Reboot Will Feature a Couple Inspired by an Original

[Jean]

The Charmed Reboot Will Feature a Couple Inspired by an Original Favorite

The Charmed reboot is borrowing quite a few things from the original series, such as the girls' powers (albeit, with one or two twists), the Book of Shadows, A Rex inspired character, A Source of All Evil and even whitelighters! Lucky for us, the reboot didn't stop there, and it will be using one of the ships from the original show as inspiration for a new romance.

"There is a romance that's inspired by our favorite romance from the original Charmed," executive producer Jessica O'Toole told TV Guide at PaleyFest Fall TV Preview. As for which ship that might be, O'Toole was cagey about the specifics. "I don't know if I should say — I can't, I can't say!"

"I think you can probably guess," Amy Rardin, another executive producer for the series, tacked on cheekily.

Naturally, everyone's minds should immediately have jumped to Phoebe (Alyssa Milano) and Cole (Julian McMahon), who had hands down the most romantic, turbulent, chemistry-brimming romance in all eight seasons of the original Charmed. When we said as much to O'Toole and Rardin, we got some very secretive giggles and a "no comment."

That's good enough for us!

For those of you unfamiliar with the original series, Cole Turner was a half-demon, half-human sent to destroy the Charmed Ones, which he attempted to do by seducing Phoebe in order to gain access to her sisters, her house and eventually her Book of Shadows. Unfortunately for him (and fortunately for ever shipper in the world), he accidentally fell in love with Phoebe in the process and ended up fighting with her and her sisters on the side of good — for a while. It got messy, okay?

If the reboot follows format, the youngest sister, Maggie (Sarah Jeffrey) might just find her cute college life interrupted by an unexpected, whirlwind romance with the dictionary definition of a bad boy.

Charmed premieres Sunday, Oct. 14 at 9/8c on The CW.

*Sigh* The reboot is better than this. Why are they forcing so many original plotlines into the series? Come on writers, you are better than this. 

I can only hope this means Maggie will not hesitate to throw that vanquishing potion at her demon boyfriend and not look back. She'll already turn out 100 times better than Phoebe. Please don't ruin this show!

Actually, maybe I'm wrong and he is more Jeremy, less Cole. So we're seeing how the series plays out if Jeremy didn't die, and was still with Piper. Now that I can get behind. We don't need Phoebe/Cole 2.0.

Do you all think this romance will be more Piper/Jeremy and less Phoebe/Cole? 

[BettyNewbie]

Well, "unexpected, whirlwind romance with the dictionary definition of a bad boy" is pretty much standard for CW shows, so what else is new?



Hopefully, they go in a different direction, such as making the "bad boy" actually evil and unredeemable (like the aforementioned Jeremy). That'd be a great way to bust through tired old "girl's love saves the bad boy" tropes that have no place in 2018.

[Tim]

The reboot is better than this. Why are they forcing so many original plotlines into the series? Come on writers, you are better than this.

No, no, NO!  No Phoebe/Cole Mark II!  NOOOOOOO!!  That storyline damaged both characters beyond all hope of repair.

They reboot needs to LEARN from the mistakes of the original show, not REPEAT them!

[Katie]

Sept 29, 2018 23:23:13 GMT -5 BettyNewbie said:

Well, "unexpected, whirlwind romance with the dictionary definition of a bad boy" is pretty much standard for CW shows, so what else is new?



Hopefully, they go in a different direction, such as making the "bad boy" actually evil and unredeemable (like the aforementioned Jeremy). That'd be a great way to bust through tired old "girl's love saves the bad boy" tropes that have no place in 2018.

Yup, very CW.

It would be very modern to have the bad boy not be redeemable. Especially with everything Metoo stands for, it is so not 2018 to have a Phoebe/Cole story re-done.

I totally think to have a Jeremy character, and pairing him with a sister and them finding out he's evil and vanquishing him, is a much better message in the Metoo era.

The girl's love saves the bad boy is so cliche and predictable, and boring. It has no place in 2018.

The best message in these modern times is for the sister to throw that darn vanquishing potion at the bad boy. I'll be cheering her on, and I'll be smiling that this reboot fixed one plot from the original series that truly destroyed a wonderful character in Phoebe. What a way to fix one of Charmed's biggest problems.

I also hope that whitelighters are different, why not make the Elders being a council of Elder Witches or even maybe the Grams in this reboot is already deceased and one of the council members. Because Whitelighters guide Witches, it makes sense they are former witches themselves.

