Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2016 11:27:12 GMT -5
One has to wonder what would have happened had Constance Burge not been pushed out. She was against the character of Cole.
She witnessed an otherwise good season, Season Two, dragged down by the Piper/Leo/Dan debacle. Can you blame her for wanting to avoid another romantic story line.
One has to wonder what would have happened had the WB not replaced Constance Burge with Brad Kern.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2016 12:10:06 GMT -5
One has to wonder what would have happened had Constance Burge not been pushed out. She was against the character of Cole. She witnessed an otherwise good season, Season Two, dragged down by the Piper/Leo/Dan debacle. Can you blame her for wanting to avoid another romantic story line. One has to wonder what would have happened had the WB not replaced Constance Burge with Brad Kern. Good question. Since her biggest issues were with Kern, I don't think Shannen would've been fired. I also think the show would've ended much earlier, like at Season 3 or 4.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2016 17:25:33 GMT -5
Someone here compared the idea of Charmed without Cole to Buffy without Angel. I disagree. Joss Whedon had a clear path for Angel all along, someone who'd done terrible things in the past, now trying to atone for that. Of course, the idea was to finally set him up in his own show.
It seems that there was no clear idea of where to take Cole's character. His constant flip-flopping back and forth between good and evil got old really fast. Make up your mind, Kern! And his romance with Phoebe did nothing but damage both characters to the point of no return.
Perhaps Charmed would have been better had Connie stayed and there was no Cole. At least Phoebe would have not turned from my favourite sister to someone I loathed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2016 17:38:02 GMT -5
Someone here compared the idea of Charmed without Cole to Buffy without Angel. I disagree. Joss Whedon had a clear path for Angel all along, someone who'd done terrible things in the past, now trying to atone for that. Of course, the idea was to finally set him up in his own show. It seems that there was no clear idea of where to take Cole's character. His constant flip-flopping back and forth between good and evil got old really fast. Make up your mind, Kern! And his romance with Phoebe did nothing but damage both characters to the point of no return. Perhaps Charmed would have been better had Connie stayed and there was no Cole. At least Phoebe would have not turned from my favourite sister to someone I loathed. Yeah, you really cannot compare Cole to Angel, unless you want to see how much of a difference good writing and planning can make for otherwise similar ideas. Angel had been a part of Buffy since the very first episode, and it was obvious that Whedon had a clear plan for the character. On the flipside, Cole didn't appear in Charmed until the third season, and Kern had obviously not immediately planned out his storyline beyond "Sleuthing With the Enemy." The inconsistencies with Cole's character only got worse after Season 3.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2016 17:54:08 GMT -5
Angel was handled the right way. Cole, on the other hand...
Of course, with Angel, Whedon was there from start to finish. That is why the character was kept on track.
Poor Cole, by comparison, was all over the map. Of course, it says something that the creator of Charmed, Constance Burge, had to be removed as show runner, for Cole to be brought in. Perhaps she saw warning signs that Kern clearly didn't.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2016 18:33:08 GMT -5
Of course, it says something that the creator of Charmed, Constance Burge, had to be removed as show runner, for Cole to be brought in. Perhaps she saw warning signs that Kern clearly didn't. That's a very good point. Many fans feel that Connie was in the wrong for not wanting to introduce another huge romance storyline, but after what happened to Phoebe/Cole, I can't help but wonder if she might've been onto something...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2016 21:17:50 GMT -5
I'm not one of those fans. Many feel that Season Two had many good episodes ruined by the pointless Piper/Leo/Dan triangle. A storyline that many Charmed fans hated, IMO.
Can you blame Connie for not wanting another storyline to derail another season. This is a show about the Sisters Three, not their boyfriends.
