’ relationship more thoroughly in flashbacks, so that, with hindsight, this moment becomes more meaningful. It’s just that, so far, the writing for the main characters isn’t very convincing, and it doesn’t help that Tracy Spiridakos’ performance as Charlie doesn’t really make an impression on me, and neither does Graham Rogers’ performance as Danny.
The only notable exception in the ensemble of unremarkable characters is Tom Neville, a militia bounty hunter, played by Giancarlo Esposito, who is probably best known for his role as Gus in Breaking Bad. So far Neville is the only character with a very distinctive voice and personality, and he commands attention whenever he is on the screen. I think what makes him stand out is the fact that, of all the characters, Neville is the only one who genuinely feels like a product of the world these characters inhabit and not just like a stereotype. Neville is a man of convictions and he is clearly dangerous, but he is not entirely without compassion, and that combination makes him very intriguing. He is definitely a character I want to know more about, and I hope we get a lot of back story on him. That said, I do see a lot of potential in the characters of Miles and Nora, too, once the writers move past their focus on the characters’ kick-ass fighting skills and add some in-depth character exploration. Of course, sword fights are cool and all, but I’d rather see the action balanced with some actual insight into the characters’ history and motivations. The show needs more moments like the one where Maggie tells Aaron the story about why she kept her iPhone; moments that give the characters depth and that feel genuine.
So, all in all, I am not particularly impressed with Revolution, but I do not completely hate it either. It’s still early days, and I am more than willing to wait and see if the show finds its footing. I mean, even with Supernatural it took three or four episodes to hook me on the characters and draw me into its world. I do think Revolution has a lot of potential, if it manages to make the characters more distinctive and layered and spends more time on careful world-building.