Recommended Posts

The network also picked up Revolution, an adventure drama from Abrams and Supernatural's Eric Kripke. In the epic adventure thriller, a family struggles to reunite in a postapocalyptic American landscape: a world of empty cities, local militias and heroic freedom fighters, where every single piece of technology -- computers, planes, cars, phones, even lights -- has mysteriously blacked out ... forever.

Twilight's Billy Burke stars, with David Lyons, Giancarlo Esposito, Tracy Spiridakos, Graham Rogers, Anna Lise Phillips, Tim Guinee, Andrea Roth, JD Pardo and Zak Orth rounding out the cast.

Kripke will write and exec produce alongside Abrams and Bryan Burk. Jon Favreau will direct the Warner Bros. Television-Bad Robot production, which filmed in Atlanta.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/nbc-series-orders-ryan-murphy-jj-abrams-319978

Link to comment
https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/1075707-jj-abrams-revolution/
Share on other sites

I'm skeptical about picking up another new show after all the latest cancels....

Especially considering JJ's recent track record. I know that isn't necessarily his fault, but he can't seem to keep a show going for nothing. Personally, I think the problem is he isn't involved enough. He helps create the concept, maybe even mold a first season storyline, but then he's got so many other things on his plate, he doesn't stick with the show and it falls apart.

Serialized shows need a lot of babying. From both their creators and the studio/network. FOX is especially bad about picking them up to series, but then not giving them a chance to mature.

Another problem is that JJ's shows are now known to be really heavy with the Sci-Fi, which doesn't do good on the four networks. Lost was different because the first season didn't have a heavy Sci-Fi presence. But now a lot of people know the name, know what kind of shows he does, and I think that hurts the show.

Sad, but I believe it is true.

This show looks doomed from the start. It looks like it would be a great movie, 2 hours and it is wrapped up with maybe a sequel or two down the road, but it doesn't look like it belongs on TV. Or, at least not the big four. SyFy maybe, heck, I could even see it on USA or AMC before I can NBC.

Especially considering JJ's recent track record. I know that isn't necessarily his fault, but he can't seem to keep a show going for nothing. Personally, I think the problem is he isn't involved enough. He helps create the concept, maybe even mold a first season storyline, but then he's got so many other things on his plate, he doesn't stick with the show and it falls apart.

Serialized shows need a lot of babying. From both their creators and the studio/network. FOX is especially bad about picking them up to series, but then not giving them a chance to mature.

I believe that to be the case as well and that's unfortunate. He's got some neat ideas but keeps hopping from project to project, and that's always frustrated me for the points you made.

Revolution seems like the standard run of the mill post-apocalyptic future with nothing to distinguish itself. I'll check it out if it gets a second season and has positive feedback.

Especially considering JJ's recent track record. I know that isn't necessarily his fault, but he can't seem to keep a show going for nothing. Personally, I think the problem is he isn't involved enough. He helps create the concept, maybe even mold a first season storyline, but then he's got so many other things on his plate, he doesn't stick with the show and it falls apart.

Serialized shows need a lot of babying. From both their creators and the studio/network. FOX is especially bad about picking them up to series, but then not giving them a chance to mature.

Another problem is that JJ's shows are now known to be really heavy with the Sci-Fi, which doesn't do good on the four networks. Lost was different because the first season didn't have a heavy Sci-Fi presence. But now a lot of people know the name, know what kind of shows he does, and I think that hurts the show.

Sad, but I believe it is true.

This show looks doomed from the start. It looks like it would be a great movie, 2 hours and it is wrapped up with maybe a sequel or two down the road, but it doesn't look like it belongs on TV. Or, at least not the big four. SyFy maybe, heck, I could even see it on USA or AMC before I can NBC.

never a truer word said

hrmm I like the concept of the show more than I liked that trailer...I'm also skeptical of NBC and this decision after the ridiciulous choices they've made recently.

In fact this image from another forum sums it up well

Meanwhile at NBC:...

eMtT9.jpg

I like the concept and the trailer wet my appetite. I'll be watching when it begins for sure.

With that said however I do doubt this show will go anywhere. I've watched Alias and Lost previously. Both are JJ Abrams shows and although they both began great and intrigued the watcher he can never deliver. JJ is like a magician with a trick he shows you the trick and the audience waits to hear how it was done but he never gets to that part and then people lose interest in seeing the same trick every week without knowing how it was done. So he creates mystery without solving it and then the shows get cancelled and people are left annoyed.

Post-apocalypse always interests me, and having watched that trailer I'm looking forward to seeing this when it arrives. I'll be interested in seeing how big a role Giancarlo Esposito will have, a recurring bad guy like in Breaking Bad or just a minor character; a leader of one of numerous militia groups?

EDIT: I just hope it doesn't turn out like Terra Nova. Great idea for a story, poor execution (at least in my opinion).

...

Serialized shows need a lot of babying. From both their creators and the studio/network. FOX is especially bad about picking them up to series, but then not giving them a chance to mature.

...

they need more mini series, this would be perfect for that.

How about a well babysat mini-series to close out Alcatraz?

I doubt I'll tune in to this new one, most shows I like get canned. I am too scared to admit I like Fringe, Fox might nix it.

