003 Revolution Fan Podcast – Chained Heat

podcast-150x150.jpg (150×150)In this episode of Revolution Fan Podcast, Tom, Jenn, Shelley and Stephen talk about Revolution season 1, episode 2, Chained Heat. We also read and play feedback from our last episode.

Topics we covered were:

  • whether Charlie is annoying
  • guns versus swords in this environment, and the Baltimore Act
  • the excellent editing in this episode
  • Rachel’s situation with General Monroe
  • the walking times over the distances between the Illinois cities
  • are there 2 groups (Militia, Rebels) or 3 separate groups (Militia, Rebels and “device” owners)
  • a discussion of Randall – named after Randall Flagg?
  • the things on Grace’s computer screen, including Rachel, Grace, and Randall’s names
  • Nora with the rebels and Miles with the Republic
  • Maggie, and whether she’s not exactly what we’ve seen
  • technology that could work without electricity that we have not seen yet: steam engines, diesel engines, water wheels
  • past and future episode names (“Chained Heat” “No Quarter” “Plague Dogs” and “Soul Train”)

We talked about Twitter feedback from Jeremy Krall, Marni Case, Trevor John.

We played and talked about a voicemail from Audrey from Texas. We talked about the Revolution / Star Wars analogy.

We talk about a Twitter conversation with Chris Chambers.

We read and talked about an email from Bill Bailey, about whether Aaron will power Charlie’s iPod or Maggie’s iPhone.

We read and talked about the comments from Nasty Butler and Kyle from our episode 2.

We thanked GSM Revolution Podcast for plugging our podcast and site on their Pilot discussion episode.

We thank those that have re-tweeted us on Podcast, including Maria Howell and many others.

Starting next week we’ll be recording on Tuesdays and will be able to publish our podcast earlier in the week.

If you want to help us, when you shop at Amazon.com, start by clicking on our affiliate link. You will pay your normal amount but they will pay us a commission.

Our YouTube channel is www.youtube.com/RevolutionFanPodcast. We will start to publish our entire episodes there, in case you prefer subscribing there.

If you are not exactly sure what a podcast is, and how to consume podcast content in an easier way, please see our What is a podcast? page.

We’d love your feedback. Please comment in the comment section below, or  email to revolutionfanpodcast@gmail.com

You can also leave a voicemail at:

  • (234) 738-3265
  • (234) REV-FAN5

Follow us on Twitter: @RevFanPodcast

You can play the song using the play button at the top of the post, or right-click on the “Download” link to save it to your computer.

Be Sociable, Share!
This entry was posted in Podcasts. Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to 003 Revolution Fan Podcast – Chained Heat

  1. Kyle Pope says:

    I appreciate the mention in the previous podcast. Thank you. I would like to enjoy this show but they are making it very difficult. Of all the flaws I’m finding the biggest and most damning is the laziness of the writers. Nothing is thought through. The show is all style and no substance. And the style isn’t very compelling.

    And while I accept the the idea of “suspension of disbelief”, it is a well that can only be returned to so many times. If you’re constantly invoking it to defend a show’s execution then the writers are not putting any effort into creating a logically consistent world. Two scenes in this episode show that the writers have no clue what they are writing about. You mentioned TVTropes.org. They have an entry called “Did Not Do The Research”. This show can be added to that trope.

    First is Neville’s encounter with the deer hunter. The hunter is cowed by Neville’s charm and turns over his shotgun. When Neville orders a search, the hunter pulls a pistol and decides to fight. The hunter dies in the firefight. Here’s what’s wrong with this scenario. The hunter’s weapon is a shotgun. Assuming he reloaded after the hunt he’s got five rounds of buckshot in the magazine and maybe one in the chamber. There’s a reason there’s a shotgun in every police car patrolling the streets and roads of this country. It is a very effective weapon for killing a lot of people at close range in a short period of time. A moderately skilled user could empty that weapon in less than two seconds. Since this hunter brought down that buck with one round he probably knows how to use that weapon. So here comes Neville. He and his force of eight men are standing all bunched up around the wagon not ten yards away. Neville is standing about ten feet away directly between deer hunter and his conveniently clustered troops. Shotguns do not have to be aimed. You merely point them in the direction of the target. The spread of shot will shred everything within a cone in front of the muzzle. Plus the hunter was standing in his own doorway with easy access to cover. So the hunter stands his ground out of the gate. His first round kills Neville where he stands. The second round plows into the bunched militia troops before their swords clear their scabbards killing or wounding the majority of the force. Those who weren’t hit will either run for the hills (sword vs shotgun, sword loses.) or charge the hunter and die with their comrades. There was nobody writing this episode who had even the first clue what kind of damage a shotgun is capable of.