[Melinda Halliwell]

Now that's a good idea Whitelighters being former witches who come back to guide the next generation like Father Thomas the season 3 empath from the original series did helping people with their emotions etc.

[Tim]

I also hope that whitelighters are different, why not make the Elders being a council of Elder Witches or even maybe the Grams in this reboot is already deceased and one of the council members. Because Whitelighters guide Witches, it makes sense they are former witches themselves.

Now this is a good idea.  Make the Elders beings we can actually like and respect, and not the pricks they were in the original series.

[BettyNewbie]

Sept 30, 2018 0:00:17 GMT -5 Katie said:

Yup, very CW.

It would be very modern to have the bad boy not be redeemable. Especially with everything Metoo stands for, it is so not 2018 to have a Phoebe/Cole story re-done.

I totally think to have a Jeremy character, and pairing him with a sister and them finding out he's evil and vanquishing him, is a much better message in the Metoo era.

The girl's love saves the bad boy is so cliche and predictable, and boring. It has no place in 2018.

The best message in these modern times is for the sister to throw that darn vanquishing potion at the bad boy. I'll be cheering her on, and I'll be smiling that this reboot fixed one plot from the original series that truly destroyed a wonderful character in Phoebe. What a way to fix one of Charmed's biggest problems.

Fully agreed. No more trying to have it "both ways" like the original show did with Cole. If he's going to be evil, then let him be EVIL. Maggie should NOT be expected to "redeem" him at the expense of her own character. Redemption HAS to come from within, and if that isn't possible, then don't even do it.

Moral ambiguity is a nice thing, but it should NEVER be used as an excuse for portraying toxic, abusive relationships as "healthy" or "romantic."

[Tim]

Maggie should NOT be expected to "redeem" him at the expense of her own character.

Nope, if she can't redeem him, she kills him.  End of story.

She learns her lesson and moves on.

[Katie]

Sept 30, 2018 11:33:45 GMT -5 BettyNewbie said:

Sept 30, 2018 0:00:17 GMT -5 Katie said:

Yup, very CW.

It would be very modern to have the bad boy not be redeemable. Especially with everything Metoo stands for, it is so not 2018 to have a Phoebe/Cole story re-done.

I totally think to have a Jeremy character, and pairing him with a sister and them finding out he's evil and vanquishing him, is a much better message in the Metoo era.

The girl's love saves the bad boy is so cliche and predictable, and boring. It has no place in 2018.

The best message in these modern times is for the sister to throw that darn vanquishing potion at the bad boy. I'll be cheering her on, and I'll be smiling that this reboot fixed one plot from the original series that truly destroyed a wonderful character in Phoebe. What a way to fix one of Charmed's biggest problems.

Fully agreed. No more trying to have it "both ways" like the original show did with Cole. If he's going to be evil, then let him be EVIL. Maggie should NOT be expected to "redeem" him at the expense of her own character. Redemption HAS to come from within, and if that isn't possible, then don't even do it.

Moral ambiguity is a nice thing, but it should NEVER be used as an excuse for portraying toxic, abusive relationships as "healthy" or "romantic."

Exactly. It has to come from within, and he has to do it for himself and not just for his love interest. Otherwise, let him be evil and be killed. 

Sept 30, 2018 11:35:24 GMT -5 Tim said:

Maggie should NOT be expected to "redeem" him at the expense of her own character.

Nope, if she can't redeem him, she kills him.  End of story.

She learns her lesson and moves on.

Exactly, I like the lesson learned here and she moves on. I think you can have more fun extending the original arc with Cole that lasted eight episodes long, and let the viewers wait longer to learn he's not human, then when the sister learns he's a demon, let her come to the conclusion, he is a lost cause. If he manages to escape death and escapes on the run, well that's fine, as long as she knows who he is, and learns he's a lost cause. Then he can come back and be vanquished. 

I just do not want one of the sisters to be ruined again. I feel that was a Kernus mistake. Connie if she did that plot herself, would have had Phoebe throwing that potion at Cole and that is the end of him on the show. Like she did with Rex and Hannah, making it a smaller arc, I think she'd have only kept Cole on for those eight episodes, or she would have just extended that arc a couple more episodes, but the same conclusion Cole is vanquished with the potion. Phoebe was based on Connie wasn't she, so this is what she would do with Phoebe, not as Kernus did.


Possibly had maybe brought in Cole's mother, who was a demon after all, as the big bad for the latter half of S3, avenging her son maybe? Look at me rewriting Charmed. LOL

[Tim]

Those that do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it.

Let's hope that's not the case here.