Unfortunately, the WB felt otherwise, so bye-bye Connie, hello Kern. We all know what happened next.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2016 23:45:20 GMT -5
I'm not one of those fans. Many feel that Season Two had many good episodes ruined by the pointless Piper/Leo/Dan triangle. A storyline that many Charmed fans hated, IMO. Can you blame Connie for not wanting another storyline to derail another season. This is a show about the Sisters Three, not their boyfriends. Unfortunately, the WB felt otherwise, so bye-bye Connie, hello Kern. We all know what happened next. I think that had more to do with fans loving Cole's character rather than wanting to see a redux of Piper/Leo/Dan. I like Cole myself, but I hated him with Phoebe, and the inconsistent writing for his character aggravated me a lot. I could accept Cole not existing if it meant losing a ton of things I hated in the later seasons.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2016 0:00:08 GMT -5
Namely the horrible creature Phoebe became post-Cole. I wanted my sweet, flaky Phoebe of Season One back.
|
|
ljones
Whitelighter
Posts: 4,123
|
Post by ljones on May 1, 2016 4:21:19 GMT -5
It wasn't any better with the Prue/Andy saga of Season One, the Piper/Leo sagas of Season Two, the baby arc of Season Five, Season Six and Season Seven. In fact, I hated the way the writers allowed the whitelighters to exploit Leo in order to get the Halliwells, especially Piper, to cooperate with them.
In fact, Paige is the only one whose romances did not dominate the series.
Yes, I also found it ridiculous. I think it was attempted in an early Season 4 episode. I forgot which one. If Kern and the writers had wanted to absolve Cole of his crimes, they should used the same methods they did to absolve the Halliwells and Leo of their crimes - by either pretending that he had done nothing wrong, not bring up his crimes again or pretending that "he had to do it". It worked for the Halliwells. Why not Cole?
Namely those of human beings.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2016 9:55:05 GMT -5
It wasn't any better with the Prue/Andy saga of Season One, the Piper/Leo sagas of Season Two, the baby arc of Season Five, Season Six and Season Seven. In fact, I hated the way the writers allowed the whitelighters to exploit Leo in order to get the Halliwells, especially Piper, to cooperate with them. In fact, Paige is the only one whose romances did not dominate the series. The difference is in quality. Even at their worst, I could still always get a sense that Piper and Leo loved each other. And, Prue/Andy was probably one of the most meaningul, realistic relationships on the show, and again, you could really tell that they loved each other. Phoebe and Cole weren't anything but cheap lust. Cole might've had genuine feelings, but Phoebe sure as heck didn't, and there was zero chemistry there, anyways. Plus, Chris/Wyatt >>>> Phoetus. Just sayin'.
|
|
ljones
Whitelighter
Posts: 4,123
|
Post by ljones on May 2, 2016 22:58:53 GMT -5
Cheap lust? Why? Because Cole was half-demon? Or that Phoebe was the other half of this romance? Or because you didn't like the idea of a Charmed One falling in love with a half-demon? Did it offend your moral compass?
Prue and Andy's relationship was not that healthy, considering that Prue spent most of Season 1 lying to him. Piper and Leo spent Season 1 lying to each other. And then came to the Dan debacle. And what happened in the following seasons regarding their relationship was pure chaos.
This show's idea of love has always struck me as infantile anyway. One does not have to be morally pure in order to be able to fall in love or have a meaningful relationship. The problem is that the Halliwells seemed to have this unhealthy idea that two people in a romance have to be morally pure or near ideal in order to have a successful relationship. No wonder their romances have been so screwed up over the years.
Phoebe and Cole's relationship started out bad, when they were lying to each other. Then it developed rather nicely, until mid-Season 4. At that point, it became a wreck once Cole became possessed by the Source and the Halliwells decided that he had genuinely made the choice to become the new Source, instead of investigating on what really happened. That is what screwed up their romance.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2016 23:44:39 GMT -5
Cheap lust? Why? Because Cole was half-demon? Or that Phoebe was the other half of this romance? Or because you didn't like the idea of a Charmed One falling in love with a half-demon? Did it offend your moral compass? Do you know what happens when you ass-u-me things about other people and put words into their mouth? Phoebe/Cole was a horribly one-sided romance. I think Cole had genuine feelings for Phoebe, but Phoebe only loved the hot lawyer she met at the start of Season 3, not the demon he actually was. It was all lust, and Phoebe's true feelings finally showed their ugly face come Season 5. Cole deserved better, IMO.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2016 0:14:33 GMT -5
Ljones, you've totally misunderstood was Betty was saying. Her dislike for Phoebe/Cole had nothing to do with her "moral compass".