If there ever was a one season show then this would be it. The concept is fantastic; but the trailer was not all that exciting. If the can not make the trailer look exciting then how will the show be!

I used to trust the "Produced by J.J. Abrams"; but now whenever I see I think to myself "Oh no, not another crappy one season sci-fi show".

This looks horrible.

The beginning looked OK but then it jumps to 15 years later. I don't want to see 15 years later, I want too see the planes falling out of the sky and the chaos. Watching the breakdown of society would be much more interesting.

It looks like a low budget show filled with lame cardboard characters.

---

they should do it like the Brits, and have 3-6 episodes per year. (annual miniseries, as I like to call them :-P )

I don't know how the Brits rating system works (coupled with selling ad time), but I believe that would require a huge loss in profits over here for such a dramatic change. Either that, or they'd have to fill the rest of the time with more reality/game shows (because they're cheap to make).

I don't know how the Brits rating system works (coupled with selling ad time), but I believe that would require a huge loss in profits over here for such a dramatic change. Either that, or they'd have to fill the rest of the time with more reality/game shows (because they're cheap to make).

I don't know how they make money either. Less episodes = less fillers = more storyline = happy viewers = higher ratings?

Then again, you're right. Less fillers also mean they have to make it up somewhere else. Either with fluff pieces (game/reality shows/stupid soap operas), or more quality programmes...

I don't know how they make money either. Less episodes = less fillers = more storyline = happy viewers = higher ratings?

Then again, you're right. Less fillers also mean they have to make it up somewhere else. Either with fluff pieces (game/reality shows/stupid soap operas), or more quality programmes...

I completely agree that you'll have happier viewers if you have less fillers, which usually requires less episodes. Shows on Showtime, HBO, AMC, etc. prove this to be correct (usually).

But if you're selling ad time, and you go from 22-24 episodes to 6-13 episodes, then either you have to raise prices on those fewer weeks (which I bet advertisers would complain about) or you have to fill the rest of the time with something else. Now, that could be another show, which would be okay, but still expensive, or you'd have to fill it with something really cheap and that is usually game shows/reality shows or reruns.

