Charlie. She's at an age where she thinks she knows everything, when she, in fact, knows very little about very little because she hasn't been anywhere, but she learns everything with such zeal. She's still young enough that things are catastrophized and dramatic, but she's old enough to sometimes be wise beyond her years about her mother and Miles. She loves like Miles does: completely and irrevocably, so no, I don't think there's anything Miles could do or has done that she wouldn't forgive - or at least that would make her angry enough to cut him completely out of her life. I don't think Charlie cares much about the United States, since she was a little kid when it collapsed, nor do I think turning the power back on has a very concrete meaning to her. But I also don't think her only purpose is revenge against or overthrowing Monroe. I think by the time we got to the season finale, Rachel was calling the shots, and Charlie was more following Miles and Rachel to keep the family together. I think at a pretty basic level, sticking with Miles is her most important goal at the moment. I'm guessing, she's falling in love with Jason, too, (snore) and that keeping him safe will become another animating principle for her. I think she cares most about people, not about ideologies or wars of the world (as evidenced by her sticking with Nora at her death).
Speaking of Charlie caring about people, I do think there's room for her and Bass to make amends to some degree, should he end up on Team Matheson in season 2. Charlie sees the world through Miles's eyes to the extent that, given more information about Bass's and Miles's history together and Bass's own family tragedy, I think she could develop some sympathy for him. After all, she was able to accept Tom into her midst and he took Danny in the first place and was a more direct reason for Ben's death. Part of her "acceptance" of Tom (if we can call it that) I believe stemmed from his family connection to Jason. You can't help who your father is, but you have some obligation to him - I think she believes that of Jason. Bass and Miles are brothers, so I think a similar begrudging sympathy could emerge on Charlie's part toward Bass. Or at least I'm ficcing it. A shock, I know.
I've always gotten the sense that Charlie hero worships Miles a little bit, since she fancies herself the adventurous sort, and Miles is polar opposite her dad in this respect. I think Charlie is having the hardest time forgiving her mother, and things will get even harder when she realizes how her mother cheated with Miles on Ben. I get the sense she'll blame Rachel even more than Miles for it. She's just not over the abandonment issues resulting from Rachel leaving.
I guess one of my questions is this, since fans seem to have different takes on it. Is Charlie a leader (and is Miles "grooming" her in a way to be a leader like him, only better - more moral) or is she more of a follower like Bass? She's young and I think it takes leaders awhile to develop their skills and principles, but ultimately my guess is she's the leader type, like Miles and Rachel. Not like Ben or Bass. In fact, I can see Miles increasingly deferring to her as she gains confidence, because he has a difficult time trusting himself these days.
My other question is: Did Charlie get her strong moral core from Ben? Or is it something she and Danny sort of developed together instead? (Danny seemed pretty concerned with honor and morality to me, even though *snore-Danny*)
(I am working late tonight so I am strike commenting before I go back to regular work and then extra-regular work *pffs*. I will reply to your Rev comments and I totally chuffed you liked it :D I have answers for some of the questions, others I will pretend I did deliberately while nodding sagely :D)
I think Charlie could be a leader. We saw her take charge during Love Boat, but she tends to fade into the background more around Miles and her Mom. Miles has years of experience and she defers to that, while she and Rachel still have no...blueprint for interaction other than adult and child?
...Ben didn't have a strong moral core. I know some people like him, but from what we've seen on screen he was arrogant, careless and self-serving. The morality we did see - not fighting the militia - was more about lying low. If anything, the kids probably got their moral core from AARON and you know he's not my favourite person. What he is, though, is a bit of a nerd and I can imagine him half-assing stories for the kids about Star Wars and Superman, trying to keep his little bit of ... shared reference? alive.
I have answers for some of the questions, others I will pretend I did deliberately while nodding sagely :D
One of the most rewarding aspects of good writing is all the stuff that just comes out of the author that they were not even conscious of but their readers pick up on and bring to life. The relationship between author and reader is the coolest, and I always say: Reading is an art, too. It's far from passive.
I would engage with your comments on Ben and Aaron, but I'll save them for Ben and Aaron week, otherwise I'll have us on enormous tangents, because you know us and our interminable arguing. ;)
I completely agree on your take on Charlie, regarding caring about people (and family) more than ideals. I think the more she learns about Rachel, Miles and Ben and the things they've done, the easier it'll be for her to forgive people like Bass (or at least accept him) because the people around her, the people she loves are all shades of gray and she still accepts them (even if it's a struggle), I think Charlie is the type to try and look for the good in everyone and she could eventually (with enough exposure) see the good in Bass. It helps that unlike Rachel, she wasn't held prisoner by him and didn't really see first hand his cruelty. But on the other hand, she doesn't have a "pre blackout" Bass to compare him to, like Miles does, so she only knows current power-hungry dictator Monroe.
I think Charlie is having the hardest time forgiving her mother, and things will get even harder when she realizes how her mother cheated with Miles on Ben. I get the sense she'll blame Rachel even more than Miles for it. She's just not over the abandonment issues resulting from Rachel leaving.
I kinda think she'd blame them both? Especially if the cause of her "abandonment issues" is actually Miles taking Rachel prisoner and on top of that they both betrayed Ben. If anything, I think she thinks more highly of Miles than Rachel right now, so that personal betrayal (of her and Ben) would hurt even more, seeing as her relationship with Rachel is already strained. Charlie isn't Miles' daughter, I refuse to entertain that idea.
I think eventually Charlie will become a leader- and a better one than Bass, Miles or Neville for that matter. She's still learning about the world, still learning to fight, still learning from Miles and Rachel about actions and consequences, still learning about herself and what she's willing to do and compramise and what not. Once she's more secure in herself, her red lines and her abilities, she'll step forward and take charge more.
I definitely think Miles sees Charlie as his moral compass and the darker he gets, the more he'll need her guidance and for her to stand up to him and keep his morality grounded.
Did Charlie get her strong moral core from Ben? Or is it something she and Danny sort of developed together instead?
Hmmm... I think they think they got it from Ben. We know Ben wasn't exactly a very moral character (even pre blackout) but I think he made an effort to present himself as moral to his kids, making sure they know right from wrong, etc. We know Danny kept saying "his father wouldn't do X" all the time, so he definitely modelled his morality on his father (or his father's projected morality). I'm sure people like Aaron and Maggie helped along the way.
Charlie is a different story, because I feel like she's a combination of people. I think her earlier morality was based on Ben, but as time went by we could see Miles rubbing off on her and she can be scarily pragmatic and focused like Rachel. I think she's developing her own morality, the more she learns about the people around her/the world/herself.
I think the more she learns about Rachel, Miles and Ben and the things they've done, the easier it'll be for her to forgive people like Bass (or at least accept him) because the people around her, the people she loves are all shades of gray and she still accepts them (even if it's a struggle), I think Charlie is the type to try and look for the good in everyone and she could eventually (with enough exposure) see the good in Bass.