    The second scene wasn’t just lazy but plain old stupid as well. Norah needs to kill the warden to get his sniper rifle. So she improvises a gun with an effective range of ten feet while they deliberate over how to carry out this plan. Charlie is intently watching the proceedings completely oblivious to the fact that SHE’S GOT A CROSSBOW LYING ON THE GROUND AT HER FEET! So how best to kill the warden. Use an improvised gun that kills at ten feet or the fancy reverse draw crossbow that kills silently at sixty yards? And Charlie is a hunter. She knows how to use that bow. And there’s plenty of cover. She need never expose herself to kill the warden. The writers were so intent on using this scene to show us how bad ass Norah is at improvising weapons while giving Charlie a transcendent moment that they simply ignored the most glaringly obvious solution to the problem and hoped we would too.

    Suspension of disbelief doesn’t cover this. This is bad writing for which there is no excuse.

    • Galen says:

      Guns vs Swords — Swords would be easier for the “layman” to make. You just need a bit of tempered steel (tempering steel properly was the hard part of making swords in the old days) — and there is plenty of tempered steel lying around post change. With a bit of practice, a “blacksmith” could turn out plenty of swords.

      Guns, on the other hand, require a bit more effort, to include a bit of a knowledge of chemistry to make gunpowder (or some other propellant), not to mention the ability to find the necessary ingriedents such as saltpeter required).

      Yes, there would have been plenty of guns in the former United States. However, smart (or, barring that, ruthless) people would have realized early that the two most important things for survival post change would have been food and the ability to get food (weapons). In 15 years, I would imagine that all weapon shops would have long been stripped bare, and also the ammunition would have been used up and or rendered useless due to weather/time.

      So, having swords be the primary weapon of choice makes a lot of sense to me.

      Love the podcast (only listened to the most recent—will go back and catch up on the first two before tonights episode). Thanks for the entertainment!

      • Kyle Pope says:

        “Guns vs Swords — Swords would be easier for the “layman” to make. You just need a bit of tempered steel…”

        Not even close. There are numerous properties of a good sword that if you get them wrong gives you a weapon that’s worse than useless. The steel isn’t just tempered. All steel in use is tempered to some degree. A sword blade has to be both hard enough to hold an edge and tough enough not to shatter on impact. This is a precise balance that you have to know what you’re doing to achieve. Regarding balance, the sword’s point of balance has to be placed precisely to make the weapon maneuverable while delivering enough power in the blow to cut the target. Blacksmiths didn’t make swords. Swordsmiths did. It was a highly specialized skill that took years to master.

        “Guns, on the other hand, require a bit more effort, to include a bit of a knowledge of chemistry to make gunpowder (or some other propellant), not to mention the ability to find the necessary ingriedents such as saltpeter required).”

        Guns are far easier to make than swords. All you need is some tool steel and a decently equipped machine shop. Samuel Colt made guns by hand. Elijah Remington made guns by hand. John Moses Browning made guns by hand. All of them did it without electricity. As for the chemistry of propellants, farm kids have been blowing stuff up with home made black powder since colonial times. The recipe is quite simple. All you need is charcoal, sulfur and saltpeter. You think saltpeter is hard to find? You dump it into the toilet two or three times a day. Potassium nitrate is one of the chemicals in urine. As for smokeless powder, we’re talking nitrocellulose and that is as easy to make as gunpowder. Cotton fibers immersed in sulfuric and nitric acid. Rinse out the acid after the reaction, dry the cotton, mix with powdered charcoal and blast away. There are YouTube videos on this stuff. People do this in their tool sheds as a hobby.

        There are plenty of guns in the United States. Almost 300 million of them in addition to billions of rounds of ammo. Most of these are in private hands but there are also military and law enforcement stockpiles. How would you go about confiscating these weapons in the aftermath of a global apocalypse? How do you convince someone to give you their only means of feeding and protecting themselves and their families in a hell on Earth? What good is a death threat to someone who is looking death in the face every day? What makes the militia different from a gang of thugs? They have no legal authority to be passing laws and demanding people comply with them. What they call taxes are simply extortion. Why would people give this bunch of badly armed criminals their weapons? What is the militia going to do if it comes across a group of former military survivors who held on to their M249 SAWs, M60 machineguns, M4 carbines and maybe a few 40mm grenades and the odd mortar? How far would Neville get with them with threats of hanging? I’d like to see what Neville and his pathetic little force would do against Ma Deuce and a determined crew.

        I am becoming increasingly dismayed at the level of ignorance being displayed about how this world actually works and how it came to be. We were not huddling in caves before the advent of electricity. There are millions of people living in the rural areas of this country who know how to make things in their home workshops, including guns and ammunition. Things we call hobbies now (knitting, crocheting, sewing, canning, leatherworking, etc.) would become vital survival skills in a post-apocalyptic world. The citydwellers will be dying in droves but rural folks are not going to have any serious problems continuing their daily routines.

