Members King Posted March 27, 2007 Members Share Posted March 27, 2007 These are way too general to take anything of substance from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members WTGH Posted March 28, 2007 Members Share Posted March 28, 2007 PREACH! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members psychofan Posted March 28, 2007 Members Share Posted March 28, 2007 These look great. I hope they're true! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members px780 Posted March 28, 2007 Members Share Posted March 28, 2007 Um...do you watch the show? Seriously, the whole point of the series is to !@#$%^&*]slap fans with endless buildup, false reveals, and couples that exist entirely through flashback, dream sequences and past lives. Why the hell would that change? More importantly, why should it? Reilly has set a tone- it's important for him to follow through, burn us in the end. Yeah. I remember- they have sex and then Charity gets her powers and evil can't survive and whatnot. Of course, that's taking Passions mythology out of year one, and not as its adapted and shifted over the years- many have which were thankfully Charity-free. It would be totally Reilly to bring Charity back in, shove her down our throats and pretend like she's actually mattered to the extent of, say, Whitney or Theresa. And I have to admit- it would be truly awesome to revive that whole Miguel/Charity thing. I mean, Reilly has this very simple religious-moral overlay on the show. So his Hero of Heroes, Miguel, would be a dude with a bastard child- a child he willingly left for months to chase after the Heroine of Heroines, a woman who ran from him. And if Charity comes back and gets his attention again, she's kind of a homewrecker, pulling Miguel away from Kay, who he's been chasing for months. That would be neat, in a way, because our Heroes would be jackasses. And the idea would be that Good set it up this way- for these jackasses to defeat Evil. I could work with that. As for Noah/Paloma- meh. Paloma belongs with Simone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members nassaunew Posted March 28, 2007 Members Share Posted March 28, 2007 Eh, Charity's importance is mentioned, but JER wrote her off so easily. The part could have been recast when Stanton and Metcalfe decided to leave. It shocked me how easily the duo were written off the show. Charity's return earlier this year was underwritten and 'blink and you miss the real one.' It would not surprise me if JER had it be that Tabitha was wrong all this time about Charity & Miguel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.