Yeah, this is great. I REALLY hope the show uses revelations about Ben to make Charlie realize that dire circumstances (like being faced with the death of one's son or maybe even wife - because it was dangerous for Rachel to carry Danny, right?) make people behave in drastic ways. Ben is the kind of untouchable hero right now in Charlie's eyes because he was her dad, her protector, and died prematurely. But as she learns more about why Rachel might have cheated on him, or how he treated Miles, or how much influence he had over the Blackout - she's going to have to come to terms with the fact that everyone she loves is extremely problematic. I like the idea of Charlie learning to see the good in Bass, and I hope she does this by learning more about why Miles and Bass formed the Monroe Republic in the first place. I really believe that they believed they were saving people from themselves. Perhaps if Charlie read corycides Revolution Seven, she'd understand why Miles and Bass thought law and order was something worth killing over. (Still reeling from your massacre of those dogs, Cory. :P)
Oh and editing to say: Ivy, Billy apparently hates the idea of Charlie being Miles's daughter as much as you! When I saw that interview, I immediately thought of your wrath at the idea of this and wanted to high five you. :)
Ben is the kind of untouchable hero right now in Charlie's eyes because he was her dad, her protector, and died prematurely. But as she learns more about why Rachel might have cheated on him, or how he treated Miles, or how much influence he had over the Blackout - she's going to have to come to terms with the fact that everyone she loves is extremely problematic.
I have issues with how they're painting/might paint Ben, because I'm still traumatized from Supernatural and John Winchester getting character assassinated post-mortem. I don't mind making Ben a complex character, but almost every single flashback so far has painted him in a negative light- he sold their invention to the DOD not to save Danny (like Rachel) but for greed, he failed to protect his family (Rachel shot the thief), his latest tense flashback scenes with Rachel. I want to see some of the good flashbacks.
I really believe that they believed they were saving people from themselves.
Yeah, that was definitely a slippery slope and "road to hell is paved with good intentions". I want to see the early days of the Republic, when it wasn't as evil and when they were trying to do right by the people (because I hate the black and white approach of "Militia is EVIL, they're all creepy chauvinistic rapists"- the Militia couldn't have started off bad!). I'd also love it if we learn The Militia (back in the day) was the lesser of two (or more) evils and only now there's a chance at a better future. I want more shades of gray on the show in general. Doing bad things for good reasons, having a "no win" situation and just focusing on damage control, rather than being heroic or saving everyone.
Oh and editing to say: Ivy, Billy apparently hates the idea of Charlie being Miles's daughter as much as you! When I saw that interview, I immediately thought of your wrath at the idea of this and wanted to high five you. :)
*high fives* It makes me so happy to hear him say that, even if he's not Kripke and can't control what's being written. Miles and Charlie are close enough without pushing Ben further away from the narrative. You can character assassinate him without taking away his biological connection to Charlie, ask John Winchester *still not over it* I've seen way too many shows in recent years who went the "surprise- you're adopted!" or "surprise dad!" route and it's lazy and in 99% of the time doesn't actual serve any purpose storytelling wise. It's bad enough that Rachel cheated on Ben with Miles, no need to add insult to injury by making Charlie suddenly Miles' daughter. It's bad enough Monroe has an instant!son, I still shudder whenever I think of that needless, soap opera-y episode of Revolution that shall not be mentioned by name.
I have issues with how they're painting/might paint Ben, because I'm still traumatized from Supernatural and John Winchester getting character assassinated post-mortem. I don't mind making Ben a complex character, but almost every single flashback so far has painted him in a negative light- he sold their invention to the DOD not to save Danny (like Rachel) but for greed, he failed to protect his family (Rachel shot the thief), his latest tense flashback scenes with Rachel. I want to see some of the good flashbacks.
I know you've mentioned this before, and it's funny - I don't really feel like Ben's been presented in a solely negative light. The most lasting impression I have of Ben is from his interactions with Charlie - her grief and pain at losing him in the Pilot, but more importantly, the scene from Kashmir when she is dying and hallucinates him. His tenderness and kindness is palpable - and that's a product of her imagination, so that's how she viewed him (rather like how we get to see how Miles viewed Bass as friend in that ep). So whatever bad things Ben has done, in my impression, he's been a good father in Charlie's eyes. I know this isn't Ben week...but what the hell! (And, btw, I've never watched Supernatural, and I only saw season one of Lost, so I don't have that baggage.)
he sold their invention to the DOD not to save Danny (like Rachel) but for greed, Why do you say that? I got the impression that the need for money was because his wife and son were in danger and they needed expensive treatments and help. US health care is a real piece of work when it comes to costs. I'm guessing they had financial problems even before Danny, and that's maybe why they started their side business in the first place. Now granted, I haven't rewatched all the Ben flashbacks recently, but where did you get the sense that he was greedy?
he failed to protect his family (Rachel shot the thief) Again, I didn't see this as a black and white bad thing, but rather, that some humans are able to kill to protect loved ones and others might not be able to kill even when the circumstances are dire. Sure, maybe he's not a survivor, but couldn't you also view him as a pacifist and therefore more moral than Rachel?
his latest tense flashback scenes with Rachel See I link those to the affair with Miles (but of course, what do I know?). If Ben figured out Rachel had cheated (or even if he didn't) they probably had tremendous marital strife. Sure, she felt betrayed that he had gone to the DOD, but she had also betrayed him by diddling her husband's brother...probably. They can't have had the healthiest marriage. My guess is they would have divorced if the lights hadn't gone out, but they stayed together to protect the kids.
All speculations and based on hazy memories of Ben flashbacks. Have at it, Ivy! *Puts up swords!* I'm kidding. Like I said, I really just want to know more about the origins of your feelings about how the show portrays Ben, since I didn't get the same impression. He seems complex to me rather than yuck. *leans on elbows and waits with interest*
I know you've mentioned this before, and it's funny - I don't really feel like Ben's been presented in a solely negative light.
You're right about Charlie's memories of him being positive (despite him not letting her go on adventures and chaining her to her brother basically), but all of this was in the first half, not the second half and I feel that we're moving steadily away from Ben being important. You could argue that Ben in Kashmir was her ideal dad and that it's a fantasy that's meant to seduce her to "keep sleeping", rather than wake up and face the harsh truth. Also I gotta side-eye Ben for his "they'd better be hunting" in the Pilot while he was drinking his morning coffee- I didn't see him doing anything too important, how about he provide for his family instead? Also, I really need some post-Rachel-leaving flashbacks, because I need to see the Ben-Charlie dynamic and why she made her whole life about Danny and his safety- which again, should be Ben's job as their parent.
And, btw, I've never watched Supernatural, and I only saw season one of Lost, so I don't have that baggage.
Lucky you. I stopped after the end os S5 of Supernatural. Long story short: John Winchester was the father of the two leads- Dean and Sam. John wasn't the perfect single dad, leading to Dean's whole life being about his baby brother (sound familiar?) and Sam being rebellious and walking away from the "family business". But John also sacrificed his life to save his son's life and I honestly think despite his flaws, he did the best he could by his boys. Then the show promoted Bobby as a surrogate father figure and started dissing John, even going so far as giving him a family that the boys knew nothing about- and being a better father to that other son. It got to the point that even Jeffrey dean Morgan (who played John) said it would be difficult for him to come back, given how they've basically trashed his character since he's been off the show.
So I'm still traumatized by that and worried Kripke will do the same to Ben. Maybe I'm paranoid.
Why do you say that? I got the impression that the need for money was because his wife and son were in danger and they needed expensive treatments and help.
I don't think Danny had health issues when Ben approached the DOD. OK, maybe greed was the wrong word, but Ben goes behind his wife's back, makes the deal, knowing she wouldn't approve, seems to be ok with them turning his invention into a weapon and unlike Rachel, there's no direct correlation between his decision and someone's life (Rachel said yes to Randall to save Danny). Obviously they needed money to provide for themselves, but unless we know that they were broke and had no other means, they might have had other options. Ben made the decision for money. Rachel's the character that gets to vocalize distress over what they did, gets to be all "they'll weaponize our invention!" Ben doesn't get to do that and I don't think it's fair towards his character. I'm sure he had reservations, I'm sure he felt guilt, but we don't get to see/hear it, because his actions are important, not his perspective.
Again, I didn't see this as a black and white bad thing, but rather, that some humans are able to kill to protect loved ones and others might not be able to kill even when the circumstances are dire. Sure, maybe he's not a survivor, but couldn't you also view him as a pacifist and therefore more moral than Rachel?
You're right, but it's an early S1 flashback, before we started seeing more of pre-blackout Ben in the flashbacks that I found problematic. It's more about adding it all up to paint a certain picture. But in this specific episode, I think the moral was that "the world is different and sometimes you have to change with it and take a life"- there was a parallel between Rachel killing the thief and Charlie killing those Militia guys. I could definitely view Ben's actions as moral and pacifistic (if he hadn't help kill 80% of the world), but I'm not sure if that's the stance of the show. Danny was an idiot for saving Neville's life, instead of escaping and letting "an act of God" smite Neville. He got that from his dad. I dunno, this point was probably reaching, I admit, but I feel like in the Revolution world, if you don't kill, you get killed and that we're supposed to root for Rachel when she kills the thief who threatened Charlie and see it as strength of character/protecting her family.
See I link those to the affair with Miles (but of course, what do I know?). If Ben figured out Rachel had cheated (or even if he didn't) they probably had tremendous marital strife. Sure, she felt betrayed that he had gone to the DOD, but she had also betrayed him by diddling her husband's brother...probably. They can't have had the healthiest marriage. My guess is they would have divorced if the lights hadn't gone out, but they stayed together to protect the kids.
That's speculation, I didn't see anything in the episode that led me to believe their marital strife had anything to do with Miles. If anything, it seemed to have more to do with their actions leading to the blackout and their disagreements over it.
Like I said, I really just want to know more about the origins of your feelings about how the show portrays Ben, since I didn't get the same impression. He seems complex to me rather than yuck. *leans on elbows and waits with interest*
Like I said, maybe all this "Miles is Charlie's dad!" together with the "Ben the voice of morality was really the driving force behind the blackout" (and with Supernatural trauma) is making me wary of where they take Ben as a character. He's dead, so there's no redemption arc there, all we get are flashbacks and the ones from the second half haven't been very kind on him. I guess if I trusted the writers to write a complex character, I wouldn't be so hesitant, but look at what they did with Neville and Monroe for most of the second half, or how all the Militia are evil rapists. Miles and Rachel are allowed to have done bad things and get a redemption arc, so maybe they'll treat Ben fairly and say "he had his flaws and broke the world, but he was a decent guy and a good dad".
Then the show promoted Bobby as a surrogate father figure and started dissing John, even going so far as giving him a family that the boys knew nothing about- and being a better father to that other son. It got to the point that even Jeffrey dean Morgan (who played John) said it would be difficult for him to come back, given how they've basically trashed his character since he's been off the show.
Yikes. That does sound traumatic for the viewer. I can see why you'd feel burned by Supernatural, and then Revolution would feel rather like being asked out by an ex who seems all nice at first and then starts dropping hints that he's the same old dick. ;) Here's hoping that does NOT happen!
I don't think Danny had health issues when Ben approached the DOD. I guess you're right about that. Thinking back to that ep, it did seem like pregnant Rachel had her first hint of a Danny problem after the DOD thing already happened. Ben and Rachel could have had serious financial problems though if, let's say, they were still graduate students. Having been one, I can attest to the fact that they are notoriously impoverished, especially if you're trying to raise a family at the same time. Neither Ben nor Rachel have ever been referred to as "Dr." but both of their scientific careers would have potentially led them to get PhDs, hence my spec that they might have been grad students. Maybe their little side project was meant to pay the bills, but they weren't making money (and of course, had Charlie already) so Ben sold the device. Anyway, you're right - that episode was meant to create sympathy for Rachel not for Ben - Ben, they gave us nothing on. But for all we know, the DOD could have found out about the device and held a gun to his head and threatened his family if he didn't sell the device. Ok, I'll stop speculating on that topic. (As a total rando side note, my spouse went to MIT and when I told him about MIT giving away Aaron's code, he said that is plausible - that MIT technically has some legal rights to its students' work. I can inquire further if anyone cares during Aaron week.)
if he hadn't help kill 80% of the world This leads to an excellent question, but one I suppose we should save for Ben week. If you create a device that is not meant to harm but you sell it to someone who uses it to kill 80% of the world - is it your fault?
Danny was an idiot for saving Neville's life, instead of escaping and letting "an act of God" smite Neville. He got that from his dad. I didn't get that impression. I got the impression that Danny was perhaps too good for the world...yes, it may have gotten him killed, but I don't think we as an audience are supposed to have disdain for him, but rather to admire him. By the end of Neville's time with Danny, even he admired him. There are lots of characters like that in literature - for some reason, Eva from Uncle Tom's Cabin is coming to mind. Or maybe Beth from Little Women. (Wow, this must have been a major 19th-century American trope.) Just to bring it back to Charlie, I think she's (much more than Danny ever was) on a journey of: can a good person survive in a world like this, or do good people necessarily have to die off because only the immoral can hack it?
That's speculation, I didn't see anything in the episode that led me to believe their marital strife had anything to do with Miles.
Yep. Total spec. *grins* But we do have to connect pieces across episodes as viewers, so I'm hoping some of those flashbacks will gain more relevance once we learn a little more. What I really want is to see some flashbacks of Miles and Ben interacting, as kids and adults. The only way we've ever been able to get a Ben arc on the show is via people's memories, since he died so immediately. I still have lots of hope that Ben's going to be wonderful and complex. Because apparently I'm trying out not being a cynic for today.
Still in two parts, cause I'm ranty that way- sorry.
Yikes. That does sound traumatic for the viewer. I can see why you'd feel burned by Supernatural, and then Revolution would feel rather like being asked out by an ex who seems all nice at first and then starts dropping hints that he's the same old dick. ;) Here's hoping that does NOT happen!
Yup, and that's not even mentioning how Supernatural only has two leads and managed to demonize one brother and saintify the other. I'm at least not worried about that happening on Revolution right now.
Ben and Rachel could have had serious financial problems though if, let's say, they were still graduate students.
Could be, but like I said- that's pure speculation. All Ben said was that they needed the money to keep the lights on. We can make up excuses and reasons and talk about how hard they were struggling and Ben was doing it all for his family.... But unless we see/hear any of it on the show, it's fanon reasoning and not canon, which is my problem. Ben isn't allowed to tell his side of the story, so he's left looking like the bad guy out of the two. And that's without getting into how he was belittling Rachel with his whole "I didn't tell you, cause I knew you'd disapprove", like they aren't partners in this and it isn't her decision as much as it's his.
I can inquire further if anyone cares during Aaron week
Oh God, I doubt I'll be much fun during Aaron week, I've hated him since episode 6 (and found him useless since the beginning, when his bad decision making nearly got the gang raped and murdered).
This leads to an excellent question, but one I suppose we should save for Ben week. If you create a device that is not meant to harm but you sell it to someone who uses it to kill 80% of the world - is it your fault?
Ben knew it was possible to weaponize it, I'd like to think he was smart enough to imagine a few ways it could all go sour (they had those pendants ready after all) so yes, I hold him somewhat responsible for how the device was used. Even more so, I'll blame Rachel and Ben for not trying to fix what they helped break years earlier, because the whatever-that-was that was in Danny was keeping him alive. Actually if you think about it- it's all Danny's fault.
I didn't get that impression. I got the impression that Danny was perhaps too good for the world...yes, it may have gotten him killed, but I don't think we as an audience are supposed to have disdain for him, but rather to admire him.
Sorry, that was my personal bias and disdain for Danny bleeding through- I think Danny is a dumbass for not leaving Neville. He wouldn't be killing him, he would be letting Karma get Neville. As Batman says, there's a difference between killing someone and choosing not to save them.
Just to bring it back to Charlie, I think she's (much more than Danny ever was) on a journey of: can a good person survive in a world like this, or do good people necessarily have to die off because only the immoral can hack it?
Which is why Charlie interests me more as a character. Look, I'm a vegetarian and a realistic humanitarian- holding hands and singing kumbaya won't change things. Also as characters of fiction, I find characters on a journey, that are discovering their red lines and what they're willing to do or not do more, fascinating than characters with strict morals that makes them morally superior.
Yep. Total spec. *grins* But we do have to connect pieces across episodes as viewers, so I'm hoping some of those flashbacks will gain more relevance once we learn a little more.
That's the writers' job though and I felt they did a better job of it in the first half than the second. Other than Nora's flashback, I never felt that there were repetitive or pointless flashbacks in the first half. The second half didn't have flashbacks all the time, the flashback in Home was pointless and could have been conveyed in a sentence (and lacked any character building moments), while episodes that could use character driven flashback didn't have any (we could have had Nora insight in 'Clue', rather than waste flashbacks on one-off characters like Alec and Emma).
What I really want is to see some flashbacks of Miles and Ben interacting, as kids and adults
I need this like I need air. I have no clue what they relationship was like, because all I've got to go on is the phone conversation in the Pilot (Miles calls him 'Benjamin'- I bet he does it to piss him off like the bratty younger brother he is), Ben telling Charlie that Miles is good at killing, Miles not wanting Charlie to disrespect Ben's memory.... And that's it.
I still have lots of hope that Ben's going to be wonderful and complex. Because apparently I'm trying out not being a cynic for today.
I wish I could turn my cynicism off, but very few shows/showrunners have my complete confidence and trust (and Revolution/Kripke aren't one of them). Is it "don't be a cynic for a day" day today? LOL. I think I'd be more trusting if I only had the first half of the season. The second half was such a mess, with unnecessary love interests, soap opera, fixing what isn't broken, making everything "bigger",while losing the charm of the smaller story, less backstory, characters changing sides at the drop of a hat, Monroe twirling his mustache and petting his Persian cat for 8 out of the 10 episodes.... etc. I'm so confused after this season about how I feel regarding the show.
Don't even start me flailing my little hands about the fact that the biggest danger ever posited about nanite tech is the grey goo scenario. There should have been safeguards.
BUT...was the Blackout an accident? Ben knew that the lights weren't going to come back on. He KNEW when he called Miles, before the switch was flipped. So the Blackout wasn't 'something went wrong' (which Rachel knows too) but a deliberate thing.
....yes, I know I beady eyed you guys, but this is good!
Just to bring it back to Charlie, I think she's (much more than Danny ever was) on a journey of: can a good person survive in a world like this, or do good people necessarily have to die off because only the immoral can hack it?
And I think that Charlie is the middle-ground? She was mirrored so precisely with Bass during the early episodes, but where Bass lost his moral centre to immediate necessity and Ben hid away from the world so he could play pacifist - Charlie found a way to do what she had to do while keeping her core morals.
Don't even start me flailing my little hands about the fact that the biggest danger ever posited about nanite tech is the grey goo scenario. There should have been safeguards.
BUT...was the Blackout an accident? Ben knew that the lights weren't going to come back on. He KNEW when he called Miles, before the switch was flipped. So the Blackout wasn't 'something went wrong' (which Rachel knows too) but a deliberate thing.
It wasn't accidental, but I'm not sure if the scientist knew what the government's intent really was? Maybe they knew it was possible or Grace found out about the secret plans and alerted the rest. I doubt Ben and Rachel would have said "ok, whatever" if they knew with enough time in advance to do something to stop it.
And I think that Charlie is the middle-ground? She was mirrored so precisely with Bass during the early episodes, but where Bass lost his moral centre to immediate necessity and Ben hid away from the world so he could play pacifist - Charlie found a way to do what she had to do while keeping her core morals.
Which is why I like her and why I think she's so important to Rachel and Miles as characters- she's their moral center, keeps them grounded, while at the same they desire to not disappoint her, to somewhat shelter her (or make sure she doesn't end up like them) .
I am being good and saving my Ben speculation for his week. beady eyes But I do agree with ivy_bhe's been cast more shady in the second half of the season. Just a bit - but I think they were trying to whitewash Rachel - so Ben becomes the one pushing the nanites?
And yeah, John was never Dad of the Year, but he did the best he could with the absolutely insane situation he found himself in. Then it was revealed he was borderline abusive, neglectful and a bad husband and it's really hard to justify the second family even with the best squint in the world.
(Most fans go with 'well, John could be a good Dad to Adam because Adam wasn't in danger from the demons like his own kids. Except he couldn't give his own kids some normalcy? He couldn't give Adam some training in protecting himself in case any demon tracked him down? ...poor Adam.)
I am being good and saving my Ben speculation for his week.
Umm, yeah, that sounds smart. Sorry, I guess we got a bit ahead of ourselves.
he's been cast more shady in the second half of the season. Just a bit - but I think they were trying to whitewash Rachel - so Ben becomes the one pushing the nanites?
Not just me then, good to know. I feel like the Revolution writers can only deal with extremes- Miles was General Matheson once, so he didn't just do bad things for good reasons, he was 'The Butcher' and evil and he was rapey towards his sister in law. The Militia are all evil rapey bastards, cause God forgive they actually are competent at running the Republic and the lesser of various evils. Rachel helped break the world, but we need to give her a redemption arc, so let's lay it all on Ben and say that whatever Rachel did, she did for Danny.