Rather she didn't like it because she felt it dragged both characters down and ruined both of them. Look how Phoebe acted later on, all Holier Than Thou, blaming Cole for everything that happened in Season Four. Yeah, like she was totally innocent here.
Phoebe/Cole would have worked, had it been written better. The fact that Cole was a half-demon and Phoebe was a Charmed One is totally irrelevant here.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2016 0:19:41 GMT -5
Ljones, you've totally misunderstood was Betty was saying. Her dislike for Phoebe/Cole had nothing to do with her "moral compass". Rather she didn't like it because she felt it dragged both characters down and ruined both of them. Look how Phoebe acted later on, all Holier Than Thou, blaming Cole for everything that happened in Season Four. Yeah, like she was totally innocent here. Phoebe/Cole would have worked, had it been written better. The fact that Cole was a half-demon and Phoebe was a Charmed One is totally irrelevant here. Thank you, Tim. This has zilch to do with Cole being a demon. In fact, it's that Phoebe clearly had issues with Cole being a demon that ruins this relationship for me. She never loved him for who he was. All she loved was her fantasy image of him, aka. the hot lawyer she first met in "The Honeymoon's Over."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2016 0:24:53 GMT -5
This would not be the last time that Phoebe let her libido do her thinking for her. And this is the person people write to for advice on romance!? You'd have better luck getting advice on abstinence from Bristol Palin
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2016 0:46:35 GMT -5
This would not be the last time that Phoebe let her libido do her thinking for her. And this is the person people write to for advice on romance!? You'd have better luck getting advice on abstinence from Bristol Palin Look no further than Season 5 if you wanted to see how Phoebe truly felt about Cole. Amazing that he even still had feelings for such a selfish, hypocritical b!tch. Phoebe's always loved fantasy men more than real men. We saw it even as early as Season 2, where we learned that her ideal man was a character from a cheesy old movie. Most of her love escapades in the later seasons could be boiled down to her hopelessly chasing after that Perfect Dream Guy. Maybe it was fitting that she ended up with a walking piece of cardboard.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2016 11:44:31 GMT -5
And, even more amazing, Cole was willing to help Phoebe not give up on love. He sent Drake her way, after all.
After getting kicked in the face again and again by Phoebe, Cole was will willing to help her.
He's clearly more forgiving that I am. I would have said: "F*ck the selfish hag. Let her die old and alone, for all I care."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2016 13:36:57 GMT -5
And, even more amazing, Cole was willing to help Phoebe not give up on love. He sent Drake her way, after all. After getting kicked in the face again and again by Phoebe, Cole was will willing to help her. He's clearly more forgiving that I am. I would have said: "F*ck the selfish hag. Let her die old and alone, for all I care." Time and time again, Cole showed himself to be a better person than Phoebe. He cared about her all the way to the end, even as she spat on him and treated him like garbage. And, let's not forget that PHOEBE was the one who willingly chose the side of evil in Season 4. That, alone, should've been a giant red flag. While many fans liked the crying scene at the end of "Long Lived the Queen," I honestly felt little sympathy for Phoebe. She brought it all on herself by willingly choosing the side of evil instead of trying to help and save Cole, which she would've done had she truly loved and cared about Cole, IMO.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2016 16:21:16 GMT -5
In the end, who was the better person here. Cole or Phoebe? Who was the one willing to forgive the other.
Certainly not Phoebe, how she acted in Season Five showed what a selfish and horrible person she'd become.
What happened to the flaky character of Season One? That was the Phoebe I loved. Where did she go?
|
|