  • Like 1
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • All these CEOs got the biggest boners thinking about firing employees for AI. Turned out it was just a wet dream.
    • And the fact that the majority of people from Poland are white European Christians while the people you are complaining about in post after post are not is just a coincidence... Every sentence in your post I am replying to is racist nonsense. None of it is actually based on any facts whatsoever. All immigrants are seeking a better life too. It's literally the only reason they would risk everything and leave their homes, families, and homeland. They are working and contributing to the economy too, as you even admit. They get the same benefits your partner did AND that YOU are eligible for as well. That is one of the key things of the EU and a mark of a civilization. That is the definition of a society where everyone is given a chance, treated equally and fairly, and is judged by the content of their character, not their different skin color or which version of ignorant superstitious nonsense their parents lied about as children. Racists around the world said the same things about the Irish and Jews and Poles (like your partner) and...every other immigrant movement over the centuries. What's your family's heritage, by the way? Were your ancestors lied about with racist fearmongering crapola by self-entitled locals the same way as you are now? If someone like that said the same things about all people from Poland, like your partner, would they be right? Or would you want them to judge your partner based on who they actually were, not where they just happened to come from?
    • Again, this is an irrelevant attempt to attack the messenger. The truth does not require any justification.
    • Removed the blue and underline as you did not post a link. This would also  be considered spamming.
    • Why it's almost impossible to produce a smartphone in the United States by Hamid Ganji If you look at the back of some Apple products, you can see the famous phrase “Designed by Apple in California, Assembled in China.” This phrase appears on products from one of the largest smartphone brands in the United States. These products are designed in the U.S., but their manufacturing takes place in China, India, Vietnam, or even Brazil. But why can’t Apple, as one of the largest American tech companies, produce its iPhones on U.S. soil? The idea for this topic came to me after the Trump Foundation launched a smartphone called the T1 and claimed that it was designed and built with American values in mind. However, this claim did not last long, as it was revealed that Trump’s phone was actually a rebranded HTC U24 Pro, with only a gold case and minor internal component changes. You see? Even a phone that is supposed to represent American values is manufactured in China. With a gross domestic product (GDP) exceeding $32 trillion, the United States is currently the world’s largest economy, while China ranks second with around $20 trillion. On the other hand, the United States is by a wide margin the global leader in various technological fields, and American companies spend hundreds of billions of dollars annually on research and development. From Apple and Google to Microsoft, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and others, American tech and industrial giants lead their foreign competitors in many sectors. The United States also has no shortage of smartphone brands. Apple, Google, and Motorola are among the major brands in the smartphone market, collectively holding a significant share. However, the vast majority of their products are manufactured outside the United States. So why is it that the world’s largest economy, home to the most advanced technology companies and industrial powers, cannot produce a smartphone on its own soil? Let’s explore this question together. Even threats to impose tariffs won’t work After Trump entered the White House as the 47th President of the United States, his administration adopted strict tariff policies. One of these policies was the imposition of a 25% tariff on smartphones manufactured outside the United States. Trump said he “had a little problem” with Apple CEO Tim Cook over producing smartphones outside the U.S. So he thought that threatening a 25% tax on imported phones might force Apple to bring manufacturing back to the United States. “I have long ago informed Tim Cook of Apple that I expect their iPhones that will be sold in the United States of America will be manufactured and built in the United States, not India, or anyplace else,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. Image via The White House Although Apple currently manufactures some of the iPhone’s chips in the United States with TSMC's help, it still shows no willingness to shift full iPhone production to the country. At the time, renowned Apple supply chain analyst Ming-Chi Kuo wrote on X, “In terms of profitability, it’s way better for Apple to take the hit of a 25% tariff on iPhones sold in the US market than to move iPhone assembly lines back to the US.” However, manufacturing a smartphone in the United States is not as easy as it might seem, and many technical and economic barriers are involved. The lack of necessary manufacturing hubs There is a clear reason why many companies prefer to manufacture their products in China. China has established itself as the main global manufacturing hub for international companies, and over the past few decades, large contract manufacturers have emerged there, allowing companies like Apple to outsource production. One such example is Foxconn, which also manufactures some Apple products in India. Building the infrastructure required to produce smartphones in the United States would require tens of billions of dollars in new investment. Factories would need to be built, essential manufacturing equipment would have to be installed, and, most importantly, a skilled workforce capable of operating these systems would need to be recruited and trained. The United States currently lacks the core infrastructure needed to manufacture smartphones, and for this reason, many companies prefer to outsource production to Chinese contractors rather than spend tens of billions of dollars to build that infrastructure, which is significantly more economically efficient. Additionally, building such infrastructure in the United States could take up to a decade, ultimately leading to a significant increase in the product's final price for consumers. Shortage of trained labor in the U.S. compared to China Decades of serving as a global manufacturing hub have allowed China to build a massive talent pool in the production sector that is almost unmatched worldwide. Today, if a company chooses to manufacture its products in China, it can be confident that the workers involved in production have years of experience in their respective roles and are capable of producing high-quality goods with minimal errors. Even if we assume that tens of billions of dollars were invested in building smartphone manufacturing infrastructure in the United States, finding skilled workers would remain highly challenging. Apple CEO Tim Cook visiting the iPhone 6 assembly line in China in 2014. Image: Tim Cook on X In a 2015 interview on CBS’s 60 Minutes, Tim Cook said the main reason Apple isn’t producing in the US is a lack of skills. "China put an enormous focus on manufacturing, in what you and I would call vocational kind of skills. The US over time began to stop having as many vocational kinds of skills. I mean you could take every tool and die maker in the United States and probably put them in the room that we're currently sitting in. In China you would have to have multiple football fields,” Cook said. Also, in 2017, at the Fortune Global Forum in Guangzhou, Cook once again emphasized the importance of highly skilled Chinese workers. “China has moved into very advanced manufacturing, so you find in China the intersection of craftsman kind of skill, and sophisticated robotics and the computer science world. That intersection, which is very rare to find anywhere, that kind of skill, is very important to our business because of the precision and quality level that we like. The thing that most people focus on if they’re a foreigner coming to China is the size of the market, and obviously, it’s the biggest market in the world in so many areas. But for us, the number one attraction is the quality of the people,” Apple CEO said. Higher labor costs in the United States Producing almost any product in the United States is more expensive than in many other countries, and one of the main reasons is the higher cost of labor in the U.S. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, median weekly earnings of full-time workers in the United States were $1,235 in the first quarter of 2026. Meanwhile, the average annual salary in China's private sector in 2025 was RMB 71,590 (US$9,961). In many parts of the world, the weekly wage of an American worker is equivalent to several months of income. Another important factor to consider is that in the United States, the workforce capable of working on a smartphone assembly line is highly specialized and therefore commands higher-than-average wages. According to an estimate by Bank of America, producing an iPhone in the U.S. is technically possible, but “iPhone cost can increase 25% purely on higher labor cost in the U.S.” However, this 25% increase applies only if final assembly is performed in the United States while components are still sourced from China or elsewhere. In this case, the price of a base iPhone would rise from $799 to around $1,000. But in another scenario, if Apple were to produce the required components for the iPhone within the United States, production costs could increase by more than 90%. Trump’s dream for a “Made in the USA” iPhone might never come true In a free-market capitalist economy, one of the primary responsibilities of any CEO is to maximize profit. Using Apple as an example, Tim Cook’s role is to maximize the company’s profits so that it can fund research and development for new products and invest in areas such as artificial intelligence, while also keeping shareholders satisfied. Therefore, it is entirely understandable that Apple would choose not to bring its manufacturing back to the United States and instead keep production in countries where labor is cheaper, and products can be manufactured at a lower cost, thereby maximizing its profit margins. What is your opinion about manufacturing smartphones in the United States? If you are an American citizen, would you be willing to pay hundreds of dollars more for a smartphone made domestically in the USA? Let us know in the comments.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Conversation Starter
      jessse3334 earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • Reacting Well
      JuvenileDelinquent earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • One Month Later
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      506
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      196
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      153
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      72
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      65
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!