And yeah, John was never Dad of the Year, but he did the best he could with the absolutely insane situation he found himself in. Then it was revealed he was borderline abusive, neglectful and a bad husband and it's really hard to justify the second family even with the best squint in the world.
Yeah, between that and making Dean "the saintly selfless brother who suffers for family" while Sam was the "selfish brother who will never put Dean first and consorts with Demons/drinks Demon blood/is tained", I definitely had issues with Kripke's run of Supernatural (I stopped after S5). If Kripke can screw up so bad with two leads, I'm not sure how well he'll do in the long run with an ensemble.
Most fans go with 'well, John could be a good Dad to Adam because Adam wasn't in danger from the demons like his own kids. Except he couldn't give his own kids some normalcy? He couldn't give Adam some training in protecting himself in case any demon tracked him down? ...poor Adam
I'm not going to even talk about Adam or the fact that the title of that episode was literally "Jump the Shark". Or that now that they didn't need a third Winchester brother as a way out of Dean being Michael's meatsuit, they have no problem with leaving Adam with Michael and Lucifer and pretending he never existed.
The John that kept Sam and Dean's trophies in a warehouse (S3) obviously was proud of them and their normal achievements. I refuse to believe he could throw his children into the hunting business, for their own good, but not even warn Adam/his mom about this world. It just didn't make any sense and was just an excuse for the writers to go "oh look how terrible John was to Dean (and Sam), as opposed to how he treated Adam." He didn't just know about this third son- he was a part of his life, went to his normal activity stuff! John sucks and Bobby is a better dad than he ever was (let's conveniently forget that Bobby wasn't in the boys' life for a long while because of his fight with John and he threatened to shoot the boys when he first saw them again).
Speaking of Charlie caring about people, I do think there's room for her and Bass to make amends to some degree, should he end up on Team Matheson in season 2. Charlie sees the world through Miles's eyes to the extent that, given more information about Bass's and Miles's history together and Bass's own family tragedy, I think she could develop some sympathy for him. After all, she was able to accept Tom into her midst and he took Danny in the first place and was a more direct reason for Ben's death. Part of her "acceptance" of Tom (if we can call it that) I believe stemmed from his family connection to Jason. You can't help who your father is, but you have some obligation to him - I think she believes that of Jason. Bass and Miles are brothers, so I think a similar begrudging sympathy could emerge on Charlie's part toward Bass. Or at least I'm ficcing it. A shock, I know.
I've always gotten the sense that Charlie hero worships Miles a little bit, since she fancies herself the adventurous sort, and Miles is polar opposite her dad in this respect. I think Charlie is having the hardest time forgiving her mother, and things will get even harder when she realizes how her mother cheated with Miles on Ben. I get the sense she'll blame Rachel even more than Miles for it. She's just not over the abandonment issues resulting from Rachel leaving.
I guess one of my questions is this, since fans seem to have different takes on it. Is Charlie a leader (and is Miles "grooming" her in a way to be a leader like him, only better - more moral) or is she more of a follower like Bass? She's young and I think it takes leaders awhile to develop their skills and principles, but ultimately my guess is she's the leader type, like Miles and Rachel. Not like Ben or Bass. In fact, I can see Miles increasingly deferring to her as she gains confidence, because he has a difficult time trusting himself these days.
My other question is: Did Charlie get her strong moral core from Ben? Or is it something she and Danny sort of developed together instead? (Danny seemed pretty concerned with honor and morality to me, even though *snore-Danny*)
Reply
I think Charlie could be a leader. We saw her take charge during Love Boat, but she tends to fade into the background more around Miles and her Mom. Miles has years of experience and she defers to that, while she and Rachel still have no...blueprint for interaction other than adult and child?
...Ben didn't have a strong moral core. I know some people like him, but from what we've seen on screen he was arrogant, careless and self-serving. The morality we did see - not fighting the militia - was more about lying low. If anything, the kids probably got their moral core from AARON and you know he's not my favourite person. What he is, though, is a bit of a nerd and I can imagine him half-assing stories for the kids about Star Wars and Superman, trying to keep his little bit of ... shared reference? alive.
Reply
One of the most rewarding aspects of good writing is all the stuff that just comes out of the author that they were not even conscious of but their readers pick up on and bring to life. The relationship between author and reader is the coolest, and I always say: Reading is an art, too. It's far from passive.
I would engage with your comments on Ben and Aaron, but I'll save them for Ben and Aaron week, otherwise I'll have us on enormous tangents, because you know us and our interminable arguing. ;)
Reply
I think Charlie is having the hardest time forgiving her mother, and things will get even harder when she realizes how her mother cheated with Miles on Ben. I get the sense she'll blame Rachel even more than Miles for it. She's just not over the abandonment issues resulting from Rachel leaving.
I kinda think she'd blame them both? Especially if the cause of her "abandonment issues" is actually Miles taking Rachel prisoner and on top of that they both betrayed Ben. If anything, I think she thinks more highly of Miles than Rachel right now, so that personal betrayal (of her and Ben) would hurt even more, seeing as her relationship with Rachel is already strained. Charlie isn't Miles' daughter, I refuse to entertain that idea.
I think eventually Charlie will become a leader- and a better one than Bass, Miles or Neville for that matter. She's still learning about the world, still learning to fight, still learning from Miles and Rachel about actions and consequences, still learning about herself and what she's willing to do and compramise and what not. Once she's more secure in herself, her red lines and her abilities, she'll step forward and take charge more.
I definitely think Miles sees Charlie as his moral compass and the darker he gets, the more he'll need her guidance and for her to stand up to him and keep his morality grounded.
Did Charlie get her strong moral core from Ben? Or is it something she and Danny sort of developed together instead?
Hmmm... I think they think they got it from Ben. We know Ben wasn't exactly a very moral character (even pre blackout) but I think he made an effort to present himself as moral to his kids, making sure they know right from wrong, etc. We know Danny kept saying "his father wouldn't do X" all the time, so he definitely modelled his morality on his father (or his father's projected morality). I'm sure people like Aaron and Maggie helped along the way.
Charlie is a different story, because I feel like she's a combination of people. I think her earlier morality was based on Ben, but as time went by we could see Miles rubbing off on her and she can be scarily pragmatic and focused like Rachel. I think she's developing her own morality, the more she learns about the people around her/the world/herself.
Reply
Yeah, this is great. I REALLY hope the show uses revelations about Ben to make Charlie realize that dire circumstances (like being faced with the death of one's son or maybe even wife - because it was dangerous for Rachel to carry Danny, right?) make people behave in drastic ways. Ben is the kind of untouchable hero right now in Charlie's eyes because he was her dad, her protector, and died prematurely. But as she learns more about why Rachel might have cheated on him, or how he treated Miles, or how much influence he had over the Blackout - she's going to have to come to terms with the fact that everyone she loves is extremely problematic. I like the idea of Charlie learning to see the good in Bass, and I hope she does this by learning more about why Miles and Bass formed the Monroe Republic in the first place. I really believe that they believed they were saving people from themselves. Perhaps if Charlie read corycides Revolution Seven, she'd understand why Miles and Bass thought law and order was something worth killing over. (Still reeling from your massacre of those dogs, Cory. :P)
Oh and editing to say: Ivy, Billy apparently hates the idea of Charlie being Miles's daughter as much as you! When I saw that interview, I immediately thought of your wrath at the idea of this and wanted to high five you. :)
Reply
I have issues with how they're painting/might paint Ben, because I'm still traumatized from Supernatural and John Winchester getting character assassinated post-mortem. I don't mind making Ben a complex character, but almost every single flashback so far has painted him in a negative light- he sold their invention to the DOD not to save Danny (like Rachel) but for greed, he failed to protect his family (Rachel shot the thief), his latest tense flashback scenes with Rachel. I want to see some of the good flashbacks.
I really believe that they believed they were saving people from themselves.
Yeah, that was definitely a slippery slope and "road to hell is paved with good intentions". I want to see the early days of the Republic, when it wasn't as evil and when they were trying to do right by the people (because I hate the black and white approach of "Militia is EVIL, they're all creepy chauvinistic rapists"- the Militia couldn't have started off bad!). I'd also love it if we learn The Militia (back in the day) was the lesser of two (or more) evils and only now there's a chance at a better future. I want more shades of gray on the show in general. Doing bad things for good reasons, having a "no win" situation and just focusing on damage control, rather than being heroic or saving everyone.
Oh and editing to say: Ivy, Billy apparently hates the idea of Charlie being Miles's daughter as much as you! When I saw that interview, I immediately thought of your wrath at the idea of this and wanted to high five you. :)
*high fives* It makes me so happy to hear him say that, even if he's not Kripke and can't control what's being written. Miles and Charlie are close enough without pushing Ben further away from the narrative. You can character assassinate him without taking away his biological connection to Charlie, ask John Winchester *still not over it* I've seen way too many shows in recent years who went the "surprise- you're adopted!" or "surprise dad!" route and it's lazy and in 99% of the time doesn't actual serve any purpose storytelling wise. It's bad enough that Rachel cheated on Ben with Miles, no need to add insult to injury by making Charlie suddenly Miles' daughter. It's bad enough Monroe has an instant!son, I still shudder whenever I think of that needless, soap opera-y episode of Revolution that shall not be mentioned by name.
Reply
I know you've mentioned this before, and it's funny - I don't really feel like Ben's been presented in a solely negative light. The most lasting impression I have of Ben is from his interactions with Charlie - her grief and pain at losing him in the Pilot, but more importantly, the scene from Kashmir when she is dying and hallucinates him. His tenderness and kindness is palpable - and that's a product of her imagination, so that's how she viewed him (rather like how we get to see how Miles viewed Bass as friend in that ep). So whatever bad things Ben has done, in my impression, he's been a good father in Charlie's eyes. I know this isn't Ben week...but what the hell! (And, btw, I've never watched Supernatural, and I only saw season one of Lost, so I don't have that baggage.)
he sold their invention to the DOD not to save Danny (like Rachel) but for greed,
Why do you say that? I got the impression that the need for money was because his wife and son were in danger and they needed expensive treatments and help. US health care is a real piece of work when it comes to costs. I'm guessing they had financial problems even before Danny, and that's maybe why they started their side business in the first place. Now granted, I haven't rewatched all the Ben flashbacks recently, but where did you get the sense that he was greedy?
he failed to protect his family (Rachel shot the thief)
Again, I didn't see this as a black and white bad thing, but rather, that some humans are able to kill to protect loved ones and others might not be able to kill even when the circumstances are dire. Sure, maybe he's not a survivor, but couldn't you also view him as a pacifist and therefore more moral than Rachel?
his latest tense flashback scenes with Rachel
See I link those to the affair with Miles (but of course, what do I know?). If Ben figured out Rachel had cheated (or even if he didn't) they probably had tremendous marital strife. Sure, she felt betrayed that he had gone to the DOD, but she had also betrayed him by diddling her husband's brother...probably. They can't have had the healthiest marriage. My guess is they would have divorced if the lights hadn't gone out, but they stayed together to protect the kids.
All speculations and based on hazy memories of Ben flashbacks. Have at it, Ivy! *Puts up swords!* I'm kidding. Like I said, I really just want to know more about the origins of your feelings about how the show portrays Ben, since I didn't get the same impression. He seems complex to me rather than yuck. *leans on elbows and waits with interest*
Reply
I know you've mentioned this before, and it's funny - I don't really feel like Ben's been presented in a solely negative light.
You're right about Charlie's memories of him being positive (despite him not letting her go on adventures and chaining her to her brother basically), but all of this was in the first half, not the second half and I feel that we're moving steadily away from Ben being important. You could argue that Ben in Kashmir was her ideal dad and that it's a fantasy that's meant to seduce her to "keep sleeping", rather than wake up and face the harsh truth. Also I gotta side-eye Ben for his "they'd better be hunting" in the Pilot while he was drinking his morning coffee- I didn't see him doing anything too important, how about he provide for his family instead? Also, I really need some post-Rachel-leaving flashbacks, because I need to see the Ben-Charlie dynamic and why she made her whole life about Danny and his safety- which again, should be Ben's job as their parent.
And, btw, I've never watched Supernatural, and I only saw season one of Lost, so I don't have that baggage.
Lucky you. I stopped after the end os S5 of Supernatural. Long story short: John Winchester was the father of the two leads- Dean and Sam. John wasn't the perfect single dad, leading to Dean's whole life being about his baby brother (sound familiar?) and Sam being rebellious and walking away from the "family business". But John also sacrificed his life to save his son's life and I honestly think despite his flaws, he did the best he could by his boys. Then the show promoted Bobby as a surrogate father figure and started dissing John, even going so far as giving him a family that the boys knew nothing about- and being a better father to that other son. It got to the point that even Jeffrey dean Morgan (who played John) said it would be difficult for him to come back, given how they've basically trashed his character since he's been off the show.
So I'm still traumatized by that and worried Kripke will do the same to Ben. Maybe I'm paranoid.
Why do you say that? I got the impression that the need for money was because his wife and son were in danger and they needed expensive treatments and help.
I don't think Danny had health issues when Ben approached the DOD. OK, maybe greed was the wrong word, but Ben goes behind his wife's back, makes the deal, knowing she wouldn't approve, seems to be ok with them turning his invention into a weapon and unlike Rachel, there's no direct correlation between his decision and someone's life (Rachel said yes to Randall to save Danny). Obviously they needed money to provide for themselves, but unless we know that they were broke and had no other means, they might have had other options. Ben made the decision for money. Rachel's the character that gets to vocalize distress over what they did, gets to be all "they'll weaponize our invention!" Ben doesn't get to do that and I don't think it's fair towards his character. I'm sure he had reservations, I'm sure he felt guilt, but we don't get to see/hear it, because his actions are important, not his perspective.
Part 2 of long-ass rant
Reply
Again, I didn't see this as a black and white bad thing, but rather, that some humans are able to kill to protect loved ones and others might not be able to kill even when the circumstances are dire. Sure, maybe he's not a survivor, but couldn't you also view him as a pacifist and therefore more moral than Rachel?
You're right, but it's an early S1 flashback, before we started seeing more of pre-blackout Ben in the flashbacks that I found problematic. It's more about adding it all up to paint a certain picture. But in this specific episode, I think the moral was that "the world is different and sometimes you have to change with it and take a life"- there was a parallel between Rachel killing the thief and Charlie killing those Militia guys. I could definitely view Ben's actions as moral and pacifistic (if he hadn't help kill 80% of the world), but I'm not sure if that's the stance of the show. Danny was an idiot for saving Neville's life, instead of escaping and letting "an act of God" smite Neville. He got that from his dad. I dunno, this point was probably reaching, I admit, but I feel like in the Revolution world, if you don't kill, you get killed and that we're supposed to root for Rachel when she kills the thief who threatened Charlie and see it as strength of character/protecting her family.
See I link those to the affair with Miles (but of course, what do I know?). If Ben figured out Rachel had cheated (or even if he didn't) they probably had tremendous marital strife. Sure, she felt betrayed that he had gone to the DOD, but she had also betrayed him by diddling her husband's brother...probably. They can't have had the healthiest marriage. My guess is they would have divorced if the lights hadn't gone out, but they stayed together to protect the kids.
That's speculation, I didn't see anything in the episode that led me to believe their marital strife had anything to do with Miles. If anything, it seemed to have more to do with their actions leading to the blackout and their disagreements over it.
Like I said, I really just want to know more about the origins of your feelings about how the show portrays Ben, since I didn't get the same impression. He seems complex to me rather than yuck. *leans on elbows and waits with interest*
Like I said, maybe all this "Miles is Charlie's dad!" together with the "Ben the voice of morality was really the driving force behind the blackout" (and with Supernatural trauma) is making me wary of where they take Ben as a character. He's dead, so there's no redemption arc there, all we get are flashbacks and the ones from the second half haven't been very kind on him. I guess if I trusted the writers to write a complex character, I wouldn't be so hesitant, but look at what they did with Neville and Monroe for most of the second half, or how all the Militia are evil rapists. Miles and Rachel are allowed to have done bad things and get a redemption arc, so maybe they'll treat Ben fairly and say "he had his flaws and broke the world, but he was a decent guy and a good dad".
Reply
Yikes. That does sound traumatic for the viewer. I can see why you'd feel burned by Supernatural, and then Revolution would feel rather like being asked out by an ex who seems all nice at first and then starts dropping hints that he's the same old dick. ;) Here's hoping that does NOT happen!
I don't think Danny had health issues when Ben approached the DOD.
I guess you're right about that. Thinking back to that ep, it did seem like pregnant Rachel had her first hint of a Danny problem after the DOD thing already happened. Ben and Rachel could have had serious financial problems though if, let's say, they were still graduate students. Having been one, I can attest to the fact that they are notoriously impoverished, especially if you're trying to raise a family at the same time. Neither Ben nor Rachel have ever been referred to as "Dr." but both of their scientific careers would have potentially led them to get PhDs, hence my spec that they might have been grad students. Maybe their little side project was meant to pay the bills, but they weren't making money (and of course, had Charlie already) so Ben sold the device. Anyway, you're right - that episode was meant to create sympathy for Rachel not for Ben - Ben, they gave us nothing on. But for all we know, the DOD could have found out about the device and held a gun to his head and threatened his family if he didn't sell the device. Ok, I'll stop speculating on that topic. (As a total rando side note, my spouse went to MIT and when I told him about MIT giving away Aaron's code, he said that is plausible - that MIT technically has some legal rights to its students' work. I can inquire further if anyone cares during Aaron week.)
if he hadn't help kill 80% of the world
This leads to an excellent question, but one I suppose we should save for Ben week. If you create a device that is not meant to harm but you sell it to someone who uses it to kill 80% of the world - is it your fault?
Danny was an idiot for saving Neville's life, instead of escaping and letting "an act of God" smite Neville. He got that from his dad.
I didn't get that impression. I got the impression that Danny was perhaps too good for the world...yes, it may have gotten him killed, but I don't think we as an audience are supposed to have disdain for him, but rather to admire him. By the end of Neville's time with Danny, even he admired him. There are lots of characters like that in literature - for some reason, Eva from Uncle Tom's Cabin is coming to mind. Or maybe Beth from Little Women. (Wow, this must have been a major 19th-century American trope.) Just to bring it back to Charlie, I think she's (much more than Danny ever was) on a journey of: can a good person survive in a world like this, or do good people necessarily have to die off because only the immoral can hack it?
That's speculation, I didn't see anything in the episode that led me to believe their marital strife had anything to do with Miles.
Yep. Total spec. *grins* But we do have to connect pieces across episodes as viewers, so I'm hoping some of those flashbacks will gain more relevance once we learn a little more. What I really want is to see some flashbacks of Miles and Ben interacting, as kids and adults. The only way we've ever been able to get a Ben arc on the show is via people's memories, since he died so immediately. I still have lots of hope that Ben's going to be wonderful and complex. Because apparently I'm trying out not being a cynic for today.
Reply
Yikes. That does sound traumatic for the viewer. I can see why you'd feel burned by Supernatural, and then Revolution would feel rather like being asked out by an ex who seems all nice at first and then starts dropping hints that he's the same old dick. ;) Here's hoping that does NOT happen!
Yup, and that's not even mentioning how Supernatural only has two leads and managed to demonize one brother and saintify the other. I'm at least not worried about that happening on Revolution right now.
Ben and Rachel could have had serious financial problems though if, let's say, they were still graduate students.
Could be, but like I said- that's pure speculation. All Ben said was that they needed the money to keep the lights on. We can make up excuses and reasons and talk about how hard they were struggling and Ben was doing it all for his family.... But unless we see/hear any of it on the show, it's fanon reasoning and not canon, which is my problem. Ben isn't allowed to tell his side of the story, so he's left looking like the bad guy out of the two. And that's without getting into how he was belittling Rachel with his whole "I didn't tell you, cause I knew you'd disapprove", like they aren't partners in this and it isn't her decision as much as it's his.
I can inquire further if anyone cares during Aaron week
Oh God, I doubt I'll be much fun during Aaron week, I've hated him since episode 6 (and found him useless since the beginning, when his bad decision making nearly got the gang raped and murdered).
This leads to an excellent question, but one I suppose we should save for Ben week. If you create a device that is not meant to harm but you sell it to someone who uses it to kill 80% of the world - is it your fault?
Ben knew it was possible to weaponize it, I'd like to think he was smart enough to imagine a few ways it could all go sour (they had those pendants ready after all) so yes, I hold him somewhat responsible for how the device was used. Even more so, I'll blame Rachel and Ben for not trying to fix what they helped break years earlier, because the whatever-that-was that was in Danny was keeping him alive. Actually if you think about it- it's all Danny's fault.
I didn't get that impression. I got the impression that Danny was perhaps too good for the world...yes, it may have gotten him killed, but I don't think we as an audience are supposed to have disdain for him, but rather to admire him.
Sorry, that was my personal bias and disdain for Danny bleeding through- I think Danny is a dumbass for not leaving Neville. He wouldn't be killing him, he would be letting Karma get Neville. As Batman says, there's a difference between killing someone and choosing not to save them.
Just to bring it back to Charlie, I think she's (much more than Danny ever was) on a journey of: can a good person survive in a world like this, or do good people necessarily have to die off because only the immoral can hack it?
Which is why Charlie interests me more as a character. Look, I'm a vegetarian and a realistic humanitarian- holding hands and singing kumbaya won't change things. Also as characters of fiction, I find characters on a journey, that are discovering their red lines and what they're willing to do or not do more, fascinating than characters with strict morals that makes them morally superior.
part 2 this way
Reply
Yep. Total spec. *grins* But we do have to connect pieces across episodes as viewers, so I'm hoping some of those flashbacks will gain more relevance once we learn a little more.
That's the writers' job though and I felt they did a better job of it in the first half than the second. Other than Nora's flashback, I never felt that there were repetitive or pointless flashbacks in the first half. The second half didn't have flashbacks all the time, the flashback in Home was pointless and could have been conveyed in a sentence (and lacked any character building moments), while episodes that could use character driven flashback didn't have any (we could have had Nora insight in 'Clue', rather than waste flashbacks on one-off characters like Alec and Emma).
What I really want is to see some flashbacks of Miles and Ben interacting, as kids and adults
I need this like I need air. I have no clue what they relationship was like, because all I've got to go on is the phone conversation in the Pilot (Miles calls him 'Benjamin'- I bet he does it to piss him off like the bratty younger brother he is), Ben telling Charlie that Miles is good at killing, Miles not wanting Charlie to disrespect Ben's memory.... And that's it.
I still have lots of hope that Ben's going to be wonderful and complex. Because apparently I'm trying out not being a cynic for today.
I wish I could turn my cynicism off, but very few shows/showrunners have my complete confidence and trust (and Revolution/Kripke aren't one of them). Is it "don't be a cynic for a day" day today? LOL. I think I'd be more trusting if I only had the first half of the season. The second half was such a mess, with unnecessary love interests, soap opera, fixing what isn't broken, making everything "bigger",while losing the charm of the smaller story, less backstory, characters changing sides at the drop of a hat, Monroe twirling his mustache and petting his Persian cat for 8 out of the 10 episodes.... etc. I'm so confused after this season about how I feel regarding the show.
Reply
Don't even start me flailing my little hands about the fact that the biggest danger ever posited about nanite tech is the grey goo scenario. There should have been safeguards.
BUT...was the Blackout an accident? Ben knew that the lights weren't going to come back on. He KNEW when he called Miles, before the switch was flipped. So the Blackout wasn't 'something went wrong' (which Rachel knows too) but a deliberate thing.
....yes, I know I beady eyed you guys, but this is good!
Just to bring it back to Charlie, I think she's (much more than Danny ever was) on a journey of: can a good person survive in a world like this, or do good people necessarily have to die off because only the immoral can hack it?
And I think that Charlie is the middle-ground? She was mirrored so precisely with Bass during the early episodes, but where Bass lost his moral centre to immediate necessity and Ben hid away from the world so he could play pacifist - Charlie found a way to do what she had to do while keeping her core morals.
Reply
Don't even start me flailing my little hands about the fact that the biggest danger ever posited about nanite tech is the grey goo scenario. There should have been safeguards.
BUT...was the Blackout an accident? Ben knew that the lights weren't going to come back on. He KNEW when he called Miles, before the switch was flipped. So the Blackout wasn't 'something went wrong' (which Rachel knows too) but a deliberate thing.
It wasn't accidental, but I'm not sure if the scientist knew what the government's intent really was? Maybe they knew it was possible or Grace found out about the secret plans and alerted the rest. I doubt Ben and Rachel would have said "ok, whatever" if they knew with enough time in advance to do something to stop it.
And I think that Charlie is the middle-ground? She was mirrored so precisely with Bass during the early episodes, but where Bass lost his moral centre to immediate necessity and Ben hid away from the world so he could play pacifist - Charlie found a way to do what she had to do while keeping her core morals.
Which is why I like her and why I think she's so important to Rachel and Miles as characters- she's their moral center, keeps them grounded, while at the same they desire to not disappoint her, to somewhat shelter her (or make sure she doesn't end up like them) .
Reply
And yeah, John was never Dad of the Year, but he did the best he could with the absolutely insane situation he found himself in. Then it was revealed he was borderline abusive, neglectful and a bad husband and it's really hard to justify the second family even with the best squint in the world.
(Most fans go with 'well, John could be a good Dad to Adam because Adam wasn't in danger from the demons like his own kids. Except he couldn't give his own kids some normalcy? He couldn't give Adam some training in protecting himself in case any demon tracked him down? ...poor Adam.)
Reply
Umm, yeah, that sounds smart. Sorry, I guess we got a bit ahead of ourselves.
he's been cast more shady in the second half of the season. Just a bit - but I think they were trying to whitewash Rachel - so Ben becomes the one pushing the nanites?
Not just me then, good to know. I feel like the Revolution writers can only deal with extremes- Miles was General Matheson once, so he didn't just do bad things for good reasons, he was 'The Butcher' and evil and he was rapey towards his sister in law. The Militia are all evil rapey bastards, cause God forgive they actually are competent at running the Republic and the lesser of various evils. Rachel helped break the world, but we need to give her a redemption arc, so let's lay it all on Ben and say that whatever Rachel did, she did for Danny.
And yeah, John was never Dad of the Year, but he did the best he could with the absolutely insane situation he found himself in. Then it was revealed he was borderline abusive, neglectful and a bad husband and it's really hard to justify the second family even with the best squint in the world.
Yeah, between that and making Dean "the saintly selfless brother who suffers for family" while Sam was the "selfish brother who will never put Dean first and consorts with Demons/drinks Demon blood/is tained", I definitely had issues with Kripke's run of Supernatural (I stopped after S5). If Kripke can screw up so bad with two leads, I'm not sure how well he'll do in the long run with an ensemble.
Most fans go with 'well, John could be a good Dad to Adam because Adam wasn't in danger from the demons like his own kids. Except he couldn't give his own kids some normalcy? He couldn't give Adam some training in protecting himself in case any demon tracked him down? ...poor Adam
I'm not going to even talk about Adam or the fact that the title of that episode was literally "Jump the Shark". Or that now that they didn't need a third Winchester brother as a way out of Dean being Michael's meatsuit, they have no problem with leaving Adam with Michael and Lucifer and pretending he never existed.
The John that kept Sam and Dean's trophies in a warehouse (S3) obviously was proud of them and their normal achievements. I refuse to believe he could throw his children into the hunting business, for their own good, but not even warn Adam/his mom about this world. It just didn't make any sense and was just an excuse for the writers to go "oh look how terrible John was to Dean (and Sam), as opposed to how he treated Adam." He didn't just know about this third son- he was a part of his life, went to his normal activity stuff! John sucks and Bobby is a better dad than he ever was (let's conveniently forget that Bobby wasn't in the boys' life for a long while because of his fight with John and he threatened to shoot the boys when he first saw them again).
Reply
Leave a comment