    • Jim Miller says:

      I had the same thought about using the crossbow to kill the warden. I explained it away by thinking that if they killed the warden from a distance, another militia man would have had time to grab the rifle from the fallen warden and use it against them. Also, they would lose the element of surprise when it came time to kill the other militiamen. I think it was a reasonable idea to have Charlie kill the warden from up close and grab the rifle before anyone else could get to it and then have Miles and Nora attack the other militiamen from behind when they turned to see what happened to the warden.

      • Kyle Pope says:

        Killing the warden close up with the gun wouldn’t have accomplished any more than killing him at range with the crossbow. Less, actually. Nora could have kept the gun for herself and used it to kill anyone who got between her and the rifle. Charlie could stay in cover and continue to pick off militia men sowing confusion in their ranks while Miles went into Jedi mode and carved up the remaining guards. The crossbow puts the group in a better tactical position for taking on the militia. The plan they went with deprives them of their most effective weapon and brings them all under militia fire.

    • Benjamin W says:

      Just found this podcast and figured I’d add some stuff to the great points that have been make.

      Shotguns do not have to be aimed. You merely point them in the direction of the target. The spread of shot will shred everything within a cone in front of the muzzle.

      Actually, no. You do need to aim shotguns, you have more wiggle room than a rifle, but you do need to aim, especially at close range.

      Your larger point still stands though. Were that scene “real world”, Neville would have been shot where he stood and dead before he hit the ground. At the range between the hunter and the remainder of the troops, there would not be enough distance for the shot to spread that much. The hunter would aim his gun to take them individually. You are correct that the hunters shotgun probably has a 4-5 shell magazine and would almost certainly have another one in the chamber.

      So Neville is dead and 3-5 of the remaining troops are dead or seriously wounded in the opening few seconds, the hunter uses the initial confusion to take cover and reload. If the remaining troops regroup and attack, they all die. If they run, the hunter certainly knows the terrain better and uses that to his advantage and pursues the fleeing troops and kills them. If one or two get away they will probably “disappear” when they come across the first town, as the locals have no incentive to help them.

      With no modern communications, nobody will now exactly where Neville was. The hunter will dispose of the bodies. If he gets all the troops then he just has to tidy up so nobody finds them. If one or more get away and he can’t be sure they didn’t make it back, he packs his stuff into the wagon and flees. More likely though is that the hunter has a second base he can operate from, he moves all his stuff there and keeps the site under observation to see if anyone actually comes back.

  2. Jim Miller says:

    Just found your podcast. I’m looking forward to listening to it. Great comment up there from Kyle Pope. I can only hope the show addresses some of the points he makes. History has shown that a small majority of people can use fear and intimidation to control a much larger population that is struggling for survival. Most people just want to be left alone to live their lives and will accept any authority that will let them do that. At least that’s what I believe.

    • Kyle Pope says:

      Using fear and intimidation to control a larger group of people certainly has historical precedent. What also has historical precedent is people rising up in the face of atrocities committed against them. Charlie made mention of the militia not only taking their crops but their women as well. If you were faced with the prospect of your wife or daughter being carted off for a night or two of gang rape you would be motivated to either fight the militia when they showed up or at least run before they showed up again. The militia is clearly not leaving people alone.

      • Jim Miller says:

        I agree that many people would want to get back at the militia and some will try. But a few untrained civilians can’t do much against an armed and organized company of soldiers. It will take organization and training to defeat the militias. In the absence of that, any strike against the militia by some angry locals will result in reprisals against the entire village. If everyone hides when the militia comes they would just take anything of value and burn down the village. At least that’s what I would do if I were an evil militia. Reprisals like that probably happen often enough that word spread. In a world like this I think most people will decide the best of the bad options is to comply with the orders and whims of the militia. The type of people that would never be cowed by the militia have either been killed, fled, or joined the rebels. The rest are doing the best they can given their limited options.

        I think for this to work however, the militia needs to have done something useful during its formation for people to have allowed it to grow as powerful as it did. People probably supported the militia during it’s early years because it brought some order to the world. However, I’m guessing it changed over time and has started to become more oppressive, giving rise to the rebels.

        • Kyle Pope says:

          Except the militia isn’t really armed and not all that organized. I could buy it if they showed up in force behind massive firepower but this is a pretty pathetic bunch. Neville would have lost his entire force if he hadn’t pulled out that pistol. If one person in Ben’s village had a semiautomatic weapon they could have killed Neville before he could clear his holster. Miles demonstrated that they have no ability to fight as an organized unit. They attack as a mob. Jeremy’s unit had no clue how to deal with a sniper. Any marine or soldier can tell you how to deal with that tactical situation. They train for it.

          The only way this show could make the militia a credible threat is to take modern firearms off the table. Unfortunately they have not presented a plausible in-world explanation as to where they all went. And no, they weren’t all used up in 15 years. Guns don’t work that way. As it stands right now the militia could be taken down by any street gang or mob family. Militarily speaking these people have no clue what they’re doing.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *