Discussion:
5th Season Supernatural - Sympathy for the Devil - 5 star poll - SPOILERS AHOY !
(too old to reply)
George Avalos
2009-09-11 04:28:29 UTC
Permalink
"Sympathy for the Devil"
9-10-09 Supernatural

5 stars (some restraint)

0-1 stars (blitzkrieg raged)

-George

Brothers are heroes
The Adversary rises
Whose side are you on?
Ian J. Ball
2009-09-11 05:44:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Avalos
"Sympathy for the Devil"
9-10-09 Supernatural
5 stars (some restraint)
0-1 stars (blitzkrieg raged)
Edited repost from the New Shows Poll thread:

Some promise here.

I loved that both creepy Rachel Miner (who appeared as Meg - Nicki Aycox
is busy, don't you know!!) and creepy Emily Perkins (who appeared as
crazed fan/fanfic writer Becky!) appeared in this one.

It's unfortunate that it looks like Miner won't be back for sure, and I
don't hold out any hope that we'll see Perkins again either.

The whole Bobby thing was a big jerk-around, AFAIAC.

We'll see where they go with Mark Pellegrino as ""The Devil"".

Overall, I'll give this one something like:

3.65
--
"There's no business, like Cho business."
- Patrick Jane, "The Mentalist", 02/11/09
Mac Breck
2009-09-14 14:41:21 UTC
Permalink
Ian J. Ball wrote:
<Snip>
Post by Ian J. Ball
We'll see where they go with Mark Pellegrino as ""The Devil"".
I knew I recognized that guy from something else. He was in
"Brimstone" - Episode 8 "Ashes" as Robert Bush, the knife maker/supplier
that Zeke interrogated. IMDb doesn't have him in that episode, but I
checked and Mark's in the front end credits.
--
Mac Breck (KoshN)
-------------------------------
"Babylon 5: Crusade" (1999)
Durkani: It doesn't matter if they believe us. Sooner or later the
truth's going to come out. The truth is....
Kendarr: ....out of fashion.
Ian J. Ball
2009-09-14 15:09:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mac Breck
<Snip>
Post by Ian J. Ball
We'll see where they go with Mark Pellegrino as ""The Devil"".
I knew I recognized that guy from something else. He was in
"Brimstone" - Episode 8 "Ashes" as Robert Bush, the knife maker/supplier
that Zeke interrogated. IMDb doesn't have him in that episode, but I
checked and Mark's in the front end credits.
If you're a registered IMDb user, be sure to add that to Pelligrino's
IMDb credits.
Mac Breck
2009-09-14 15:27:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ian J. Ball
Post by Mac Breck
<Snip>
Post by Ian J. Ball
We'll see where they go with Mark Pellegrino as ""The Devil"".
I knew I recognized that guy from something else. He was in
"Brimstone" - Episode 8 "Ashes" as Robert Bush, the knife
maker/supplier that Zeke interrogated. IMDb doesn't have him in
that episode, but I checked and Mark's in the front end credits.
If you're a registered IMDb user, be sure to add that to Pelligrino's
IMDb credits.
I am, and will. Looks like there are several mistakes in their cast
credits for that episode. I've got some more checking to do, names to
faces, e.g. who Michael Bowen actually played in that episode, if
anybody. I've got to carefully rewatch the episode with all that in
mind. Zeke (Peter Horton) definitely referred to Mark Pellegrino as
Robert Bush, well at least the character "Lee Varner" told Zeke that.
I've also got to fix Michael Bowen's page for that credit. <rolleyes>
What a mess.
--
Mac Breck (KoshN)
-------------------------------
"Babylon 5: Crusade" (1999)
Durkani: It doesn't matter if they believe us. Sooner or later the
truth's going to come out. The truth is....
Kendarr: ....out of fashion.
Ian J. Ball
2009-09-14 15:43:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mac Breck
Post by Ian J. Ball
Post by Mac Breck
<Snip>
Post by Ian J. Ball
We'll see where they go with Mark Pellegrino as ""The Devil"".
I knew I recognized that guy from something else. He was in
"Brimstone" - Episode 8 "Ashes" as Robert Bush, the knife
maker/supplier that Zeke interrogated. IMDb doesn't have him in
that episode, but I checked and Mark's in the front end credits.
If you're a registered IMDb user, be sure to add that to Pelligrino's
IMDb credits.
I am, and will. Looks like there are several mistakes in their cast
credits for that episode. I've got some more checking to do, names to
faces, e.g. who Michael Bowen actually played in that episode, if
anybody. I've got to carefully rewatch the episode with all that in
mind. Zeke (Peter Horton) definitely referred to Mark Pellegrino as
Robert Bush, well at least the character "Lee Varner" told Zeke that.
I've also got to fix Michael Bowen's page for that credit. <rolleyes>
What a mess.
I know what you mean - there was some show I was going through on the
IMDb the other day, making a mental note that a lot of the stuff
needed to be fixed. Oh well!...
DJensen
2009-09-20 15:53:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mac Breck
<Snip>
Post by Ian J. Ball
We'll see where they go with Mark Pellegrino as ""The Devil"".
I knew I recognized that guy from something else. He was in
"Brimstone" - Episode 8 "Ashes" as Robert Bush, the knife maker/supplier
that Zeke interrogated. IMDb doesn't have him in that episode, but I
checked and Mark's in the front end credits.
You recognized him from a single episode of a long-gone show, but not as
Paul, Rita's abusive ex-husband on DEXTER, or as (the body of?) Jacob,
on LOST?
--
DJensen
Mac Breck
2009-09-20 18:23:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by DJensen
Post by Mac Breck
<Snip>
Post by Ian J. Ball
We'll see where they go with Mark Pellegrino as ""The Devil"".
I knew I recognized that guy from something else. He was in
"Brimstone" - Episode 8 "Ashes" as Robert Bush, the knife
maker/supplier that Zeke interrogated. IMDb doesn't have him in
that episode, but I checked and Mark's in the front end credits.
You recognized him from a single episode of a long-gone show, but not
as Paul, Rita's abusive ex-husband on DEXTER,
I've seen every episode of "Brimstone" many, many times (I transferred
my SVHS-SP "Brimstone" eps. to DVD.), but saw that episode of "Dexter"
only once, back in January 2008 (via Netflix DVD), almost two years ago.
Post by DJensen
or as (the body of?) Jacob, on LOST?
I've never watched LOST.
--
Mac Breck (KoshN)
-------------------------------
"Babylon 5: Crusade" (1999)
Durkani: It doesn't matter if they believe us. Sooner or later the
truth's going to come out. The truth is....
Kendarr: ....out of fashion.
DJensen
2009-09-21 04:12:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mac Breck
Post by DJensen
Post by Mac Breck
<Snip>
Post by Ian J. Ball
We'll see where they go with Mark Pellegrino as ""The Devil"".
I knew I recognized that guy from something else. He was in
"Brimstone" - Episode 8 "Ashes" as Robert Bush, the knife
maker/supplier that Zeke interrogated. IMDb doesn't have him in
that episode, but I checked and Mark's in the front end credits.
You recognized him from a single episode of a long-gone show, but not
as Paul, Rita's abusive ex-husband on DEXTER,
I've seen every episode of "Brimstone" many, many times (I transferred
my SVHS-SP "Brimstone" eps. to DVD.), but saw that episode of "Dexter"
only once, back in January 2008 (via Netflix DVD), almost two years ago.
He was in 8 episodes of Dexter, to be clear.
Post by Mac Breck
Post by DJensen
or as (the body of?) Jacob, on LOST?
I've never watched LOST.
*gasp*
--
DJensen
Windowwasher
2009-09-12 14:08:12 UTC
Permalink
3, but I'm not a viewer of the series any longer.
Brian Henderson
2009-09-12 20:53:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Windowwasher
3, but I'm not a viewer of the series any longer.
If it doesn't improve in the next episode or two, I won't be either. As
much as I hated the last season, I gave the first episode a shot, hoping
that they realized how badly they screwed everything up, but nope...
seems they're following the same awful course, at least in the first
episode.
suzee
2009-09-12 23:10:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian Henderson
Post by Windowwasher
3, but I'm not a viewer of the series any longer.
If it doesn't improve in the next episode or two, I won't be either. As
much as I hated the last season, I gave the first episode a shot, hoping
that they realized how badly they screwed everything up, but nope...
seems they're following the same awful course, at least in the first
episode.
I thought they were on their way to fixing things...
Wickeddoll
2009-09-12 23:25:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by suzee
Post by Brian Henderson
Post by Windowwasher
3, but I'm not a viewer of the series any longer.
If it doesn't improve in the next episode or two, I won't be either.
As much as I hated the last season, I gave the first episode a shot,
hoping that they realized how badly they screwed everything up, but
nope... seems they're following the same awful course, at least in the
first episode.
I thought they were on their way to fixing things...
Perish the thought - they get a chuckle out of BC's snarks on each episode.

Gotta have *some* fun.

Natalie
Arthur Lipscomb
2009-09-12 23:40:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by suzee
Post by Brian Henderson
Post by Windowwasher
3, but I'm not a viewer of the series any longer.
If it doesn't improve in the next episode or two, I won't be either. As
much as I hated the last season, I gave the first episode a shot, hoping
that they realized how badly they screwed everything up, but nope...
seems they're following the same awful course, at least in the first
episode.
I thought they were on their way to fixing things...
There was a bit of meta commentary when the fan was saying how the angel
story line was better and then the comment about Sam being magically
detoxed.
Wickeddoll
2009-09-13 00:41:53 UTC
Permalink
"suzee"
Post by suzee
Post by Brian Henderson
Post by Windowwasher
3, but I'm not a viewer of the series any longer.
If it doesn't improve in the next episode or two, I won't be either.
As much as I hated the last season, I gave the first episode a shot,
hoping that they realized how badly they screwed everything up, but
nope... seems they're following the same awful course, at least in
the first episode.
I thought they were on their way to fixing things...
There was a bit of meta commentary when the fan was saying how the angel
story line was better and then the comment about Sam being magically
detoxed.
All kidding aside (I was only joking with my "perish the thought"
comment I made - which was *supposed* to go to the Smallville NG - hey,
I'm old),

I think they pretty much had to go in the direction they went. The boys
had been battling demons for 3 full seasons - it made no sense not to
have angels, simply because holy relics affected the demons in the
Supernatural universe.

Had the show gone the way of "Blade" where crosses, holy water, etc.,
have absolutely *no effect* on any of the creatures, I would have been
fine with leaving out the angels.

One thing about Supernatural angels I really love, is that they're not
these always-sweet little things people tend to think they are. They've
always been described as fierce when they need to be. At least in what
I was taught.

Besides, all that sweetness would make us all gag.

:-P

Natalie
suzee
2009-09-13 02:53:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wickeddoll
"suzee"
Post by suzee
Post by Brian Henderson
Post by Windowwasher
3, but I'm not a viewer of the series any longer.
If it doesn't improve in the next episode or two, I won't be
either. As much as I hated the last season, I gave the first
episode a shot, hoping that they realized how badly they screwed
everything up, but nope... seems they're following the same awful
course, at least in the first episode.
I thought they were on their way to fixing things...
There was a bit of meta commentary when the fan was saying how the
angel story line was better and then the comment about Sam being
magically detoxed.
All kidding aside (I was only joking with my "perish the thought"
comment I made - which was *supposed* to go to the Smallville NG - hey,
I'm old),
I think they pretty much had to go in the direction they went. The boys
had been battling demons for 3 full seasons - it made no sense not to
have angels, simply because holy relics affected the demons in the
Supernatural universe.
Yeah, that's what I meant when I posted this
"I thought they were on their way to fixing things..."

It's my opinion that's how they're going to fix thing. It's how they
have to do it.
Post by Wickeddoll
Had the show gone the way of "Blade" where crosses, holy water, etc.,
have absolutely *no effect* on any of the creatures, I would have been
fine with leaving out the angels.
One thing about Supernatural angels I really love, is that they're not
these always-sweet little things people tend to think they are. They've
always been described as fierce when they need to be. At least in what
I was taught.
Go Castiel!
Post by Wickeddoll
Besides, all that sweetness would make us all gag.
<grin>
Wickeddoll
2009-09-13 03:54:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by suzee
Post by Wickeddoll
"suzee"
Post by suzee
Post by Brian Henderson
Post by Windowwasher
3, but I'm not a viewer of the series any longer.
If it doesn't improve in the next episode or two, I won't be
either. As much as I hated the last season, I gave the first
episode a shot, hoping that they realized how badly they screwed
everything up, but nope... seems they're following the same awful
course, at least in the first episode.
I thought they were on their way to fixing things...
There was a bit of meta commentary when the fan was saying how the
angel story line was better and then the comment about Sam being
magically detoxed.
All kidding aside (I was only joking with my "perish the thought"
comment I made - which was *supposed* to go to the Smallville NG -
hey, I'm old),
I think they pretty much had to go in the direction they went. The
boys had been battling demons for 3 full seasons - it made no sense
not to have angels, simply because holy relics affected the demons in
the Supernatural universe.
Yeah, that's what I meant when I posted this
"I thought they were on their way to fixing things..."
OH - OK. Gotcha!
Post by suzee
It's my opinion that's how they're going to fix thing. It's how they
have to do it.
Post by Wickeddoll
Had the show gone the way of "Blade" where crosses, holy water, etc.,
have absolutely *no effect* on any of the creatures, I would have been
fine with leaving out the angels.
One thing about Supernatural angels I really love, is that they're not
these always-sweet little things people tend to think they are.
They've always been described as fierce when they need to be. At
least in what I was taught.
Go Castiel!
Another Misha booster, huh? He's a hoot at conventions. Swears like a
sailor.
Post by suzee
Post by Wickeddoll
Besides, all that sweetness would make us all gag.
<grin>
:-D

Natalie
suzee
2009-09-13 14:34:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wickeddoll
Post by suzee
Post by Wickeddoll
"suzee"
Post by suzee
Post by Brian Henderson
Post by Windowwasher
3, but I'm not a viewer of the series any longer.
If it doesn't improve in the next episode or two, I won't be
either. As much as I hated the last season, I gave the first
episode a shot, hoping that they realized how badly they screwed
everything up, but nope... seems they're following the same awful
course, at least in the first episode.
I thought they were on their way to fixing things...
There was a bit of meta commentary when the fan was saying how the
angel story line was better and then the comment about Sam being
magically detoxed.
All kidding aside (I was only joking with my "perish the thought"
comment I made - which was *supposed* to go to the Smallville NG -
hey, I'm old),
I think they pretty much had to go in the direction they went. The
boys had been battling demons for 3 full seasons - it made no sense
not to have angels, simply because holy relics affected the demons in
the Supernatural universe.
Yeah, that's what I meant when I posted this
"I thought they were on their way to fixing things..."
OH - OK. Gotcha!
Post by suzee
It's my opinion that's how they're going to fix thing. It's how they
have to do it.
Post by Wickeddoll
Had the show gone the way of "Blade" where crosses, holy water, etc.,
have absolutely *no effect* on any of the creatures, I would have
been fine with leaving out the angels.
One thing about Supernatural angels I really love, is that they're
not these always-sweet little things people tend to think they are.
They've always been described as fierce when they need to be. At
least in what I was taught.
Go Castiel!
Another Misha booster, huh? He's a hoot at conventions. Swears like a
sailor.
I'm not necessarily a big fan of his, but he can get tough when needed.
No sweetness and light there...
Wickeddoll
2009-09-13 21:30:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by suzee
Post by Wickeddoll
Post by suzee
Post by Wickeddoll
Post by Arthur Lipscomb
Post by suzee
Post by Brian Henderson
Post by Windowwasher
3, but I'm not a viewer of the series any longer.
If it doesn't improve in the next episode or two, I won't be
either. As much as I hated the last season, I gave the first
episode a shot, hoping that they realized how badly they screwed
everything up, but nope... seems they're following the same awful
course, at least in the first episode.
I thought they were on their way to fixing things...
There was a bit of meta commentary when the fan was saying how the
angel story line was better and then the comment about Sam being
magically detoxed.
All kidding aside (I was only joking with my "perish the thought"
comment I made - which was *supposed* to go to the Smallville NG -
hey, I'm old),
I think they pretty much had to go in the direction they went. The
boys had been battling demons for 3 full seasons - it made no sense
not to have angels, simply because holy relics affected the demons
in the Supernatural universe.
Yeah, that's what I meant when I posted this
"I thought they were on their way to fixing things..."
OH - OK. Gotcha!
Post by suzee
It's my opinion that's how they're going to fix thing. It's how they
have to do it.
Post by Wickeddoll
Had the show gone the way of "Blade" where crosses, holy water,
etc., have absolutely *no effect* on any of the creatures, I would
have been fine with leaving out the angels.
One thing about Supernatural angels I really love, is that they're
not these always-sweet little things people tend to think they are.
They've always been described as fierce when they need to be. At
least in what I was taught.
Go Castiel!
Another Misha booster, huh? He's a hoot at conventions. Swears like
a sailor.
I'm not necessarily a big fan of his, but he can get tough when needed.
No sweetness and light there...
In Los Angeles, he said Castiel was a "pussy" and that he keeps hoping
they toughen him up. Guess they heard him.

He gets a huge amount of hits on my page - lately more than Ackles and
Padalecki. His pix are downloaded more often as well. You can take a
look here, if you like:

http://www.supernaturalusa.net/SupernaturalD.htm#mc8

Natalie
suzee
2009-09-14 02:13:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wickeddoll
Post by suzee
Post by Wickeddoll
Post by suzee
Post by Wickeddoll
Post by Arthur Lipscomb
Post by suzee
Post by Brian Henderson
Post by Windowwasher
3, but I'm not a viewer of the series any longer.
If it doesn't improve in the next episode or two, I won't be
either. As much as I hated the last season, I gave the first
episode a shot, hoping that they realized how badly they screwed
everything up, but nope... seems they're following the same
awful course, at least in the first episode.
I thought they were on their way to fixing things...
There was a bit of meta commentary when the fan was saying how the
angel story line was better and then the comment about Sam being
magically detoxed.
All kidding aside (I was only joking with my "perish the thought"
comment I made - which was *supposed* to go to the Smallville NG -
hey, I'm old),
I think they pretty much had to go in the direction they went. The
boys had been battling demons for 3 full seasons - it made no sense
not to have angels, simply because holy relics affected the demons
in the Supernatural universe.
Yeah, that's what I meant when I posted this
"I thought they were on their way to fixing things..."
OH - OK. Gotcha!
Post by suzee
It's my opinion that's how they're going to fix thing. It's how they
have to do it.
Post by Wickeddoll
Had the show gone the way of "Blade" where crosses, holy water,
etc., have absolutely *no effect* on any of the creatures, I would
have been fine with leaving out the angels.
One thing about Supernatural angels I really love, is that they're
not these always-sweet little things people tend to think they
are. They've always been described as fierce when they need to
be. At least in what I was taught.
Go Castiel!
Another Misha booster, huh? He's a hoot at conventions. Swears like
a sailor.
I'm not necessarily a big fan of his, but he can get tough when
needed. No sweetness and light there...
In Los Angeles, he said Castiel was a "pussy" and that he keeps hoping
they toughen him up. Guess they heard him.
He gets a huge amount of hits on my page - lately more than Ackles and
Padalecki. His pix are downloaded more often as well. You can take a
http://www.supernaturalusa.net/SupernaturalD.htm#mc8
I'll stick with Dean, thanks.... ;)
Laivine
2009-09-14 02:22:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by suzee
Post by Wickeddoll
Post by suzee
Post by suzee
Post by Wickeddoll
Post by Arthur Lipscomb
Post by suzee
Post by Brian Henderson
3,  but I'm not a viewer of the series any longer.
If it doesn't improve in the next episode or two, I won't be
either.  As much as I hated the last season, I gave the first
episode a shot, hoping that they realized how badly they screwed
everything up, but nope... seems they're following the same
awful course, at least in the first episode.
I thought they were on their way to fixing things...
There was a bit of meta commentary when the fan was saying how the
angel story line was better and then the comment about Sam being
magically detoxed.
All kidding aside (I was only joking with my "perish the thought"
comment I made - which was *supposed* to go to the Smallville NG -
hey, I'm old),
I think they pretty much had to go in the direction they went.  The
boys had been battling demons for 3 full seasons - it made no sense
not to have angels, simply because holy relics affected the demons
in the Supernatural universe.
Yeah, that's what I meant when I posted this
"I thought they were on their way to fixing things..."
OH - OK.  Gotcha!
Post by suzee
It's my opinion that's how they're going to fix thing. It's how they
have to do it.
Post by Wickeddoll
Had the show gone the way of "Blade" where crosses, holy water,
etc., have absolutely *no effect* on any of the creatures, I would
have been fine with leaving out the angels.
One thing about Supernatural angels I really love, is that they're
not these always-sweet little things people tend to think they
are.  They've always been described as fierce when they need to
be.  At least in what I was taught.
Go Castiel!
Another Misha booster, huh?  He's a hoot at conventions.  Swears like
a sailor.
I'm not necessarily a big fan of his, but he can get tough when
needed. No sweetness and light there...
In Los Angeles, he said Castiel was a "pussy" and that he keeps hoping
they toughen him up.  Guess they heard him.
He gets a huge amount of hits on my page - lately more than Ackles and
Padalecki.  His pix are downloaded more often as well.  You can take a
http://www.supernaturalusa.net/SupernaturalD.htm#mc8
I'll stick with Dean, thanks.... ;)
"Sympathy for the Devil"
9-10-09 Supernatural
5 stars (some restraint)
0-1 stars (blitzkrieg raged)
-George
Brothers are heroes
The Adversary rises
Whose side are you on?
4.0

For me, this was an excellent continuation of the path they were on
with a lot of jumping off points I find intriguing. Kripke's said
that this is the Happy Walmart Apocalypse, but I was pretty pleased
with the way they kept the show creepy and quirky and looking good
despite the budget slashes, all the while incorporating all the new
things it's become in the past 4 seasons.
It's got this meta thread now with Chuck and Becky, this Miltonian
epicness with Lucifer, Castiel's faith and friendship with the
Winchesters, Sam and Dean's drama, familial as allegory, Dean's
spiritual destiny and Sam's need for redemption and wholeness. Also,
Bobby's line about saving as many as they can for as long as they can
harkened right back to Season 1 where Dean tells Sam their general
mission. I imagine they're going to take all of the writ large stuff
they ballooned in Season 4 and bring it back down to humanity's
level. Humanity is what matters in the end, I think. I hope and
imagine they agree. So, obnoxious fangirl that I am, I like all of
that and am really impressed that they've let the show grow to
accommodate its own reach. I'm quite glad it's back, it was a
grueling hiatus.

Though made less arduous by one @mishacollins who is probably the
funniest person on Twitter and has my admiration both on stage and
off. Not terrible to look at, either.

I hope they keep them coming.
Wickeddoll
2009-09-14 02:33:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by suzee
Post by Wickeddoll
Post by suzee
Post by Wickeddoll
Post by suzee
Post by Wickeddoll
Post by Arthur Lipscomb
Post by suzee
Post by Brian Henderson
Post by Windowwasher
3, but I'm not a viewer of the series any longer.
If it doesn't improve in the next episode or two, I won't be
either. As much as I hated the last season, I gave the first
episode a shot, hoping that they realized how badly they
screwed everything up, but nope... seems they're following the
same awful course, at least in the first episode.
I thought they were on their way to fixing things...
There was a bit of meta commentary when the fan was saying how
the angel story line was better and then the comment about Sam
being magically detoxed.
All kidding aside (I was only joking with my "perish the thought"
comment I made - which was *supposed* to go to the Smallville NG -
hey, I'm old),
I think they pretty much had to go in the direction they went.
The boys had been battling demons for 3 full seasons - it made no
sense not to have angels, simply because holy relics affected the
demons in the Supernatural universe.
Yeah, that's what I meant when I posted this
"I thought they were on their way to fixing things..."
OH - OK. Gotcha!
Post by suzee
It's my opinion that's how they're going to fix thing. It's how
they have to do it.
Post by Wickeddoll
Had the show gone the way of "Blade" where crosses, holy water,
etc., have absolutely *no effect* on any of the creatures, I would
have been fine with leaving out the angels.
One thing about Supernatural angels I really love, is that they're
not these always-sweet little things people tend to think they
are. They've always been described as fierce when they need to
be. At least in what I was taught.
Go Castiel!
Another Misha booster, huh? He's a hoot at conventions. Swears
like a sailor.
I'm not necessarily a big fan of his, but he can get tough when
needed. No sweetness and light there...
In Los Angeles, he said Castiel was a "pussy" and that he keeps hoping
they toughen him up. Guess they heard him.
He gets a huge amount of hits on my page - lately more than Ackles and
Padalecki. His pix are downloaded more often as well. You can take a
http://www.supernaturalusa.net/SupernaturalD.htm#mc8
I'll stick with Dean, thanks.... ;)
Ackles is my current fave, but Jeffrey Dean Morgan was my all-time fave
- and not just because he's a major hottie for we "mature" women...

All three of them made the 2009 science fiction hottie list at
Entertainment Weekly. Here's a message board thread about that:

http://www.fanbolt.com/forums/supernatural/53277-winchester-genes-great.html

Natalie
suzee
2009-09-14 15:17:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wickeddoll
Post by suzee
Post by Wickeddoll
Post by suzee
Post by Wickeddoll
Post by suzee
Post by Wickeddoll
Post by Arthur Lipscomb
Post by suzee
Post by Brian Henderson
Post by Windowwasher
3, but I'm not a viewer of the series any longer.
If it doesn't improve in the next episode or two, I won't be
either. As much as I hated the last season, I gave the first
episode a shot, hoping that they realized how badly they
screwed everything up, but nope... seems they're following the
same awful course, at least in the first episode.
I thought they were on their way to fixing things...
There was a bit of meta commentary when the fan was saying how
the angel story line was better and then the comment about Sam
being magically detoxed.
All kidding aside (I was only joking with my "perish the thought"
comment I made - which was *supposed* to go to the Smallville NG
- hey, I'm old),
I think they pretty much had to go in the direction they went.
The boys had been battling demons for 3 full seasons - it made no
sense not to have angels, simply because holy relics affected the
demons in the Supernatural universe.
Yeah, that's what I meant when I posted this
"I thought they were on their way to fixing things..."
OH - OK. Gotcha!
Post by suzee
It's my opinion that's how they're going to fix thing. It's how
they have to do it.
Post by Wickeddoll
Had the show gone the way of "Blade" where crosses, holy water,
etc., have absolutely *no effect* on any of the creatures, I
would have been fine with leaving out the angels.
One thing about Supernatural angels I really love, is that
they're not these always-sweet little things people tend to think
they are. They've always been described as fierce when they need
to be. At least in what I was taught.
Go Castiel!
Another Misha booster, huh? He's a hoot at conventions. Swears
like a sailor.
I'm not necessarily a big fan of his, but he can get tough when
needed. No sweetness and light there...
In Los Angeles, he said Castiel was a "pussy" and that he keeps
hoping they toughen him up. Guess they heard him.
He gets a huge amount of hits on my page - lately more than Ackles
and Padalecki. His pix are downloaded more often as well. You can
http://www.supernaturalusa.net/SupernaturalD.htm#mc8
I'll stick with Dean, thanks.... ;)
Ackles is my current fave, but Jeffrey Dean Morgan was my all-time fave
- and not just because he's a major hottie for we "mature" women...
All three of them made the 2009 science fiction hottie list at
http://www.fanbolt.com/forums/supernatural/53277-winchester-genes-great.html
I missed the first 2 seasons, but watched the DVDs a couple years ago
and completely missed JDM was dad. But I don't think I knew him as well
when I watched them so didn't recognize him.
Wickeddoll
2009-09-14 19:45:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by suzee
Post by Wickeddoll
Post by suzee
Post by Wickeddoll
Post by suzee
Post by Wickeddoll
Post by suzee
Post by Wickeddoll
Post by Arthur Lipscomb
Post by suzee
Post by Brian Henderson
Post by Windowwasher
3, but I'm not a viewer of the series any longer.
If it doesn't improve in the next episode or two, I won't be
either. As much as I hated the last season, I gave the first
episode a shot, hoping that they realized how badly they
screwed everything up, but nope... seems they're following
the same awful course, at least in the first episode.
I thought they were on their way to fixing things...
There was a bit of meta commentary when the fan was saying how
the angel story line was better and then the comment about Sam
being magically detoxed.
All kidding aside (I was only joking with my "perish the
thought" comment I made - which was *supposed* to go to the
Smallville NG - hey, I'm old),
I think they pretty much had to go in the direction they went.
The boys had been battling demons for 3 full seasons - it made
no sense not to have angels, simply because holy relics affected
the demons in the Supernatural universe.
Yeah, that's what I meant when I posted this
"I thought they were on their way to fixing things..."
OH - OK. Gotcha!
Post by suzee
It's my opinion that's how they're going to fix thing. It's how
they have to do it.
Post by Wickeddoll
Had the show gone the way of "Blade" where crosses, holy water,
etc., have absolutely *no effect* on any of the creatures, I
would have been fine with leaving out the angels.
One thing about Supernatural angels I really love, is that
they're not these always-sweet little things people tend to
think they are. They've always been described as fierce when
they need to be. At least in what I was taught.
Go Castiel!
Another Misha booster, huh? He's a hoot at conventions. Swears
like a sailor.
I'm not necessarily a big fan of his, but he can get tough when
needed. No sweetness and light there...
In Los Angeles, he said Castiel was a "pussy" and that he keeps
hoping they toughen him up. Guess they heard him.
He gets a huge amount of hits on my page - lately more than Ackles
and Padalecki. His pix are downloaded more often as well. You can
http://www.supernaturalusa.net/SupernaturalD.htm#mc8
I'll stick with Dean, thanks.... ;)
Ackles is my current fave, but Jeffrey Dean Morgan was my all-time
fave - and not just because he's a major hottie for we "mature" women...
All three of them made the 2009 science fiction hottie list at
http://www.fanbolt.com/forums/supernatural/53277-winchester-genes-great.html
I missed the first 2 seasons, but watched the DVDs a couple years ago
and completely missed JDM was dad. But I don't think I knew him as well
when I watched them so didn't recognize him.
He was only occasionally on the show, and even then, very brief scenes,
but he stole each and every one of those.

Supernatural is actually the first time I saw him in anything, that I
can remember, and I was thoroughly pissed off when they killed his
character. The character was only quasi-regular, disappearing for long
periods of time, so he could have just been omitted from eps until JDM
was available.

Boneheaded move, IMO.

I have spoken.

:-D

Natalie
~ consul
2009-09-15 18:38:33 UTC
Permalink
and thus Wickeddoll inscribed ...
Post by Wickeddoll
Post by suzee
I missed the first 2 seasons, but watched the DVDs a couple years ago
and completely missed JDM was dad. But I don't think I knew him as
well when I watched them so didn't recognize him.
Supernatural is actually the first time I saw him in anything, that I
can remember, and I was thoroughly pissed off when they killed his
character. The character was only quasi-regular, disappearing for long
periods of time, so he could have just been omitted from eps until JDM
was available.
Well, the demons did mention that he may or may not be gone for good. I thought I heard them tease Dean about it and suffering.
--
"... respect, all good works are not done by only good folk. For here, at the end of all things, we shall do what needs to be done."
--till next time, consul -x- <<poetry.dolphins-cove.com>>
Wickeddoll
2009-09-15 19:43:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by ~ consul
and thus Wickeddoll inscribed ...
Post by Wickeddoll
Post by suzee
I missed the first 2 seasons, but watched the DVDs a couple years ago
and completely missed JDM was dad. But I don't think I knew him as
well when I watched them so didn't recognize him.
Supernatural is actually the first time I saw him in anything, that I
can remember, and I was thoroughly pissed off when they killed his
character. The character was only quasi-regular, disappearing for
long periods of time, so he could have just been omitted from eps
until JDM was available.
Well, the demons did mention that he may or may not be gone for good. I
thought I heard them tease Dean about it and suffering.
Yeah, I think Azazel did say something in the S2 finale, but I haven't
seen the eps in a while.

But then since both Sam & Dean have been resurrected, I shouldn't give
up hope, huh?

Natalie
~consul
2009-09-15 20:37:55 UTC
Permalink
and thus Wickeddoll inscribed ...
Post by Wickeddoll
Post by ~ consul
and thus Wickeddoll inscribed ...
Post by Wickeddoll
Post by suzee
I missed the first 2 seasons, but watched the DVDs a couple years
ago and completely missed JDM was dad. But I don't think I knew him
as well when I watched them so didn't recognize him.
Supernatural is actually the first time I saw him in anything, that I
can remember, and I was thoroughly pissed off when they killed his
character. The character was only quasi-regular, disappearing for
long periods of time, so he could have just been omitted from eps
until JDM was available.
Well, the demons did mention that he may or may not be gone for good.
I thought I heard them tease Dean about it and suffering.
Yeah, I think Azazel did say something in the S2 finale, but I haven't
seen the eps in a while.
But then since both Sam & Dean have been resurrected, I shouldn't give
up hope, huh?
I meant that I thought I heard DemonMeg say it in this episode, so it's more recent.
--
"... respect, all good works are not done by only good folk. For here, at the end of all things, we shall do what needs to be done."
--till next time, consul -x- <<poetry.dolphins-cove.com>>
Wickeddoll
2009-09-15 22:04:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by ~consul
Post by Wickeddoll
Post by ~ consul
and thus Wickeddoll inscribed ...
Post by Wickeddoll
Post by suzee
I missed the first 2 seasons, but watched the DVDs a couple years
ago and completely missed JDM was dad. But I don't think I knew him
as well when I watched them so didn't recognize him.
Supernatural is actually the first time I saw him in anything, that
I can remember, and I was thoroughly pissed off when they killed his
character. The character was only quasi-regular, disappearing for
long periods of time, so he could have just been omitted from eps
until JDM was available.
Well, the demons did mention that he may or may not be gone for good.
I thought I heard them tease Dean about it and suffering.
Yeah, I think Azazel did say something in the S2 finale, but I haven't
seen the eps in a while.
But then since both Sam & Dean have been resurrected, I shouldn't give
up hope, huh?
I meant that I thought I heard DemonMeg say it in this episode, so it's more recent.
I missed that - must have been yawning. Not impressed with that new Meg
(at least not yet).

Natalie
Alane
2009-09-16 00:03:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wickeddoll
Post by ~consul
Post by Wickeddoll
Post by ~ consul
and thus Wickeddoll inscribed ...
Post by Wickeddoll
Post by suzee
I missed the first 2 seasons, but watched the DVDs a couple years
ago and completely missed JDM was dad. But I don't think I knew
him as well when I watched them so didn't recognize him.
Supernatural is actually the first time I saw him in anything, that
I can remember, and I was thoroughly pissed off when they killed
his character. The character was only quasi-regular, disappearing
for long periods of time, so he could have just been omitted from
eps until JDM was available.
Well, the demons did mention that he may or may not be gone for
good. I thought I heard them tease Dean about it and suffering.
Yeah, I think Azazel did say something in the S2 finale, but I
haven't seen the eps in a while.
But then since both Sam & Dean have been resurrected, I shouldn't
give up hope, huh?
I meant that I thought I heard DemonMeg say it in this episode, so it's more recent.
I missed that - must have been yawning. Not impressed with that new Meg
(at least not yet).
Natalie
I thought I heard the same thing.

Alane
Beowulf Bolt
2009-09-15 20:00:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wickeddoll
Supernatural is actually the first time I saw him in anything, that I
can remember, and I was thoroughly pissed off when they killed his
character. The character was only quasi-regular, disappearing for
long periods of time, so he could have just been omitted from eps
until JDM was available.
Boneheaded move, IMO.
Bah - this was eminently predictable. The loss of the mentor/father
figure forcing the protagonists to stand on their own is almost a
cliche. See Gandalf, Sirius/Dumbledore, etc.

Frankly I'm only surprised that Bobby has survived as long as he has,
given the writers adherence to Campbell's "hero's journey". If pressed,
however, I'd guess they are just saving his death to punch up the stakes
in the upcoming series climax.

Biff
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"All around me darkness gathers, fading is the sun that shone,
we must speak of other matters, you can be me when I'm gone..."
- SANDMAN #67, Neil Gaiman
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Wickeddoll
2009-09-15 21:06:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Beowulf Bolt
Post by Wickeddoll
Supernatural is actually the first time I saw him in anything, that I
can remember, and I was thoroughly pissed off when they killed his
character. The character was only quasi-regular, disappearing for
long periods of time, so he could have just been omitted from eps
until JDM was available.
Boneheaded move, IMO.
Bah - this was eminently predictable. The loss of the mentor/father
figure forcing the protagonists to stand on their own is almost a
cliche. See Gandalf, Sirius/Dumbledore, etc.
Bobby doesn't have the power over Dean that John had. I think Dean
respects him, but it's just not the same attachment he had to his
father. Dean's a loose cannon, Sam's recent idiocy notwithstanding.
Post by Beowulf Bolt
Frankly I'm only surprised that Bobby has survived as long as he has,
given the writers adherence to Campbell's "hero's journey". If pressed,
however, I'd guess they are just saving his death to punch up the stakes
in the upcoming series climax.
Biff
I'm not surprised he survived. He's male, after all. It's the women
who die on this show.

:-P

Natalie
Brian Henderson
2009-09-15 23:13:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Beowulf Bolt
Frankly I'm only surprised that Bobby has survived as long as he has,
given the writers adherence to Campbell's "hero's journey". If pressed,
however, I'd guess they are just saving his death to punch up the stakes
in the upcoming series climax.
When I was watching the last episode and Bobby got stabbed, my wife and
I were both saying he was lucky he's finally out of this series. Too
bad he survived.
Wickeddoll
2009-09-15 23:35:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian Henderson
Post by Beowulf Bolt
Frankly I'm only surprised that Bobby has survived as long as he has,
given the writers adherence to Campbell's "hero's journey". If pressed,
however, I'd guess they are just saving his death to punch up the stakes
in the upcoming series climax.
When I was watching the last episode and Bobby got stabbed, my wife and
I were both saying he was lucky he's finally out of this series. Too
bad he survived.
DAYUM.

You sound the way we do on the Smallville NG.

Natalie
Brian Henderson
2009-09-16 16:44:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wickeddoll
You sound the way we do on the Smallville NG.
I feel the same way about Smallville. I only watch it to see how bad it
can possibly get and every time I think they've gone as low as they can
go, they disgust me and go lower. Smallville is just laughably bad.
Wickeddoll
2009-09-17 01:09:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian Henderson
Post by Wickeddoll
You sound the way we do on the Smallville NG.
I feel the same way about Smallville. I only watch it to see how bad it
can possibly get and every time I think they've gone as low as they can
go, they disgust me and go lower. Smallville is just laughably bad.
LOL we still laugh between tears with Smallville, but I'm still enjoying
Supernatural quite a bit.

Season premiere notwithstanding.

Natalie
Wickeddoll
2009-09-14 00:20:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wickeddoll
Post by suzee
Post by Wickeddoll
Post by suzee
Post by Wickeddoll
Post by Arthur Lipscomb
Post by suzee
Post by Brian Henderson
Post by Windowwasher
3, but I'm not a viewer of the series any longer.
If it doesn't improve in the next episode or two, I won't be
either. As much as I hated the last season, I gave the first
episode a shot, hoping that they realized how badly they
screwed everything up, but nope... seems they're following the
same awful course, at least in the first episode.
I thought they were on their way to fixing things...
There was a bit of meta commentary when the fan was saying how
the angel story line was better and then the comment about Sam
being magically detoxed.
All kidding aside (I was only joking with my "perish the thought"
comment I made - which was *supposed* to go to the Smallville NG -
hey, I'm old),
I think they pretty much had to go in the direction they went.
The boys had been battling demons for 3 full seasons - it made no
sense not to have angels, simply because holy relics affected the
demons in the Supernatural universe.
Yeah, that's what I meant when I posted this
"I thought they were on their way to fixing things..."
OH - OK. Gotcha!
Post by suzee
It's my opinion that's how they're going to fix thing. It's how
they have to do it.
Post by Wickeddoll
Had the show gone the way of "Blade" where crosses, holy water,
etc., have absolutely *no effect* on any of the creatures, I would
have been fine with leaving out the angels.
One thing about Supernatural angels I really love, is that they're
not these always-sweet little things people tend to think they
are. They've always been described as fierce when they need to
be. At least in what I was taught.
Go Castiel!
Another Misha booster, huh? He's a hoot at conventions. Swears
like a sailor.
I'm not necessarily a big fan of his, but he can get tough when
needed. No sweetness and light there...
In Los Angeles, he said Castiel was a "pussy" and that he keeps hoping
they toughen him up. Guess they heard him.
He gets a huge amount of hits on my page - lately more than Ackles and
Padalecki. His pix are downloaded more often as well. You can take a
http://www.supernaturalusa.net/SupernaturalD.htm#mc8
Natalie
Brian Henderson
2009-09-13 18:49:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wickeddoll
One thing about Supernatural angels I really love, is that they're not
these always-sweet little things people tend to think they are. They've
always been described as fierce when they need to be. At least in what
I was taught.
My biggest problem with it isn't that the angels aren't the good guys,
it's that there *ARE* no good guys. The angels are dicks, the demons are
dicks, it's hard sorting out who are the worst bad guys and Sam and Dean
are stuck in the middle, each getting used and abused by powers beyond
their comprehension or ability to fight.
Sean Eric Fagan
2009-09-13 20:36:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian Henderson
My biggest problem with it isn't that the angels aren't the good guys,
it's that there *ARE* no good guys. The angels are dicks, the demons are
dicks, it's hard sorting out who are the worst bad guys and Sam and Dean
are stuck in the middle, each getting used and abused by powers beyond
their comprehension or ability to fight.
There are at least three non-human "good guys" on the show -- Castiel, Anna,
and the unnamed entity who brought Cas back to life (implied to be God).

I'm not going to try getting into a discussion about theology -- real or on
the show :) -- so I'll ignore the last one. But Anna and Castiel both seem to
believe that Sam and Dean *can* take on Lucifer and win, with a little bit of
help. It's only the demons and the rebelling angels who think that they
*can't*. (Well. And Sam, Dean, and Bobby. :))
Wickeddoll
2009-09-14 00:18:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sean Eric Fagan
Post by Brian Henderson
My biggest problem with it isn't that the angels aren't the good
guys, it's that there *ARE* no good guys. The angels are dicks, the
demons are dicks, it's hard sorting out who are the worst bad guys
and Sam and Dean are stuck in the middle, each getting used and
abused by powers beyond their comprehension or ability to fight.
There are at least three non-human "good guys" on the show --
Castiel, Anna,
and the unnamed entity who brought Cas back to life (implied to be God).
I'm not going to try getting into a discussion about theology -- real or on
the show :) -- so I'll ignore the last one. But Anna and Castiel both seem to
believe that Sam and Dean *can* take on Lucifer and win, with a little bit of
help. It's only the demons and the rebelling angels who think that they
*can't*. (Well. And Sam, Dean, and Bobby. :))
LOL I should have read your post first, since I named the same people
as "good guys".
As for powers, we humans just love a good underdog story.
Natalie
Brian Henderson
2009-09-14 16:36:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sean Eric Fagan
There are at least three non-human "good guys" on the show -- Castiel, Anna,
and the unnamed entity who brought Cas back to life (implied to be God).
Cas hasn't necessarily been a "good guy" either, he's done his fair
share of using Dean. The only "good guy" aspect to Cas is "enemy of my
enemy is my friend" and since he's opposing, sometimes violently, the
really evil angels, he's been considered less of a bad guy than they
are. I can certainly see him being conflicted, especially in the season
opener. Anna... who knows, she gave up being an angel because she
didn't particularly like the angels. Doesn't make her necessarily good
in my book, she seems to have her own agenda. The "God" character,
whatever that might be, probably also has his own agenda that we haven't
seen, certainly "God" hasn't seen fit to stop any of the rampant
stupidity that's gone on for the past several seasons, indicating either
that he can't or doesn't want to.
Post by Sean Eric Fagan
I'm not going to try getting into a discussion about theology -- real or on
the show :) -- so I'll ignore the last one. But Anna and Castiel both seem to
believe that Sam and Dean *can* take on Lucifer and win, with a little bit of
help. It's only the demons and the rebelling angels who think that they
*can't*. (Well. And Sam, Dean, and Bobby. :))
The background theology isn't important, if all they're trying to do is
put Christian mythology on screen verbatim, there's little interesting
in that. I'm only going by what they've actually shown and frankly,
it's not Sam and Dean (and their friends) against the world, it's an
angel vs. demon fight with Sam and Dean being screwed over by one side
or the other. As much as I understand that logically, it made sense to
bring in the angels, I really think that's where the whole show started
to go downhill.
Wickeddoll
2009-09-14 00:19:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian Henderson
Post by Wickeddoll
One thing about Supernatural angels I really love, is that they're
not these always-sweet little things people tend to think they are.
They've always been described as fierce when they need to be. At
least in what I was taught.
My biggest problem with it isn't that the angels aren't the good
guys, it's that there *ARE* no good guys. The angels are dicks, the
demons are dicks, it's hard sorting out who are the worst bad guys
and Sam and Dean are stuck in the middle, each getting used and
abused by powers beyond their comprehension or ability to fight.
I still see Sam and Dean as good guys, despite Sam's recent horribly
idiotic decisions, but I think the show would be quite boring if the
angels were perfect. I think showing them with their own free will
(and nasty personalities) is far more interesting, though they went
overboard with Urinal - I mean urial.
Also, I still think Castiel and Anna are good guys, too. (if Anna's
even still alive) They seem to always be at least *trying* to do the
right thing.
The thing I *don't* like is the irritatingly repetitive use of phrases
such as "dick" and "chuckleheads".
Let's try to come up with some new, censor-friendly phrases for the
characters to utter.
I suggest "seepage" even "idjit" which Bobby uttered once. They can
modify phrases saying "effing" this or that. If they insist on
phallic insults, then "jackoff". I would imagine "prick" is off-limits.
Others, folks?
Natalie
Brian Henderson
2009-09-14 16:47:09 UTC
Permalink
I still see Sam and Dean as good guys, despite Sam's recent horribly
idiotic decisions, but I think the show would be quite boring if the
angels were perfect. I think showing them with their own free will
(and nasty personalities) is far more interesting, though they went
overboard with Urinal - I mean urial.
Both Sam and Dean made idiotic decisions, Dean just saw his mistake
earlier than Sam but by then, it was too late to get out of it. Dean's
been making stupid mistakes all the way back to his original deal with
the crossroads demon.
Also, I still think Castiel and Anna are good guys, too. (if Anna's
even still alive) They seem to always be at least *trying* to do the
right thing.
I don't know that they're good guys, they're certainly less bad than
others but they have their own agendas and clearly they need Sam and
Dean to do things for them, they aren't helping them out of the goodness
of their hearts.
The thing I *don't* like is the irritatingly repetitive use of phrases
such as "dick" and "chuckleheads".
Let's try to come up with some new, censor-friendly phrases for the
characters to utter.
I suggest "seepage" even "idjit" which Bobby uttered once. They can
modify phrases saying "effing" this or that. If they insist on
phallic insults, then "jackoff". I would imagine "prick" is off-limits.
What difference does it make? It's certainly a lot more realistic to
use those phrases than to get shot and say "Gee-willickers!"
Wickeddoll
2009-09-14 19:55:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian Henderson
I still see Sam and Dean as good guys, despite Sam's recent horribly
idiotic decisions, but I think the show would be quite boring if the
angels were perfect. I think showing them with their own free will
(and nasty personalities) is far more interesting, though they went
overboard with Urinal - I mean urial.
Both Sam and Dean made idiotic decisions, Dean just saw his mistake
earlier than Sam but by then, it was too late to get out of it. Dean's
been making stupid mistakes all the way back to his original deal with
the crossroads demon.
Agreed that both of them have made me want to throw something at them,
but I can also see how confusing this situation would be. Rightly or
wrongly, most of us were brought up to believe angels were always good,
and that we should heed their advice. But Dean was disillusioned long
before Sam, and started thinking for himself. (not always successfully)
Post by Brian Henderson
Also, I still think Castiel and Anna are good guys, too. (if Anna's
even still alive) They seem to always be at least *trying* to do the
right thing.
I don't know that they're good guys, they're certainly less bad than
others but they have their own agendas and clearly they need Sam and
Dean to do things for them, they aren't helping them out of the goodness
of their hearts.
Totally agreed that they've been using Sam and Dean, but that actually
makes sense within theology - the world is at the mercy of humans, and
angels, saints, etc., are supposed to *help humans* do what's right;
that whole free will thing, that screws everything up. Further, angels,
at least from what I've been taught, were never supposed to do anything
out of the "goodness of their hearts", but per God's commands. That, at
least, is consistent in this show. What's different here from other
shows/movies I've seen about angels, is that the angels make bad
decisions as well.
Post by Brian Henderson
The thing I *don't* like is the irritatingly repetitive use of
phrases such as "dick" and "chuckleheads".
Let's try to come up with some new, censor-friendly phrases for the
characters to utter.
I suggest "seepage" even "idjit" which Bobby uttered once. They can
modify phrases saying "effing" this or that. If they insist on
phallic insults, then "jackoff". I would imagine "prick" is off-limits.
What difference does it make? It's certainly a lot more realistic to
use those phrases than to get shot and say "Gee-willickers!"
It's repetitious, that's what difference it makes. Do you always use the
same invectives? I don't. Vocabulary counts a great deal for me, when
it comes to entertainment, but then I'm a word nerd.

One thing that's really good about Supernatural scripts, is that they
usually use very good grammar, that Reaper chick notwithstanding. Gawd,
her dialog is awful.

Natalie
Brian Henderson
2009-09-15 15:31:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wickeddoll
Agreed that both of them have made me want to throw something at them,
but I can also see how confusing this situation would be. Rightly or
wrongly, most of us were brought up to believe angels were always good,
and that we should heed their advice. But Dean was disillusioned long
before Sam, and started thinking for himself. (not always successfully)
I don't recall them ever mentioning angels before Cas showed up, for all
we know, there was never any intention for them to exist in this
universe. In fact, they seemed really surprised that angels were real.
Post by Wickeddoll
Totally agreed that they've been using Sam and Dean, but that actually
makes sense within theology - the world is at the mercy of humans, and
angels, saints, etc., are supposed to *help humans* do what's right;
that whole free will thing, that screws everything up. Further, angels,
at least from what I've been taught, were never supposed to do anything
out of the "goodness of their hearts", but per God's commands. That, at
least, is consistent in this show. What's different here from other
shows/movies I've seen about angels, is that the angels make bad
decisions as well.
I'm not interested in the theology, I'm interested in them telling a
good story with interesting characters and that's where they've been
failing. I think the biggest problem, and this is a widespread problem
that goes far beyond Supernatural, is making the show dark, just for the
sake of it being dark. Back in S1, they were hacking up demons and
monsters but they were having a good time doing it, cracking jokes, etc.
There was a certain levity that has largely been lost between then
and now.
Post by Wickeddoll
It's repetitious, that's what difference it makes. Do you always use the
same invectives? I don't. Vocabulary counts a great deal for me, when
it comes to entertainment, but then I'm a word nerd.
That's how people talk, a lot of people have a stand-by phrase they use
and it gets used extremely often. Whereas Sam, with a semi-college
education, might have a wider range, Dean certainly wouldn't, nor would
we expect it from Bobby.
Wickeddoll
2009-09-15 19:40:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian Henderson
Post by Wickeddoll
Agreed that both of them have made me want to throw something at them,
but I can also see how confusing this situation would be. Rightly or
wrongly, most of us were brought up to believe angels were always
good, and that we should heed their advice. But Dean was
disillusioned long before Sam, and started thinking for himself. (not
always successfully)
I don't recall them ever mentioning angels before Cas showed up, for all
we know, there was never any intention for them to exist in this
universe. In fact, they seemed really surprised that angels were real.
Oh it's a throw-in for this series, sure, but I still say it makes sense
within the Supernatural universe to have the antithesis of demons, since
holy items *do* affect the demons on this show. If they'd left out the
holy water, etc., then angels could logically be omitted - that wasn't
the case here.
Post by Brian Henderson
Post by Wickeddoll
Totally agreed that they've been using Sam and Dean, but that actually
makes sense within theology - the world is at the mercy of humans, and
angels, saints, etc., are supposed to *help humans* do what's right;
that whole free will thing, that screws everything up. Further,
angels, at least from what I've been taught, were never supposed to do
anything out of the "goodness of their hearts", but per God's
commands. That, at least, is consistent in this show. What's
different here from other shows/movies I've seen about angels, is that
the angels make bad decisions as well.
I'm not interested in the theology, I'm interested in them telling a
good story with interesting characters and that's where they've been
failing. I think the biggest problem, and this is a widespread problem
that goes far beyond Supernatural, is making the show dark, just for the
sake of it being dark. Back in S1, they were hacking up demons and
monsters but they were having a good time doing it, cracking jokes, etc.
There was a certain levity that has largely been lost between then
and now.
ABSOLUTELY agree with you there. It's been rather depressing lately,
but then should the Apocalypse be a carnival ride? ;-)
Post by Brian Henderson
Post by Wickeddoll
It's repetitious, that's what difference it makes. Do you always use
the same invectives? I don't. Vocabulary counts a great deal for me,
when it comes to entertainment, but then I'm a word nerd.
That's how people talk, a lot of people have a stand-by phrase they use
and it gets used extremely often. Whereas Sam, with a semi-college
education, might have a wider range, Dean certainly wouldn't, nor would
we expect it from Bobby.
Guess I hang in different circles than you - even the least educated
people I know have a wider vocabulary than anyone on this show. But
that's certainly not something that would make me stop watching. It's
just a pet peeve of mine. Being a word nerd can be hell....

:-D

Natalie
Brian Henderson
2009-09-15 23:19:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wickeddoll
Oh it's a throw-in for this series, sure, but I still say it makes sense
within the Supernatural universe to have the antithesis of demons, since
holy items *do* affect the demons on this show. If they'd left out the
holy water, etc., then angels could logically be omitted - that wasn't
the case here.
If you're going to have the antithesis of demons then shouldn't it be a
little more obvious early on? It still came as a surprise to both Sam
and Dean that angels were real, even before it turned out that they were
complete douchebags. When Cas showed up, Sam didn't buy it. Seems
absurd if you're casting the series within this particular mythology.
Post by Wickeddoll
ABSOLUTELY agree with you there. It's been rather depressing lately,
but then should the Apocalypse be a carnival ride? ;-)
It shouldn't, but dark and depressing isn't what made this series work
in the first place. It would be like making Buffy the Vampire Slayer
suddenly all serious. It just isn't the same show.
Post by Wickeddoll
Guess I hang in different circles than you - even the least educated
people I know have a wider vocabulary than anyone on this show. But
that's certainly not something that would make me stop watching. It's
just a pet peeve of mine. Being a word nerd can be hell....
I just happen to see it constantly online. Most people can't even
spell, be happy Sam and Dean aren't saying "LOL" all the time.
Wickeddoll
2009-09-15 23:34:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian Henderson
Post by Wickeddoll
Oh it's a throw-in for this series, sure, but I still say it makes
sense within the Supernatural universe to have the antithesis of
demons, since holy items *do* affect the demons on this show. If
they'd left out the holy water, etc., then angels could logically be
omitted - that wasn't the case here.
If you're going to have the antithesis of demons then shouldn't it be a
little more obvious early on? It still came as a surprise to both Sam
and Dean that angels were real, even before it turned out that they were
complete douchebags. When Cas showed up, Sam didn't buy it. Seems
absurd if you're casting the series within this particular mythology.
Yeah, they dragged their feet with the angels, but they really do belong
on this series, IMO.
Post by Brian Henderson
Post by Wickeddoll
ABSOLUTELY agree with you there. It's been rather depressing lately,
but then should the Apocalypse be a carnival ride? ;-)
It shouldn't, but dark and depressing isn't what made this series work
in the first place. It would be like making Buffy the Vampire Slayer
suddenly all serious. It just isn't the same show.
It got pretty gloomy in S4 (worst. season. ever.) but had some light
eps. Villains really are at the very heart of scifi/fantasy
shows/movies, and "Adam" on Buffy was the worst - what a windbag.
Supernatural has sort of fallen into that trap of
not-particularly-interesting villains, but I still enjoy the
performances by the two principal actors. Maybe that's where you and I
differ - I think the actors lift the story to a better level. I see
last season and this one as being essential to wrap up the whole
demon/angel thing altogether, but what else could it be about? They've
dealt with just about every supernatural critter I can think of. What
do *you* think should be the storyline here?
Post by Brian Henderson
Post by Wickeddoll
Guess I hang in different circles than you - even the least educated
people I know have a wider vocabulary than anyone on this show. But
that's certainly not something that would make me stop watching. It's
just a pet peeve of mine. Being a word nerd can be hell....
I just happen to see it constantly online. Most people can't even
spell, be happy Sam and Dean aren't saying "LOL" all the time.
Oh, I'm not even talking about online people, with their "your so funny"
instead of "you're so funny", etc. Besides, people tend to sound much
worse online than in person, IMO. Some of my worst syntax errors happen
online, but in person, I'm usually dead-on. (I hope)

Natalie
Brian Henderson
2009-09-16 16:42:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wickeddoll
Yeah, they dragged their feet with the angels, but they really do belong
on this series, IMO.
I don't think for one second that Kripke had any clue where the story
was going, things just show up when they show up and that's not a good
way to run a show. Even if you don't know if the show is going more
than one or two seasons, you ought to have the entire series basically
plotted out, especially if, as he's said, he was only planning on having
it run 5 years.
Post by Wickeddoll
It got pretty gloomy in S4 (worst. season. ever.) but had some light
eps. Villains really are at the very heart of scifi/fantasy
shows/movies, and "Adam" on Buffy was the worst - what a windbag.
I never cared much about the villains in Buffy, it was about the slayer
and her target of the week, that's it.
Post by Wickeddoll
Supernatural has sort of fallen into that trap of
not-particularly-interesting villains, but I still enjoy the
performances by the two principal actors. Maybe that's where you and I
differ - I think the actors lift the story to a better level. I see
last season and this one as being essential to wrap up the whole
demon/angel thing altogether, but what else could it be about? They've
dealt with just about every supernatural critter I can think of. What
do *you* think should be the storyline here?
They were better early on when the story was *ABOUT* them. Now, they're
just there to be pretty faces, the story isn't about them, it's about
forces and powers that they can hardly comprehend, much less directly
fight. In the end, it's going to be the angel-side fighting the
demon-side. Sam and Dean might be their tools or their vessels, but
they won't be the ones doing the fighting, they'll just be the weapons
used. You've really lost any humanity in the fight because humans have
already been established as being irrelevant. It's like a show about
sand crabs on the beach at Normandy. They don't really mean much.
Post by Wickeddoll
Oh, I'm not even talking about online people, with their "your so funny"
instead of "you're so funny", etc. Besides, people tend to sound much
worse online than in person, IMO. Some of my worst syntax errors happen
online, but in person, I'm usually dead-on. (I hope)
Unfortunately, a lot of the people I'm talking about are the same RL as
they are online. We're really raising a generation of people with bad
language, spelling and grammar skills.
Wickeddoll
2009-09-17 01:07:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian Henderson
Post by Wickeddoll
Yeah, they dragged their feet with the angels, but they really do
belong on this series, IMO.
I don't think for one second that Kripke had any clue where the story
was going, things just show up when they show up and that's not a good
way to run a show. Even if you don't know if the show is going more
than one or two seasons, you ought to have the entire series basically
plotted out, especially if, as he's said, he was only planning on having
it run 5 years.
I disagree- I think he really does have a 5-year arc, but I think it's
possible he's tampered with it.
Post by Brian Henderson
Post by Wickeddoll
It got pretty gloomy in S4 (worst. season. ever.) but had some light
eps. Villains really are at the very heart of scifi/fantasy
shows/movies, and "Adam" on Buffy was the worst - what a windbag.
I never cared much about the villains in Buffy, it was about the slayer
and her target of the week, that's it.
I think that show was more about those around her, actually, which as
okay with me, since they were all much more interesting - except Dawn.
I wanted that little annoying twit dead from day one.
Post by Brian Henderson
Post by Wickeddoll
Supernatural has sort of fallen into that trap of
not-particularly-interesting villains, but I still enjoy the
performances by the two principal actors. Maybe that's where you and
I differ - I think the actors lift the story to a better level. I see
last season and this one as being essential to wrap up the whole
demon/angel thing altogether, but what else could it be about?
They've dealt with just about every supernatural critter I can think
of. What do *you* think should be the storyline here?
They were better early on when the story was *ABOUT* them. Now, they're
just there to be pretty faces, the story isn't about them, it's about
forces and powers that they can hardly comprehend, much less directly
fight. In the end, it's going to be the angel-side fighting the
demon-side. Sam and Dean might be their tools or their vessels, but
they won't be the ones doing the fighting, they'll just be the weapons
used. You've really lost any humanity in the fight because humans have
already been established as being irrelevant. It's like a show about
sand crabs on the beach at Normandy. They don't really mean much.
I can see your point there. They're pretty much at the mercy of the
more powerful forces surrounding them, but I guess that doesn't bother
me, because they're on the outside looking in, just like us. But the
storyline makes clear that the boys are essential - which I think is
interesting. They may become more relevant in ways we can't imagine.
Last year, JM posted that she thought last season was too Dean-centric,
but in the last few eps of that season, it was all about Sam (bad Sam)
nevertheless. We already know that Dean is the Sword Of Michael; maybe
that'll have more substance than we think. I'm willing to give Kripke
the benefit of the doubt.
Post by Brian Henderson
Post by Wickeddoll
Oh, I'm not even talking about online people, with their "your so
funny" instead of "you're so funny", etc. Besides, people tend to
sound much worse online than in person, IMO. Some of my worst syntax
errors happen online, but in person, I'm usually dead-on. (I hope)
Unfortunately, a lot of the people I'm talking about are the same RL as
they are online. We're really raising a generation of people with bad
language, spelling and grammar skills.
Oh hell YES. I correct my (adult) children's grammar all the time -
it's pathetic.

Natalie
Brian Henderson
2009-09-17 06:13:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wickeddoll
I disagree- I think he really does have a 5-year arc, but I think it's
possible he's tampered with it.
If he did, then I think we both agree that he should have brought in the
angels a lot earlier. There are plenty of show runners who claim to
have plans but it turns out they're just blowing smoke.
Post by Wickeddoll
I think that show was more about those around her, actually, which as
okay with me, since they were all much more interesting - except Dawn. I
wanted that little annoying twit dead from day one.
Agreed on Dawn, she should have been written out after the first episode
she was in, I never liked anything she did.
Post by Wickeddoll
I can see your point there. They're pretty much at the mercy of the
more powerful forces surrounding them, but I guess that doesn't bother
me, because they're on the outside looking in, just like us. But the
storyline makes clear that the boys are essential - which I think is
interesting. They may become more relevant in ways we can't imagine.
Last year, JM posted that she thought last season was too Dean-centric,
but in the last few eps of that season, it was all about Sam (bad Sam)
nevertheless. We already know that Dean is the Sword Of Michael; maybe
that'll have more substance than we think. I'm willing to give Kripke
the benefit of the doubt.
I might agree with you if Sam and Dean, or any human character, was
playing your audience sounding board but they're not. There's no focal
character that's letting the audience see the internal workings of the
story, Sam and Dean are in the dark as much as anyone else, the only one
who knows the angel's plan are the angels and the only ones that know
the demon's plans are the demons. Both the angels and demons are only
too happy to lie to Sam and Dean about their plans and motives, thus Sam
and Dean really aren't useful for that purpose, they give us no better
window into the situation than we could get without them.
Post by Wickeddoll
Oh hell YES. I correct my (adult) children's grammar all the time -
it's pathetic.
I agree entirely but that's the world we live in, for better or worse.
Wickeddoll
2009-09-17 21:06:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian Henderson
Post by Wickeddoll
I disagree- I think he really does have a 5-year arc, but I think it's
possible he's tampered with it.
If he did, then I think we both agree that he should have brought in the
angels a lot earlier. There are plenty of show runners who claim to
have plans but it turns out they're just blowing smoke.
Yes, there are, but I really don't think that's the case here. A good
example of no plan was second season Twin Peaks. Gawd, that was
painful. Had a few bright spots, like David Lynch's hilarious
performance of Dale's boss, Gordon. Miguel Ferrer is the funniest
primo-asshole-character actor in show biz, so he was great, too.
Post by Brian Henderson
Post by Wickeddoll
I think that show was more about those around her, actually, which as
okay with me, since they were all much more interesting - except Dawn.
I wanted that little annoying twit dead from day one.
Agreed on Dawn, she should have been written out after the first episode
she was in, I never liked anything she did.
How about the series finale, where she and Buffy were looking down into
the chasm that had been Sunnydale? My daughter and I wanted Dawn to
slip and fall...die with the show! The *only* time I had *any* sympathy
for that character, was when she found out what she was. That was sad,
but I SO wanted Dawn to do what she knew she should do in "The Gift".
Shouldn't have been Buffy - should have been Dawn, who didn't really
exist in the first place, and was useless to mankind.
Post by Brian Henderson
Post by Wickeddoll
I can see your point there. They're pretty much at the mercy of the
more powerful forces surrounding them, but I guess that doesn't bother
me, because they're on the outside looking in, just like us. But the
storyline makes clear that the boys are essential - which I think is
interesting. They may become more relevant in ways we can't imagine.
Last year, JM posted that she thought last season was too
Dean-centric, but in the last few eps of that season, it was all about
Sam (bad Sam) nevertheless. We already know that Dean is the Sword Of
Michael; maybe that'll have more substance than we think. I'm willing
to give Kripke the benefit of the doubt.
I might agree with you if Sam and Dean, or any human character, was
playing your audience sounding board but they're not. There's no focal
character that's letting the audience see the internal workings of the
story, Sam and Dean are in the dark as much as anyone else, the only one
who knows the angel's plan are the angels and the only ones that know
the demon's plans are the demons. Both the angels and demons are only
too happy to lie to Sam and Dean about their plans and motives, thus Sam
and Dean really aren't useful for that purpose, they give us no better
window into the situation than we could get without them.
Troo dat - but I guess I like the mystery of that. WHY are the humans
even being pulled into this, since it's an occult matter? I guess I
just have more faith in this show, because it rarely lets me down.
Post by Brian Henderson
Post by Wickeddoll
Oh hell YES. I correct my (adult) children's grammar all the time -
it's pathetic.
I agree entirely but that's the world we live in, for better or worse.
*sigh*

I know.

Natalie
Brian Henderson
2009-09-18 15:39:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wickeddoll
Yes, there are, but I really don't think that's the case here. A good
example of no plan was second season Twin Peaks. Gawd, that was
painful. Had a few bright spots, like David Lynch's hilarious
performance of Dale's boss, Gordon. Miguel Ferrer is the funniest
primo-asshole-character actor in show biz, so he was great, too.
I think to a large degree, it is the case here. Most show runners might
plan out the first season of a new show because they have no idea if
it'll even make it that far, but once a show gets an order for a second
season, I think the majority don't have a clue what to do with their
shows, they never planned that far ahead. I'm not singling Supernatural
out with this, it's true of just about every show on TV and I think it's
a great failing of most shows. It's why things just appear out of the
blue as the writers change direction in mid-stride, it's where plot
threads get dropped, storylines go nowhere, etc. In that, while I don't
think Supernatural is much worse than most shows, it certainly isn't any
better.
Post by Wickeddoll
How about the series finale, where she and Buffy were looking down into
the chasm that had been Sunnydale? My daughter and I wanted Dawn to
slip and fall...die with the show! The *only* time I had *any* sympathy
for that character, was when she found out what she was. That was sad,
but I SO wanted Dawn to do what she knew she should do in "The Gift".
Shouldn't have been Buffy - should have been Dawn, who didn't really
exist in the first place, and was useless to mankind.
At least Buffy sort of has an excuse since the show was derailed by
Marti Noxon while Joss was off doing other things. I think Dawn could
have had a better defined part than she did, after all, a lot of the
show, Buffy was looking for love and acceptance from a world that really
just wanted to use her, that's why she adopted Dawn as her legitimate
sister even after she knew the truth, she desperately wanted someone who
really cared about her in her life, especially someone who knew the
truth about Buffy and still cared.
Post by Wickeddoll
Troo dat - but I guess I like the mystery of that. WHY are the humans
even being pulled into this, since it's an occult matter? I guess I
just have more faith in this show, because it rarely lets me down.
Why are humans being pulled into this? Because they wouldn't have a
show otherwise. That's the real reason but it's not a good
story-related reason. If they just told the story from the POV of the
demons or the angels and there were no human characters, nobody would
watch it. But in most stories like this, the POV character usually
isn't some peon who has no bearing on the outcome of the story, that's
really where Sam and Dean are in this. They're pawns, they aren't in
charge, they can't make any decisions, they can't even really disagree
or opt out. I guess Dean could kill himself and end up back in hell,
but at this point, even that might not work. They brought him back
once, they could do it again. While I'm sure that in the series finale,
Sam and Dean are going to outsmart everyone and ultimately save the day,
it's an awful long trip with peons to get there.
Wickeddoll
2009-09-18 21:23:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian Henderson
Post by Wickeddoll
Yes, there are, but I really don't think that's the case here. A good
example of no plan was second season Twin Peaks. Gawd, that was
painful. Had a few bright spots, like David Lynch's hilarious
performance of Dale's boss, Gordon. Miguel Ferrer is the funniest
primo-asshole-character actor in show biz, so he was great, too.
I think to a large degree, it is the case here. Most show runners might
plan out the first season of a new show because they have no idea if
it'll even make it that far, but once a show gets an order for a second
season, I think the majority don't have a clue what to do with their
shows, they never planned that far ahead. I'm not singling Supernatural
out with this, it's true of just about every show on TV and I think it's
a great failing of most shows. It's why things just appear out of the
blue as the writers change direction in mid-stride, it's where plot
threads get dropped, storylines go nowhere, etc. In that, while I don't
think Supernatural is much worse than most shows, it certainly isn't any
better.
*shrug* I disagree. I like what they're doing. The 5-year arc is
nothing new to TV. J. Michael Straczynski did so with Babylon 5, though
that was based on his novel. But even though the conclusion was already
known to B5's PTB, the incredible script-writing continuity was its
biggest asset. You'd see some tiny thing in S1 that seemed
insignificant, but then its purpose could be revealed 3 seasons later.
Straczynski is a master at that. When Kripke said he only had 5 years
of story, he may have been writing them as he went along, but I think
for the most part, he has succeeded in a cohesive story. JMO, of course.
Post by Brian Henderson
Post by Wickeddoll
How about the series finale, where she and Buffy were looking down
into the chasm that had been Sunnydale? My daughter and I wanted Dawn
to slip and fall...die with the show! The *only* time I had *any*
sympathy for that character, was when she found out what she was. That
was sad, but I SO wanted Dawn to do what she knew she should do in
"The Gift". Shouldn't have been Buffy - should have been Dawn, who
didn't really exist in the first place, and was useless to mankind.
At least Buffy sort of has an excuse since the show was derailed by
Marti Noxon while Joss was off doing other things. I think Dawn could
have had a better defined part than she did, after all, a lot of the
show, Buffy was looking for love and acceptance from a world that really
just wanted to use her, that's why she adopted Dawn as her legitimate
sister even after she knew the truth, she desperately wanted someone who
really cared about her in her life, especially someone who knew the
truth about Buffy and still cared.
You're another Noxon hater, huh? LOL I think a lot of times when we
slam shows for jumping the shark, it may not matter who's in charge,
since the show simply may have just run its course. I think after
Angel's departure, much of the "meat" of Buffy went with him, but there
really was no place else for Angel to go within her life. I know Buffy
bonded with Dawn, but that was part of her existence. The monks created
loving memories of Dawn within Buffy and her mom. Sure, the truth was
revealed, but it's very hard to disregard your memories as having been
false, so it's much easier to go with it, and allow yourself to feel
those (false) emotions. I don't think Dawn was by any means Buffy's
only love and support. All of her friends, especially Giles and Willow,
and in his own way, Spike, loved her very much. She didn't need Dawn, IMO.
Post by Brian Henderson
Post by Wickeddoll
Troo dat - but I guess I like the mystery of that. WHY are the humans
even being pulled into this, since it's an occult matter? I guess I
just have more faith in this show, because it rarely lets me down.
Why are humans being pulled into this? Because they wouldn't have a
show otherwise. That's the real reason but it's not a good
story-related reason. If they just told the story from the POV of the
demons or the angels and there were no human characters, nobody would
watch it. But in most stories like this, the POV character usually
isn't some peon who has no bearing on the outcome of the story, that's
really where Sam and Dean are in this. They're pawns, they aren't in
charge, they can't make any decisions, they can't even really disagree
or opt out. I guess Dean could kill himself and end up back in hell,
but at this point, even that might not work. They brought him back
once, they could do it again. While I'm sure that in the series finale,
Sam and Dean are going to outsmart everyone and ultimately save the day,
it's an awful long trip with peons to get there.
Well, of course the show is about the guys, but I still don't think
they're as peripheral as you're saying they are. I'd be curious to see
what you think of this week's ep. They were certainly in charge this time.

Natalie
Mac Breck
2009-09-19 16:34:26 UTC
Permalink
Brian Henderson wrote:
<snip>
Post by Brian Henderson
While I'm sure that in the series
finale, Sam and Dean are going to outsmart everyone and ultimately
save the day, it's an awful long trip with peons to get there.
With peons? No, *as* peons.

I hope Sam, Dean, Bobby, Cas and Anna, and /maybe/ John Winchester, are
standing at the end.
--
Mac Breck (KoshN)
-------------------------------
"Babylon 5: Crusade" (1999)
Durkani: It doesn't matter if they believe us. Sooner or later the
truth's going to come out. The truth is....
Kendarr: ....out of fashion.
Wickeddoll
2009-09-19 22:14:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mac Breck
<snip>
Post by Brian Henderson
While I'm sure that in the series
finale, Sam and Dean are going to outsmart everyone and ultimately
save the day, it's an awful long trip with peons to get there.
With peons? No, *as* peons.
I hope Sam, Dean, Bobby, Cas and Anna, and /maybe/ John Winchester, are
standing at the end.
Especially John! He was a *huge* loss to this show, IMO. And not just
because he's hotter than a Vulcan volcano. ;)

He kept Dean grounded, much more so than Sam or Bobby could. Sam's the
kid brother - who listens to the younger sibling? Bobby isn't blood, no
matter how close their friendship is. I had thought that maybe Dean
should find out he has a kid - just in the background, to remind him not
to be so reckless, but many of the fans of this show seem to really hate
any new character getting close to either of the boys, especially
females. I'm sure that has a lot to do with the fangirl thing.

But maybe they can't afford JDM anymore. His star has really risen
since that soap opera he did, "Grey's Anatomy" (as much as I love JDM, I
don't watch soaps for *anybody*)

Natalie
Adam H. Kerman
2009-09-20 09:55:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wickeddoll
Post by Mac Breck
I hope Sam, Dean, Bobby, Cas and Anna, and /maybe/ John Winchester, are
standing at the end.
Especially John! He was a *huge* loss to this show, IMO. And not just
because he's hotter than a Vulcan volcano. ;)
He kept Dean grounded, much more so than Sam or Bobby could. Sam's the
kid brother - who listens to the younger sibling? Bobby isn't blood, no
matter how close their friendship is. I had thought that maybe Dean
should find out he has a kid - just in the background, to remind him not
to be so reckless, but many of the fans of this show seem to really hate
any new character getting close to either of the boys, especially
females. I'm sure that has a lot to do with the fangirl thing.
They did a show in which Dean thought he might have had a child with one
of his old lovers. 3rd season?
Wickeddoll
2009-09-20 22:16:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Wickeddoll
Post by Mac Breck
I hope Sam, Dean, Bobby, Cas and Anna, and /maybe/ John Winchester, are
standing at the end.
Especially John! He was a *huge* loss to this show, IMO. And not just
because he's hotter than a Vulcan volcano. ;)
He kept Dean grounded, much more so than Sam or Bobby could. Sam's the
kid brother - who listens to the younger sibling? Bobby isn't blood, no
matter how close their friendship is. I had thought that maybe Dean
should find out he has a kid - just in the background, to remind him not
to be so reckless, but many of the fans of this show seem to really hate
any new character getting close to either of the boys, especially
females. I'm sure that has a lot to do with the fangirl thing.
They did a show in which Dean thought he might have had a child with one
of his old lovers. 3rd season?
Yes, and I was disappointed that he wasn't. So was Dean.

Gawd, that kid's mom was an idiot. She had unprotected sex within a
couple of weeks with two different guys. I don't have an issue with her
being promiscuous, that's one's own business, but be smart when it comes
to your health! She was giving Dean the burning yearning look at the
end of that ep - she never learns.

Natalie
Mac Breck
2009-09-21 05:57:29 UTC
Permalink
<snip>
Post by Wickeddoll
Post by Adam H. Kerman
They did a show in which Dean thought he might have had a child with
one of his old lovers. 3rd season?
Yes, and I was disappointed that he wasn't. So was Dean.
Gawd, that kid's mom was an idiot. She had unprotected sex within a
couple of weeks with two different guys. I don't have an issue with
her being promiscuous, that's one's own business, but be smart when
it comes to your health!
You know what? I don't believe her. I believe that the kid *was*
Dean's and she was lying. C'mon, the kid was "mini-Dean". He couldn't
have been more like Dean.
Post by Wickeddoll
She was giving Dean the burning yearning
look at the end of that ep - she never learns.
Yeah, she was having second thoughts.
--
Mac Breck (KoshN)
-------------------------------
"Babylon 5: Crusade" (1999)
Durkani: It doesn't matter if they believe us. Sooner or later the
truth's going to come out. The truth is....
Kendarr: ....out of fashion.
Beowulf Bolt
2009-09-17 21:44:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian Henderson
If he did, then I think we both agree that he should have brought in
the angels a lot earlier.
I'll interject to disagree with this (or more correctly, to claim that
I don't necessarily agree). Each season has revolved around the
brothers getting manipulated by some outside agency, and in each season
the stakes escalate. Adding in angels late in the game merely amounts
to once more doubling down.

Even aside of the escalation argument, I can also argue that IMO it
was a good idea to firmly ground the show's handling of demons before
adding angels to the mix, and further more why it should be that they
made the angelic host such dicks (you don't want the brothers solving
every problem by merely phoning for some angelic air support).

I believe I can understand why you are disenchanted by the way the
story has evolved, yet at the same time I am not seeing any radical
changes in tone or mythology over the course of the series. To me this
all flows pretty organically - far, FAR more so than, say, _Lost_.
Post by Brian Henderson
There are plenty of show runners who claim to have plans but it turns
out they're just blowing smoke.
The *only* aspect of Supernatural that appears to lend credence to
this possibility in my eyes has been the erratic seasonal variation in
Sam's 'gift'. Everything else seems to stick together pretty well to my
mind.
Post by Brian Henderson
I might agree with you if Sam and Dean, or any human character, was
playing your audience sounding board but they're not. There's no
focal character that's letting the audience see the internal workings
of the story, Sam and Dean are in the dark as much as anyone else, the
only one who knows the angel's plan are the angels and the only ones
that know the demon's plans are the demons. Both the angels and
demons are only too happy to lie to Sam and Dean about their plans and
motives, thus Sam and Dean really aren't useful for that purpose, they
give us no better window into the situation than we could get without
them.
So what you are saying is that both Dean and Sam are grappling with
being manipulated, lied to, and not knowing what is really going on.

How, then, are they NOT sounding boards for the audience? They are in
the same boat as us!

Nor do I think that having more info on what was going on would
improve matters. How, for example, would last season have been improved
if the audience was explicitly in on Ruby's betrayal from much earlier
in the season? Ditto for the angelic overlords complicity in the
affair?

A lot of the emotion from each and every season was *derived* from the
reactions of the brothers to being manipulated, learning fragments of
what was going on, and dealing with whether or not to keep such
fragments secret from the other brother. This is the source of the
drama in the overall arc and has said arc *always* worked in this
manner, right from the start of season 1 (when we had the inscrutable
John Winchester playing the role that the angels are filling now).
Letting the audience see behind the curtain would either gut the show or
require a fundamentally different approach than they've used the past
four years to maintain the drama.

Frankly it seems to me that your objections to the show are so
fundamental in nature that I wonder how you ever liked it, save on a
monster-of-the-week basis.

Biff
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"All around me darkness gathers, fading is the sun that shone,
we must speak of other matters, you can be me when I'm gone..."
- SANDMAN #67, Neil Gaiman
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Wickeddoll
2009-09-17 23:04:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Beowulf Bolt
Post by Brian Henderson
If he did, then I think we both agree that he should have brought in
the angels a lot earlier.
I'll interject to disagree with this (or more correctly, to claim that
I don't necessarily agree). Each season has revolved around the
brothers getting manipulated by some outside agency, and in each season
the stakes escalate. Adding in angels late in the game merely amounts
to once more doubling down.
I get what you're saying, but I do think the angels should have been
introduced in the second season.
Post by Beowulf Bolt
Even aside of the escalation argument, I can also argue that IMO it
was a good idea to firmly ground the show's handling of demons before
adding angels to the mix, and further more why it should be that they
made the angelic host such dicks (you don't want the brothers solving
every problem by merely phoning for some angelic air support).
I like that free-will thing with the angels, too, mostly because that
really is the theology (in my faith, anyway). They're not perfect -
never have been. But "Urinal"...I mean "Uriel" was over the top. No
creature in the realm could get away with his behavior for so long, at
least not from what I've been taught.
Post by Beowulf Bolt
I believe I can understand why you are disenchanted by the way the
story has evolved, yet at the same time I am not seeing any radical
changes in tone or mythology over the course of the series. To me this
all flows pretty organically - far, FAR more so than, say, _Lost_.
Post by Brian Henderson
There are plenty of show runners who claim to have plans but it turns
out they're just blowing smoke.
The *only* aspect of Supernatural that appears to lend credence to
this possibility in my eyes has been the erratic seasonal variation in
Sam's 'gift'. Everything else seems to stick together pretty well to my
mind.
Post by Brian Henderson
I might agree with you if Sam and Dean, or any human character, was
playing your audience sounding board but they're not. There's no
focal character that's letting the audience see the internal workings
of the story, Sam and Dean are in the dark as much as anyone else, the
only one who knows the angel's plan are the angels and the only ones
that know the demon's plans are the demons. Both the angels and
demons are only too happy to lie to Sam and Dean about their plans and
motives, thus Sam and Dean really aren't useful for that purpose, they
give us no better window into the situation than we could get without
them.
So what you are saying is that both Dean and Sam are grappling with
being manipulated, lied to, and not knowing what is really going on.
How, then, are they NOT sounding boards for the audience? They are in
the same boat as us!
That's how I see it, and I like that. I don't want all the answers
right up front.
Post by Beowulf Bolt
Nor do I think that having more info on what was going on would
improve matters. How, for example, would last season have been improved
if the audience was explicitly in on Ruby's betrayal from much earlier
in the season? Ditto for the angelic overlords complicity in the
affair?
I suspected her all along, and when Kurt Fuller (Zachariah) showed up, I
knew the angels were up to no good. Fuller only plays jerks. ;-)
Post by Beowulf Bolt
A lot of the emotion from each and every season was *derived* from the
reactions of the brothers to being manipulated, learning fragments of
what was going on, and dealing with whether or not to keep such
fragments secret from the other brother. This is the source of the
drama in the overall arc and has said arc *always* worked in this
manner, right from the start of season 1 (when we had the inscrutable
John Winchester playing the role that the angels are filling now).
Letting the audience see behind the curtain would either gut the show or
require a fundamentally different approach than they've used the past
four years to maintain the drama.
Frankly it seems to me that your objections to the show are so
fundamental in nature that I wonder how you ever liked it, save on a
monster-of-the-week basis.
Biff
Well, I don't think there's necessarily anything wrong with that. Some
people like serialized shows, others don't. I remember some fans
complaining about how Buffy became serialized with the addition of
Spike. They thought it got very soapy (it did, to some extent,
especially with the Buffy/Angel/Spike triangle), but I'm okay with
either approach to a show.

The only real difference I see with the angels/demons thing vs. the
previous arcs, is that there is much more at stake. Azazel wanted to
open the gates of Hell, but that wouldn't necessarily end the world.
Sam and Dean were trying to clean up the demons who escaped Hell, but
"Casey" told them they were planning to just let humans destroy the
world; while certainly a danger, not quite at the scope of the 4th and
5th season.

Natalie
Mac Breck
2009-09-19 16:52:59 UTC
Permalink
Wickeddoll wrote:
<snip>
Post by Wickeddoll
I like that free-will thing with the angels, too, mostly because that
really is the theology (in my faith, anyway). They're not perfect -
never have been. But "Urinal"...I mean "Uriel" was over the top. No
creature in the realm could get away with his behavior for so long, at
least not from what I've been taught.
How about Zachariah? How has he gotten away with it for so long?

<snip>
--
Mac Breck (KoshN)
-------------------------------
"Babylon 5: Crusade" (1999)
Durkani: It doesn't matter if they believe us. Sooner or later the
truth's going to come out. The truth is....
Kendarr: ....out of fashion.
Wickeddoll
2009-09-19 22:14:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mac Breck
<snip>
Post by Wickeddoll
I like that free-will thing with the angels, too, mostly because that
really is the theology (in my faith, anyway). They're not perfect -
never have been. But "Urinal"...I mean "Uriel" was over the top. No
creature in the realm could get away with his behavior for so long, at
least not from what I've been taught.
How about Zachariah? How has he gotten away with it for so long?
<snip>
We don't know how long Zachariah has been acting this way.

Natalie
Adam H. Kerman
2009-09-18 01:45:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Beowulf Bolt
Post by Brian Henderson
If he did, then I think we both agree that he should have brought in
the angels a lot earlier.
I'll interject to disagree with this (or more correctly, to claim that
I don't necessarily agree). Each season has revolved around the
brothers getting manipulated by some outside agency, and in each season
the stakes escalate. Adding in angels late in the game merely amounts
to once more doubling down.
Even aside of the escalation argument, I can also argue that IMO it
was a good idea to firmly ground the show's handling of demons before
adding angels to the mix, and further more why it should be that they
made the angelic host such dicks (you don't want the brothers solving
every problem by merely phoning for some angelic air support).
I thought that was for comedic purposes. "Supernatural" is satirical.
Brian Henderson
2009-09-18 16:06:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Beowulf Bolt
Even aside of the escalation argument, I can also argue that IMO it
was a good idea to firmly ground the show's handling of demons before
adding angels to the mix, and further more why it should be that they
made the angelic host such dicks (you don't want the brothers solving
every problem by merely phoning for some angelic air support).
Obviously, you're not going to have a "Dial-an-Angel" service, the
angels have their own agenda and they're going to do things their own
way, which may even be at odds with what Sam and Dean and the rest of
the hunters are doing, but there's no real reason to have the angels be
such assholes. Even Cas is a prick.
Post by Beowulf Bolt
I believe I can understand why you are disenchanted by the way the
story has evolved, yet at the same time I am not seeing any radical
changes in tone or mythology over the course of the series. To me this
all flows pretty organically - far, FAR more so than, say, _Lost_.
Lost is garbage anyhow, that's not really saying much.
Post by Beowulf Bolt
The *only* aspect of Supernatural that appears to lend credence to
this possibility in my eyes has been the erratic seasonal variation in
Sam's 'gift'. Everything else seems to stick together pretty well to my
mind.
I think it really comes down to a general failure in the way shows are
written. In a lot of shows, ever season they feel like they have to top
themselves, do something bigger, more epic, more grand than they did
before. In Supernatural, they've really gone so grand that they left
the characters upon whom the show is based behind.

I think a great example of this has been the new Doctor Who. Every
year, Russell T. Davies felt he had to go bigger and bolder with his
series finales until, at the end of series 4, you had the Daleks
dragging planets across the universe and threatening to destroy reality.
But where do you go from there? If your only job is to keep topping
yourself, how can you do less? If everything you do is
universe-changing, you have to keep hitting the big reset button and
changing it back so you can keep telling stories.

Granted, this is the last season of Supernatural, but Kripke keeps
talking about another series and honestly, where can he take Sam and
Dean from here that's bigger than the end of the world?
Post by Beowulf Bolt
So what you are saying is that both Dean and Sam are grappling with
being manipulated, lied to, and not knowing what is really going on.
How, then, are they NOT sounding boards for the audience? They are in
the same boat as us!
The point of a sounding board character is the one who asks the
questions that otherwise would not get asked so the audience understands
what's going on. The companion character fulfills that role most of the
time in Doctor Who, since I already brought that up. They ask how
things work and the Doctor, in explaining it to the companion, also
explains it to the audience. However, in Supernatural, Sam and Dean are
asking questions, they're just not getting any answers. They stay
ignorant, the audience stays ignorant. That's not a sounding board.
Post by Beowulf Bolt
Nor do I think that having more info on what was going on would
improve matters. How, for example, would last season have been improved
if the audience was explicitly in on Ruby's betrayal from much earlier
in the season? Ditto for the angelic overlords complicity in the
affair?
I think in a lot of ways, it would. Alfred Hitchcock used to use the
example of a bomb under the table. If a bunch of people are sitting
around a table and an unseen bomb goes off, killing everyone, that's a
shock. Boom and you're done. But if you show the audience the bomb,
let them see it counting down, let them understand the potential
ramifications of what they're seeing, that's suspense. The audience
becomes emotionally invested in what's going on and the entire
experience, even if it turns out exactly the same way as before, becomes
much more interesting.
Post by Beowulf Bolt
Frankly it seems to me that your objections to the show are so
fundamental in nature that I wonder how you ever liked it, save on a
monster-of-the-week basis.
The problem is, it did monster-of-the-week very, very well. When they
were fighting against urban legends and the like, that was a whole lot
more interesting than "we're out to save the world, yay!" They
initially had a very personal stake in their ultimate mission, they were
seeking revenge on the yellow-eyed demon who had killed their mother and
Sam's girlfriend. Revenge is a very easy to understand motivation, but
as time has gone on, they've lost that personal connection to their
goals and have become little more than tools, beyond their control, in
huge plots over which they have no say. It's stopped being a nice
little road trip with two brothers, their car and their arsenal in the
trunk and turned into something where the brothers really don't mean
much overall.
Wickeddoll
2009-09-18 21:43:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian Henderson
Post by Beowulf Bolt
Even aside of the escalation argument, I can also argue that IMO it
was a good idea to firmly ground the show's handling of demons before
adding angels to the mix, and further more why it should be that they
made the angelic host such dicks (you don't want the brothers solving
every problem by merely phoning for some angelic air support).
Obviously, you're not going to have a "Dial-an-Angel" service, the
angels have their own agenda and they're going to do things their own
way, which may even be at odds with what Sam and Dean and the rest of
the hunters are doing, but there's no real reason to have the angels be
such assholes. Even Cas is a prick.
Nah, I don't think he is. I think he really tries very hard to do
things in the most humane way, but like a military member (I'm a former
one, myself) he also knows he must obey orders. Urinal (my name for
him) was an even bigger asshole than Zachariah, in that at least Z isn't
rude when speaking to others. Urinal was over-the-top in free will, so
I think he was a very bad character. But the Castiel and Anna try to do
things with as little abuse of humans as possible. Angels are not
depicted as sweet little spirits in the theology I was taught - they're
mostly God's footsoldiers. Humans have free will - why would angels be
deprived of that privilege?
Post by Brian Henderson
Post by Beowulf Bolt
I believe I can understand why you are disenchanted by the way the
story has evolved, yet at the same time I am not seeing any radical
changes in tone or mythology over the course of the series. To me this
all flows pretty organically - far, FAR more so than, say, _Lost_.
Lost is garbage anyhow, that's not really saying much.
I disagree again! Lost has rebounded to its old form, with very
intriguing scenarios. We must never speak of S2 and early S3 Lost...
Post by Brian Henderson
Post by Beowulf Bolt
The *only* aspect of Supernatural that appears to lend credence to
this possibility in my eyes has been the erratic seasonal variation in
Sam's 'gift'. Everything else seems to stick together pretty well to my
mind.
I think it really comes down to a general failure in the way shows are
written. In a lot of shows, every season they feel like they have to top
themselves, do something bigger, more epic, more grand than they did
before. In Supernatural, they've really gone so grand that they left
the characters upon whom the show is based behind.
"Topping" themselves is something the network suits demand, but I
disagree that the characters are left behind - especially after this
week's ep.
Post by Brian Henderson
I think a great example of this has been the new Doctor Who. Every
year, Russell T. Davies felt he had to go bigger and bolder with his
series finales until, at the end of series 4, you had the Daleks
dragging planets across the universe and threatening to destroy reality.
But where do you go from there? If your only job is to keep topping
yourself, how can you do less? If everything you do is
universe-changing, you have to keep hitting the big reset button and
changing it back so you can keep telling stories.
Couldn't sit and watch that show - tried many times.
Post by Brian Henderson
Granted, this is the last season of Supernatural, but Kripke keeps
talking about another series and honestly, where can he take Sam and
Dean from here that's bigger than the end of the world?
This may not be the last season, I hear, but you're right that the end
of the world is rather difficult to top.
Post by Brian Henderson
Post by Beowulf Bolt
So what you are saying is that both Dean and Sam are grappling with
being manipulated, lied to, and not knowing what is really going on.
How, then, are they NOT sounding boards for the audience? They are in
the same boat as us!
The point of a sounding board character is the one who asks the
questions that otherwise would not get asked so the audience understands
what's going on. The companion character fulfills that role most of the
time in Doctor Who, since I already brought that up. They ask how
things work and the Doctor, in explaining it to the companion, also
explains it to the audience. However, in Supernatural, Sam and Dean are
asking questions, they're just not getting any answers. They stay
ignorant, the audience stays ignorant. That's not a sounding board.
I think their questions will begin to be answered. We'll see.
Post by Brian Henderson
Post by Beowulf Bolt
Nor do I think that having more info on what was going on would
improve matters. How, for example, would last season have been improved
if the audience was explicitly in on Ruby's betrayal from much earlier
in the season? Ditto for the angelic overlords complicity in the
affair?
I think in a lot of ways, it would. Alfred Hitchcock used to use the
example of a bomb under the table. If a bunch of people are sitting
around a table and an unseen bomb goes off, killing everyone, that's a
shock. Boom and you're done. But if you show the audience the bomb,
let them see it counting down, let them understand the potential
ramifications of what they're seeing, that's suspense. The audience
becomes emotionally invested in what's going on and the entire
experience, even if it turns out exactly the same way as before, becomes
much more interesting.
That's a very valid point, but the little scene where it became clear
Ruby was tricking Sam didn't make the rest of the S4 finale more
interesting to me. (when she altered Dean's phone message) I much
preferred trying to figure out where her alliances were.
Post by Brian Henderson
Post by Beowulf Bolt
Frankly it seems to me that your objections to the show are so
fundamental in nature that I wonder how you ever liked it, save on a
monster-of-the-week basis.
The problem is, it did monster-of-the-week very, very well. When they
were fighting against urban legends and the like, that was a whole lot
more interesting than "we're out to save the world, yay!" They
initially had a very personal stake in their ultimate mission, they were
seeking revenge on the yellow-eyed demon who had killed their mother and
Sam's girlfriend. Revenge is a very easy to understand motivation, but
as time has gone on, they've lost that personal connection to their
goals and have become little more than tools, beyond their control, in
huge plots over which they have no say. It's stopped being a nice
little road trip with two brothers, their car and their arsenal in the
trunk and turned into something where the brothers really don't mean
much overall.
Well, you know I disagree on the significance of the lead characters,
but beyond that, the monster-of-the-week thing had run its course. How
many more monsters are there in folklore? Certainly not enough to fill
5 seasons. All you can do is go back to the demons, vampires, etc.
*yawn* Having said that, I think this Apocalyptic storyline should have
been firmly entrenched in the show bible from S2 on, rather than being
revealed in S4.

Natalie
Mac Breck
2009-09-19 17:42:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wickeddoll
Post by Brian Henderson
Post by Beowulf Bolt
Even aside of the escalation argument, I can also argue that IMO
it was a good idea to firmly ground the show's handling of demons
before adding angels to the mix, and further more why it should be
that they made the angelic host such dicks (you don't want the
brothers solving every problem by merely phoning for some angelic
air support).
Obviously, you're not going to have a "Dial-an-Angel" service, the
angels have their own agenda and they're going to do things their own
way, which may even be at odds with what Sam and Dean and the rest of
the hunters are doing, but there's no real reason to have the angels
be such assholes. Even Cas is a prick.
Nah, I don't think he is. I think he really tries very hard to do
things in the most humane way,
...like when Cas told Dean about the archangel and the prophet Chuck,
and obliquely letting Dean know how to pit the archangel against Lilith,
saving Sam.
Post by Wickeddoll
but like a military member (I'm a
former one, myself) he also knows he must obey orders. Urinal (my
name for him) was an even bigger asshole than Zachariah, in that at
least Z isn't rude when speaking to others.
The truly evil can be very polite, but it doesn't make them any less of
an asshole. I suspect that Zachariah is a like Lucifer in that way.
Post by Wickeddoll
Urinal was over-the-top in free will, so I think he was a very bad
character.

Bad as in evil, or bad as in a poorly written character?
Post by Wickeddoll
But the Castiel and Anna try to do things with
as little abuse of humans as possible.
Agreed!
Post by Wickeddoll
Angels are not depicted as sweet little spirits in the
theology I was taught - they're mostly God's footsoldiers. Humans
have free will - why would angels be deprived of that privilege?
[rhetorical] Lucifer had free will, didn't he? [/rhetorical] He was
punished for exercising it AND making the wrong choices.
Post by Wickeddoll
Post by Brian Henderson
Post by Beowulf Bolt
I believe I can understand why you are disenchanted by the way the
story has evolved, yet at the same time I am not seeing any radical
changes in tone or mythology over the course of the series. To me
this all flows pretty organically - far, FAR more so than, say,
_Lost_.
Lost is garbage anyhow, that's not really saying much.
I disagree again! Lost has rebounded to its old form, with very
intriguing scenarios. We must never speak of S2 and early S3 Lost...
I haven't watched any of "Lost" yet, but I think I'd rather have B5's
bell curve shape than the inverse, a bigtime dip in quality in S2 and
S3.
Post by Wickeddoll
Post by Brian Henderson
Post by Beowulf Bolt
The *only* aspect of Supernatural that appears to lend credence to
this possibility in my eyes has been the erratic seasonal variation
in Sam's 'gift'. Everything else seems to stick together pretty
well to my mind.
I think it really comes down to a general failure in the way shows
are written. In a lot of shows, every season they feel like they
have to top themselves, do something bigger, more epic, more grand
than they did before. In Supernatural, they've really gone so grand
that they left the characters upon whom the show is based behind.
"Topping" themselves is something the network suits demand, but I
disagree that the characters are left behind - especially after this
week's ep.
They may not be left behind, but they do seem feckless, feeble,
out-of-juice, ...underpowered for the challenges ahead.
Post by Wickeddoll
Post by Brian Henderson
I think a great example of this has been the new Doctor Who. Every
year, Russell T. Davies felt he had to go bigger and bolder with his
series finales until, at the end of series 4, you had the Daleks
dragging planets across the universe and threatening to destroy
reality. But where do you go from there? If your only job is to
keep topping yourself, how can you do less? If everything you do is
universe-changing, you have to keep hitting the big reset button and
changing it back so you can keep telling stories.
Couldn't sit and watch that show - tried many times.
I like the "Doctor Who" (2005+), especially Season 1 with Eccleston.
However, I couldn't sit through more than one season of "Torchwood".

<snip>
Post by Wickeddoll
....the monster-of-the-week thing had run its course.
How many more monsters are there in folklore? Certainly not enough
to fill 5 seasons. All you can do is go back to the demons,
vampires, etc. *yawn*
I liked what they did with Season 4 Ep. 5 "Monster Movie".
--
Mac Breck (KoshN)
-------------------------------
"Babylon 5: Crusade" (1999)
Durkani: It doesn't matter if they believe us. Sooner or later the
truth's going to come out. The truth is....
Kendarr: ....out of fashion.
Brian Henderson
2009-09-19 20:03:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wickeddoll
Nah, I don't think he is. I think he really tries very hard to do
things in the most humane way, but like a military member (I'm a former
one, myself) he also knows he must obey orders. Urinal (my name for
him) was an even bigger asshole than Zachariah, in that at least Z isn't
rude when speaking to others. Urinal was over-the-top in free will, so
I think he was a very bad character. But the Castiel and Anna try to do
things with as little abuse of humans as possible. Angels are not
depicted as sweet little spirits in the theology I was taught - they're
mostly God's footsoldiers. Humans have free will - why would angels be
deprived of that privilege?
Just because he isn't as big a prick as the others doesn't make him a
good guy. Cas is a jerk no matter how you spin it, he's got his own
agenda and he's only concerned about doing what he needs to do, no
matter who gets squashed in the process. The writers just don't put him
into situations where he has to stomp on many people.
Post by Wickeddoll
I disagree again! Lost has rebounded to its old form, with very
intriguing scenarios. We must never speak of S2 and early S3 Lost...
I couldn't stand Lost from the first episode. It's just a bad show all
around.
Post by Wickeddoll
"Topping" themselves is something the network suits demand, but I
disagree that the characters are left behind - especially after this
week's ep.
This week's episode wasn't really about the end of the world, it was
about people in a small town. But even War pointed it out, Sam and Dean
can't kill War, they can only temporarily slow him down by taking his ring.
Post by Wickeddoll
Couldn't sit and watch that show - tried many times.
I think now that RTD is off the show, it has the potential to spring
back. RTD has really, really screwed up the entire franchise.
Post by Wickeddoll
This may not be the last season, I hear, but you're right that the end
of the world is rather difficult to top.
Kripke has already said this is it, but he's not ruling out another
series with the same characters later.
Post by Wickeddoll
Well, you know I disagree on the significance of the lead characters,
but beyond that, the monster-of-the-week thing had run its course. How
many more monsters are there in folklore? Certainly not enough to fill
5 seasons. All you can do is go back to the demons, vampires, etc.
*yawn* Having said that, I think this Apocalyptic storyline should have
been firmly entrenched in the show bible from S2 on, rather than being
revealed in S4.
They had an over-riding story arc with the yellow-eyed demon that wove
through the episodes, but otherwise it was a very episodic show. That
episodic nature is really missing now and although there are a lot of
series that I think do episodic television very badly, Supernatural
wasn't one of them. I think the biggest problem the show has is still
the shift in focus. It started out as brothers on a road trip, killing
demons and having a good time. Now, it's hardly about the brothers at all.

I agree with you that if this storyline was planned from the beginning,
as Kripke seems to claim it was, then it needed to be entrenched from
day one. If he planned on bringing in the angels, he should have had
the angels appear, even if shadowy background characters, from the
beginning. It just seems like all of this stuff is a new creation. The
sword of Michael? Where did that come from? Where is the
foreshadowing? Where is anything? It's just something the writers came
up with between seasons, nothing more.
Wickeddoll
2009-09-19 21:44:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian Henderson
Post by Wickeddoll
Nah, I don't think he is. I think he really tries very hard to do
things in the most humane way, but like a military member (I'm a
former one, myself) he also knows he must obey orders. Urinal (my
name for him) was an even bigger asshole than Zachariah, in that at
least Z isn't rude when speaking to others. Urinal was over-the-top
in free will, so I think he was a very bad character. But the Castiel
and Anna try to do things with as little abuse of humans as possible.
Angels are not depicted as sweet little spirits in the theology I was
taught - they're mostly God's footsoldiers. Humans have free will -
why would angels be deprived of that privilege?
Just because he isn't as big a prick as the others doesn't make him a
good guy. Cas is a jerk no matter how you spin it, he's got his own
agenda and he's only concerned about doing what he needs to do, no
matter who gets squashed in the process. The writers just don't put him
into situations where he has to stomp on many people.
I still disagree. I don't think he (or Anna) would joyfully "stomp"
people, the way Zachariah and Urinal do. It's interesting to me that
you male viewers (not that you guys here speak for all) have a wildly
different perspective than Supernatural's largest audience chunk, women
ages 18-34. (that magic demographic again, huh?) No doubt many of the
young fangirls are impervious to *any* fault with this show, and only
watch cuz the guys are "cute" *rolling eyes* but I really don't think
that's all there is to it for many - certainly not for me, since I'm old
enough to be their mother, and am in no way a "cougar". (I didn't even
like men in their early 20s back when I was a cute young thing myself -
they were soooo dull)

Having said that, the biggest complaint I see among women (such as on
the supernaturalseries.com forum) is face time for specific
characters/actors. Some are all for Sam/Jared, some Dean/Jensen, and in
growing numbers, Castiel/Misha. But even when they don't like a
particular scenario (there is a lot of whining going on about the end of
this week's ep) they still see it the way I do - that the characters are
our eyes and ears, and are discovering the story as they go along, just
as we are. I'm cool with that, but again, I think the angels should
have been introduced much earlier.
Post by Brian Henderson
Post by Wickeddoll
I disagree again! Lost has rebounded to its old form, with very
intriguing scenarios. We must never speak of S2 and early S3 Lost...
I couldn't stand Lost from the first episode. It's just a bad show all
around.
So tell me, Brian, what DO you like?
Post by Brian Henderson
Post by Wickeddoll
"Topping" themselves is something the network suits demand, but I
disagree that the characters are left behind - especially after this
week's ep.
This week's episode wasn't really about the end of the world, it was
about people in a small town. But even War pointed it out, Sam and Dean
can't kill War, they can only temporarily slow him down by taking his ring.
They underestimated Sam and Dean in the past - could be doing so again.
I'm willing to wait and see, with an open mind.
Post by Brian Henderson
Post by Wickeddoll
Couldn't sit and watch that show - tried many times.
I think now that RTD is off the show, it has the potential to spring
back. RTD has really, really screwed up the entire franchise.
Dunno what you mean with any of that, since I know nothing about "Dr. Who".
Post by Brian Henderson
Post by Wickeddoll
This may not be the last season, I hear, but you're right that the end
of the world is rather difficult to top.
Kripke has already said this is it, but he's not ruling out another
series with the same characters later.
That's different from what I've read in entertainment mags, etc. But I
hope what you're saying is how they go - it would be dumb to go to a 6th
season, trying to continue this storyline.
Post by Brian Henderson
Post by Wickeddoll
Well, you know I disagree on the significance of the lead characters,
but beyond that, the monster-of-the-week thing had run its course.
How many more monsters are there in folklore? Certainly not enough to
fill 5 seasons. All you can do is go back to the demons, vampires,
etc. *yawn* Having said that, I think this Apocalyptic storyline
should have been firmly entrenched in the show bible from S2 on,
rather than being revealed in S4.
They had an over-riding story arc with the yellow-eyed demon that wove
through the episodes, but otherwise it was a very episodic show. That
episodic nature is really missing now and although there are a lot of
series that I think do episodic television very badly, Supernatural
wasn't one of them. I think the biggest problem the show has is still
the shift in focus. It started out as brothers on a road trip, killing
demons and having a good time. Now, it's hardly about the brothers at all.
I disagree, but you knew that. I think the Apocalypse has been the
underlying story since the end of S2; it just perhaps wasn't managed as
well.
Post by Brian Henderson
I agree with you that if this storyline was planned from the beginning,
as Kripke seems to claim it was, then it needed to be entrenched from
day one. If he planned on bringing in the angels, he should have had
the angels appear, even if shadowy background characters, from the
beginning. It just seems like all of this stuff is a new creation. The
sword of Michael? Where did that come from? Where is the
foreshadowing? Where is anything? It's just something the writers came
up with between seasons, nothing more.
I think there's some Twin Peaks Syndrome here, but I think Kripke, etc.,
do a better job of pulling a story back from the brink. I'm hoping that
continues.

Natalie
Brian Henderson
2009-09-20 00:31:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wickeddoll
I still disagree. I don't think he (or Anna) would joyfully "stomp"
people, the way Zachariah and Urinal do. It's interesting to me that
you male viewers (not that you guys here speak for all) have a wildly
different perspective than Supernatural's largest audience chunk, women
ages 18-34. (that magic demographic again, huh?) No doubt many of the
young fangirls are impervious to *any* fault with this show, and only
watch cuz the guys are "cute" *rolling eyes* but I really don't think
that's all there is to it for many - certainly not for me, since I'm old
enough to be their mother, and am in no way a "cougar". (I didn't even
like men in their early 20s back when I was a cute young thing myself -
they were soooo dull)
Given the right conditions, I really have no doubt that Cas or Anna
would do whatever it took to get the job done. In the last episode, I
have no doubt that of Dean had refused to give Cas the amulet, he would
have just taken it.

Now I'll be honest, and this goes for lots of fans out there, male and
female, is the absurd attachment to the actors over the plot. At the
2008 San Diego Comicon, I sat through the Bones panel when they had
David Boreanaz on the panel, and there were so many pathetic female
fangirls there fawning over him that anyone who actually gave a damn
about the show couldn't get a question in edgewise. The same largely
figures into Supernatural fandom, there are a lot of female fangirls who
don't give a damn about the plot, they don't care about the story, they
just want to watch Jared and Jensen run around looking hot.

It's not just female fans, there are tons of male fans on this newsgroup
who act the same way about female characters in shows. The only thing
they want is to see hot female X in a bikini, no matter how stupid it
might be in the context of the story. My wife and I, both being
somewhat older, think all of those people need to grow the hell up and
learn how to keep their hormones in check.
Post by Wickeddoll
They underestimated Sam and Dean in the past - could be doing so again.
I'm willing to wait and see, with an open mind.
Yet they didn't kill War, at least so far as we know. In the next
couple of episodes, invariably they'll run into Conquest, Famine and
Death and won't defeat any of those either, just so we can get them all
together.
Post by Wickeddoll
That's different from what I've read in entertainment mags, etc. But I
hope what you're saying is how they go - it would be dumb to go to a 6th
season, trying to continue this storyline.
I've seen interviews with him where he's said that even if Supernatural
went to a 6th season, he wasn't going to be involved, plus apparently
neither Jared nor Jensen have any interest in playing the characters
anymore. There are contractual concerns, of course, and maybe everyone
might change their minds, as it appears that Kripke may have done.

“That having been said,” Kripke adds, “I’m looking at this season as the
last chapter in this particular story. That doesn’t mean there can’t be
a new story. Buffy did it. The X-Files did it. You close a chapter on a
big mythology storyline and then you begin a new one. One of the things
I like about this show is we don’t draw out mysteries endlessly. We’ll
answer a bunch of questions this season and then pose some new ones next
season.”

Personally, I hope it just ends.
Post by Wickeddoll
I disagree, but you knew that. I think the Apocalypse has been the
underlying story since the end of S2; it just perhaps wasn't managed as
well.
A well managed subplot is one where you can go back and see old episodes
and realize that all kinds of seemingly pointless scenes suddenly take
on new meaning in light of new information you've been given afterwards.
I just haven't seen that in Supernatural yet, it would be nice to be
able to go back to S2 and find hints that have been thrown in about the
current storyline but I don't think any of that really exists.
Wickeddoll
2009-09-20 22:57:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian Henderson
Post by Wickeddoll
I still disagree. I don't think he (or Anna) would joyfully "stomp"
people, the way Zachariah and Urinal do. It's interesting to me that
you male viewers (not that you guys here speak for all) have a wildly
different perspective than Supernatural's largest audience chunk,
women ages 18-34. (that magic demographic again, huh?) No doubt many
of the young fangirls are impervious to *any* fault with this show,
and only watch cuz the guys are "cute" *rolling eyes* but I really
don't think that's all there is to it for many - certainly not for me,
since I'm old enough to be their mother, and am in no way a "cougar".
(I didn't even like men in their early 20s back when I was a cute
young thing myself - they were soooo dull)
Given the right conditions, I really have no doubt that Cas or Anna
would do whatever it took to get the job done. In the last episode, I
have no doubt that of Dean had refused to give Cas the amulet, he would
have just taken it.
Of course - mission before decorum. I don't have a problem with that at
all.
Post by Brian Henderson
Now I'll be honest, and this goes for lots of fans out there, male and
female, is the absurd attachment to the actors over the plot. At the
2008 San Diego Comicon, I sat through the Bones panel when they had
David Boreanaz on the panel, and there were so many pathetic female
fangirls there fawning over him that anyone who actually gave a damn
about the show couldn't get a question in edgewise. The same largely
figures into Supernatural fandom, there are a lot of female fangirls who
don't give a damn about the plot, they don't care about the story, they
just want to watch Jared and Jensen run around looking hot.
Oh sweetie, I saw it really prevalent in the "La Femme Nikita" fandom.
It was both frightening and disgusting. I went through that phase about
TV/pop stars, too....when I was *15* not in my freaking 20s!
Post by Brian Henderson
It's not just female fans, there are tons of male fans on this newsgroup
who act the same way about female characters in shows. The only thing
they want is to see hot female X in a bikini, no matter how stupid it
might be in the context of the story. My wife and I, both being
somewhat older, think all of those people need to grow the hell up and
learn how to keep their hormones in check.
But in the end, does it really matter what a viewer gets out of a
show/movie? I see it as the Britney Factor. I think she's a no-talent
bimbo, who probably uses Auto-Tune for her recordings. She lip-syncs
her "concerts" which is classic for untalented vocalists. BUT
middle-aged men tend to see her as the cheerleader they could never get
(I swear, I've never met a young man who had the hots for her - have
you?) Girls, as with Madonna, like to emulate her (which isn't at all
healthy, IMO) then there are those who actually like her so-called
music. Whatever the reason, people like her, which I accept. I love
Janet Jackson's work, and she's one of the weakest singers out there. I
like the songs she chooses - usually. David Byrne (former lead singer
of the group, Talking Heads) is my absolute favorite musician of all
time, but I know his vocal range goes from about A to C. But it's okay,
because I like the sound of his voice, and totally *love* his songs.
So, even though certain aspects of a particular entertainment product
have no appeal for us, that doesn't negate the fact that different
people get different things out of the project.
Post by Brian Henderson
Post by Wickeddoll
They underestimated Sam and Dean in the past - could be doing so
again. I'm willing to wait and see, with an open mind.
Yet they didn't kill War, at least so far as we know. In the next
couple of episodes, invariably they'll run into Conquest, Famine and
Death and won't defeat any of those either, just so we can get them all
together.
But they *had power* over War. I think that's significant, since they
weren't helpless, and outsmarted him. I hope War isn't dead, though - I
love Titus Welliver. Further, I'm sure they'll overcome the others,
though Famine and Death are already at work everywhere in the real
world. Ditto War. :-P
Post by Brian Henderson
Post by Wickeddoll
That's different from what I've read in entertainment mags, etc. But
I hope what you're saying is how they go - it would be dumb to go to a
6th season, trying to continue this storyline.
I've seen interviews with him where he's said that even if Supernatural
went to a 6th season, he wasn't going to be involved, plus apparently
neither Jared nor Jensen have any interest in playing the characters
anymore. There are contractual concerns, of course, and maybe everyone
might change their minds, as it appears that Kripke may have done.
I read that too:

http://ausiellofiles.ew.com/2009/08/30/will-supernatural-end-in-2010/
Post by Brian Henderson
“That having been said,” Kripke adds, “I’m looking at this season as the
last chapter in this particular story. That doesn’t mean there can’t be
a new story. Buffy did it. The X-Files did it. You close a chapter on a
big mythology storyline and then you begin a new one. One of the things
I like about this show is we don’t draw out mysteries endlessly. We’ll
answer a bunch of questions this season and then pose some new ones next
season.”
Personally, I hope it just ends.
I think he may need a break after S5, and maybe have some TV movies
later on. But, for the love of all that's holy, I hope they don't pull a
Smallville, and drag out the agony of a redundant show over several more
seasons.
Post by Brian Henderson
Post by Wickeddoll
I disagree, but you knew that. I think the Apocalypse has been the
underlying story since the end of S2; it just perhaps wasn't managed
as well.
A well managed subplot is one where you can go back and see old episodes
and realize that all kinds of seemingly pointless scenes suddenly take
on new meaning in light of new information you've been given afterwards.
I just haven't seen that in Supernatural yet, it would be nice to be
able to go back to S2 and find hints that have been thrown in about the
current storyline but I don't think any of that really exists.
You're thinking B5-type planning, which had the advantage of having been
taken from a novel, which of course already had an ending. I think at
least to a certain extent, Kripke probably watches fan reaction to a
given part of the storyline. Maybe not, but with so many sites
dedicated to the show, why not get feedback? He's certainly not
obligated to change things because we think he should, but I can't
imagine a creative person not wanting to see how his work flies (or doesn't)

Natalie
Alane
2009-09-20 13:08:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wickeddoll
I still disagree. I don't think he (or Anna) would joyfully "stomp"
people, the way Zachariah and Urinal do.
I don't think so either. The thing is that neither of them are or ever were
"human." They come at everything from a different perspective. But they
are discovering humanity - love, loyalty, friendship - the more time they
spend among humans.

It's interesting to me that
Post by Wickeddoll
you male viewers (not that you guys here speak for all) have a wildly
different perspective than Supernatural's largest audience chunk, women
ages 18-34. (that magic demographic again, huh?) No doubt many of the
young fangirls are impervious to *any* fault with this show, and only
watch cuz the guys are "cute" *rolling eyes* but I really don't think
that's all there is to it for many - certainly not for me, since I'm old
enough to be their mother, and am in no way a "cougar". (I didn't even
like men in their early 20s back when I was a cute young thing myself -
they were soooo dull)
We must be in the same demographic. And I had the same reaction to guys
in their 20s when I was in my 20s. I like Sam and Dean for their
relationship
to each other, not to some imaginary relationship to me.
Post by Wickeddoll
Having said that, the biggest complaint I see among women (such as on
the supernaturalseries.com forum) is face time for specific
characters/actors. Some are all for Sam/Jared, some Dean/Jensen, and in
growing numbers, Castiel/Misha. But even when they don't like a
particular scenario (there is a lot of whining going on about the end of
this week's ep) they still see it the way I do - that the characters are
our eyes and ears, and are discovering the story as they go along, just
as we are. I'm cool with that, but again, I think the angels should
have been introduced much earlier.
I agree some foreshadowing would have helped. Wasn't Sam always
religious, though?
Presumably he believed in angels along with God - he just didn't think
they would
be interceding in the happenings on Earth.

I am wondering if God is going to make an appearance. That would be pretty
risky for any number of reasons. But he could remain an offscreen player
just as he
(it) did in Battlestar Galactica.
Post by Wickeddoll
They underestimated Sam and Dean in the past - could be doing so again.
I'm willing to wait and see, with an open mind.
So am I. And really, "all" they have to do is get Lucifer back in Hell.
Once that's done,
balance is more-or-less restored, and they can ride into the sunset for
the end of the
series.

Alane
Wickeddoll
2009-09-20 23:05:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alane
Post by Wickeddoll
I still disagree. I don't think he (or Anna) would joyfully "stomp"
people, the way Zachariah and Urinal do.
I don't think so either. The thing is that neither of them are or ever were
"human." They come at everything from a different perspective. But they
are discovering humanity - love, loyalty, friendship - the more time they
spend among humans.
Agreed - they have no clue. Though, I've never heard of humans not
being able to become angels. But I'm not saying such theology doesn't
exist.
Post by Alane
It's interesting to me that
Post by Wickeddoll
you male viewers (not that you guys here speak for all) have a wildly
different perspective than Supernatural's largest audience chunk,
women ages 18-34. (that magic demographic again, huh?) No doubt many
of the young fangirls are impervious to *any* fault with this show,
and only watch cuz the guys are "cute" *rolling eyes* but I really
don't think that's all there is to it for many - certainly not for me,
since I'm old enough to be their mother, and am in no way a "cougar".
(I didn't even like men in their early 20s back when I was a cute
young thing myself - they were soooo dull)
We must be in the same demographic. And I had the same reaction to guys
in their 20s when I was in my 20s. I like Sam and Dean for their
relationship
to each other, not to some imaginary relationship to me.
PREACH it, sister!
Post by Alane
Post by Wickeddoll
Having said that, the biggest complaint I see among women (such as on
the supernaturalseries.com forum) is face time for specific
characters/actors. Some are all for Sam/Jared, some Dean/Jensen, and
in growing numbers, Castiel/Misha. But even when they don't like a
particular scenario (there is a lot of whining going on about the end
of this week's ep) they still see it the way I do - that the
characters are our eyes and ears, and are discovering the story as
they go along, just as we are. I'm cool with that, but again, I think
the angels should have been introduced much earlier.
I agree some foreshadowing would have helped. Wasn't Sam always
religious, though?
Presumably he believed in angels along with God - he just didn't think
they would
be interceding in the happenings on Earth.
Yes, he always did - that's why he was so upset by Urinal's behavior.
Post by Alane
I am wondering if God is going to make an appearance. That would be pretty
risky for any number of reasons. But he could remain an offscreen player
just as he
(it) did in Battlestar Galactica.
My uber-nerd friends keep trying to get me into that show - hasn't
happened yet. :-)
Post by Alane
Post by Wickeddoll
They underestimated Sam and Dean in the past - could be doing so
again. I'm willing to wait and see, with an open mind.
So am I. And really, "all" they have to do is get Lucifer back in Hell.
Once that's done,
balance is more-or-less restored, and they can ride into the sunset for
the end of the
series.
Alane
Until the next Apocalyptic threat. Remember Buffy averted the
Apocalypse at least 4 times.

:-D

Natalie
Paul Arthur
2009-09-21 00:07:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wickeddoll
Post by Alane
Post by Wickeddoll
I still disagree. I don't think he (or Anna) would joyfully "stomp"
people, the way Zachariah and Urinal do.
I don't think so either. The thing is that neither of them are or ever were
"human." They come at everything from a different perspective. But they
are discovering humanity - love, loyalty, friendship - the more time they
spend among humans.
Agreed - they have no clue. Though, I've never heard of humans not
being able to become angels. But I'm not saying such theology doesn't
exist.
I have to say, that means you haven't heard much theology. Most
mainstream denominations (including Roman Catholicism) hold that angels
are an order of created beings distinct from (and higher than) man.

The only major church I can think of offhand with the view that men
become angels is the Latter Day Saints, and they're a bit weird
anyway.
--
Darren MacLennan: So, basically, FATAL is the date rape RPG.
Byron: Another faulty conclusion drawn by Darren. Where is dating included?
--Byron Hall's defense of FATAL
Wickeddoll
2009-09-21 00:27:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Arthur
Post by Wickeddoll
Post by Alane
Post by Wickeddoll
I still disagree. I don't think he (or Anna) would joyfully "stomp"
people, the way Zachariah and Urinal do.
I don't think so either. The thing is that neither of them are or ever were
"human." They come at everything from a different perspective. But they
are discovering humanity - love, loyalty, friendship - the more time they
spend among humans.
Agreed - they have no clue. Though, I've never heard of humans not
being able to become angels. But I'm not saying such theology doesn't
exist.
I have to say, that means you haven't heard much theology. Most
mainstream denominations (including Roman Catholicism) hold that angels
are an order of created beings distinct from (and higher than) man.
Thanks - that has never, ever been broached at Masses I've attended. In
Catechism the skew was still toward humans becoming angels in the
afterlife. *shrug* Maybe I missed out on that since I converted at age 17.
Post by Paul Arthur
The only major church I can think of offhand with the view that men
become angels is the Latter Day Saints, and they're a bit weird
anyway.
Now, now, we must be tolerant.

:-D

Natalie
Mac Breck
2009-09-21 05:31:02 UTC
Permalink
<snip>
Post by Wickeddoll
Post by Alane
I am wondering if God is going to make an appearance. That would be
pretty risky for any number of reasons. But he could remain an
offscreen player just as he
(it) did in Battlestar Galactica.
My uber-nerd friends keep trying to get me into that show - hasn't
happened yet. :-)
Don't let it happen. You can never get that time back, and believe me,
you'll want a refund.
--
Mac Breck (KoshN)
-------------------------------
"Babylon 5: Crusade" (1999)
Durkani: It doesn't matter if they believe us. Sooner or later the
truth's going to come out. The truth is....
Kendarr: ....out of fashion.
Mac Breck
2009-09-19 17:16:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian Henderson
Post by Beowulf Bolt
Even aside of the escalation argument, I can also argue that IMO it
was a good idea to firmly ground the show's handling of demons before
adding angels to the mix, and further more why it should be that they
made the angelic host such dicks (you don't want the brothers solving
every problem by merely phoning for some angelic air support).
Obviously, you're not going to have a "Dial-an-Angel" service, the
angels have their own agenda and they're going to do things their own
way, which may even be at odds with what Sam and Dean and the rest of
the hunters are doing, but there's no real reason to have the angels
be such assholes.
There's no reason to have _so_ _many_ of the angels be such assholes.
Post by Brian Henderson
Even Cas is a prick.
I wouldn't go that far.
Post by Brian Henderson
Post by Beowulf Bolt
I believe I can understand why you are disenchanted by the way the
story has evolved, yet at the same time I am not seeing any radical
changes in tone or mythology over the course of the series. To me
this all flows pretty organically - far, FAR more so than, say,
_Lost_.
Lost is garbage anyhow, that's not really saying much.
Post by Beowulf Bolt
The *only* aspect of Supernatural that appears to lend credence to
this possibility in my eyes has been the erratic seasonal variation
in Sam's 'gift'. Everything else seems to stick together pretty
well to my mind.
I think it really comes down to a general failure in the way shows are
written. In a lot of shows, ever season they feel like they have to
top themselves, do something bigger, more epic, more grand than they
did before. In Supernatural, they've really gone so grand that they
left the characters upon whom the show is based behind.
I think a great example of this has been the new Doctor Who. Every
year, Russell T. Davies felt he had to go bigger and bolder with his
series finales until, at the end of series 4, you had the Daleks
dragging planets across the universe and threatening to destroy
reality. But where do you go from there?
Not only that, but how many times have the Daleks been back? How about
the Cybermen? Just when you think they're gone, they're baaaaaack.
They're the untimate recyclable villains.
Post by Brian Henderson
If your only job is to
keep topping yourself, how can you do less? If everything you do is
universe-changing, you have to keep hitting the big reset button and
changing it back so you can keep telling stories.
True, and it's a sign of being renewed past the point where the writers
have run out of good ideas. If you keep topping yourself, it gets
boring after awhile. It's better to end a show on a high point, after
the second or third big bad was defeated.
Post by Brian Henderson
Granted, this is the last season of Supernatural, but Kripke keeps
talking about another series and honestly, where can he take Sam and
Dean from here that's bigger than the end of the world?
Sam and Dean have a Private Detective agency (with a paranormal twist)
in San Diego. ;-)
Post by Brian Henderson
Post by Beowulf Bolt
So what you are saying is that both Dean and Sam are grappling with
being manipulated, lied to, and not knowing what is really going on.
How, then, are they NOT sounding boards for the audience? They are
in the same boat as us!
The point of a sounding board character is the one who asks the
questions that otherwise would not get asked so the audience
understands what's going on. The companion character fulfills that
role most of the time in Doctor Who, since I already brought that up.
They ask how things work and the Doctor, in explaining it to the
companion, also explains it to the audience. However, in
Supernatural, Sam and Dean are asking questions, they're just not
getting any answers.
Except from Cas, now and then.
Post by Brian Henderson
They stay ignorant, the audience stays
ignorant. That's not a sounding board.
Ignorant *and* deliberately misled.
Post by Brian Henderson
Post by Beowulf Bolt
Nor do I think that having more info on what was going on would
improve matters. How, for example, would last season have been
improved if the audience was explicitly in on Ruby's betrayal from
much earlier in the season? Ditto for the angelic overlords
complicity in the affair?
I think in a lot of ways, it would. Alfred Hitchcock used to use the
example of a bomb under the table. If a bunch of people are sitting
around a table and an unseen bomb goes off, killing everyone, that's a
shock. Boom and you're done. But if you show the audience the bomb,
let them see it counting down, let them understand the potential
ramifications of what they're seeing, that's suspense. The audience
becomes emotionally invested in what's going on and the entire
experience, even if it turns out exactly the same way as before,
becomes much more interesting.
Post by Beowulf Bolt
Frankly it seems to me that your objections to the show are so
fundamental in nature that I wonder how you ever liked it, save on a
monster-of-the-week basis.
The problem is, it did monster-of-the-week very, very well. When they
were fighting against urban legends and the like, that was a whole lot
more interesting than "we're out to save the world, yay!"
Those missions were fun, well, for us, anyway.
Post by Brian Henderson
They
initially had a very personal stake in their ultimate mission, they
were seeking revenge on the yellow-eyed demon who had killed their
mother and Sam's girlfriend. Revenge is a very easy to understand
motivation, but as time has gone on, they've lost that personal
connection to their goals and have become little more than tools,
beyond their control, in huge plots over which they have no say.
It's stopped being a nice little road trip with two brothers, their
car and their arsenal in the trunk and turned into something where
the brothers really don't mean much overall.
...because the brothers (and Bobby, and the rest of the hunters) are out
of their league. Unless they (the brothers and maybe also Bobby and the
rest of the hunters) manifest some special abilities or get some real
angelic (or better) help, it seems like they'll be floundering.
--
Mac Breck (KoshN)
-------------------------------
"Babylon 5: Crusade" (1999)
Durkani: It doesn't matter if they believe us. Sooner or later the
truth's going to come out. The truth is....
Kendarr: ....out of fashion.
Brian Henderson
2009-09-19 20:17:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mac Breck
There's no reason to have _so_ _many_ of the angels be such assholes.
We haven't seen a single angel that isn't yet.
Post by Mac Breck
I wouldn't go that far.
I would. Even when Cas got to be human again, or at least his human
host got rid of the angel on his back, when Cas came back, he certainly
wasn't all that nice about it. Either he takes over Cas' body again or
he takes over his daughter's body. There was a promise made and Cas
broke it and he doesn't feel at all sympathetic about doing so.
Post by Mac Breck
Not only that, but how many times have the Daleks been back? How about
the Cybermen? Just when you think they're gone, they're baaaaaack.
They're the untimate recyclable villains.
I never want to see the Daleks or Cybermen or the Master or Davros ever
again as long as I live. They're played out, there are no more stories
you can tell with them. Unfortunately, in the Doctor Who mythology,
they are the ultimate villains and nobody has been particularly creative
in coming up with something better. All they can remember is what made
them hide behind the couch as children.
Post by Mac Breck
True, and it's a sign of being renewed past the point where the writers
have run out of good ideas. If you keep topping yourself, it gets
boring after awhile. It's better to end a show on a high point, after
the second or third big bad was defeated.
Which a lot of shows are and it shows. Going back to Doctor Who, now
that they've saved the universe again, it's time to go back to telling
smaller stories about the Doctor and his companion and avoiding
universe-changing events, especially since they have to keep coming up
with absurd ways to retcon them.
Post by Mac Breck
Sam and Dean have a Private Detective agency (with a paranormal twist)
in San Diego. ;-)
Sort of like Harry Dresden. :)
Post by Mac Breck
Except from Cas, now and then.
Cas will say things that he thinks they want to hear, whether or not
it's necessarily true or even the complete truth. There's nobody in the
show, not even Sam and Dean, who you can count on to just be honest.
Post by Mac Breck
Those missions were fun, well, for us, anyway.
They were very fun, even to go back and watch now.
Post by Mac Breck
...because the brothers (and Bobby, and the rest of the hunters) are out
of their league. Unless they (the brothers and maybe also Bobby and the
rest of the hunters) manifest some special abilities or get some real
angelic (or better) help, it seems like they'll be floundering.
They're not just out of their league, they're irrelevant. Even if they
do get some special abilities or get some heavenly help, it won't be the
individuals who are saving the day, it'll be the abilities and the
angelic help doing it. That's the point, it's no longer a story about
two brothers, they no longer matter.
Adam H. Kerman
2009-09-19 20:26:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian Henderson
I never want to see the Daleks or Cybermen or the Master or Davros ever
again as long as I live. They're played out, there are no more stories
you can tell with them. Unfortunately, in the Doctor Who mythology,
they are the ultimate villains and nobody has been particularly creative
in coming up with something better. All they can remember is what made
them hide behind the couch as children.
I agree with you. I never want to see Davros and the Daleks again,
ruined when we got multiple Dalek tribes and when they made them fly in
the original series. I never thought the Cybermen were scary, and making
the Master a teenager without his memory, what's the point?

Let's go for creativity. We need new Green Slime monsters.
Anim8rFSK
2009-09-19 20:58:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Let's go for creativity. We need new Green Slime monsters.
I found the most awesome version of GREEN SLIME; a mad genius took the
letterbox Japanese version, swapped it for the English audio track of
the American pan & scan version, and cut all the missing footage back in.
--
ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!
Saturday the 19th be "Talk Like a Pirate Day"!!!
http://www.talklikeapirate.com/
Mac Breck
2009-09-19 21:00:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian Henderson
Post by Mac Breck
There's no reason to have _so_ _many_ of the angels be such assholes.
We haven't seen a single angel that isn't yet.
Cas and Anna aren't.
Post by Brian Henderson
Post by Mac Breck
I wouldn't go that far.
I would. Even when Cas got to be human again, or at least his human
host got rid of the angel on his back, when Cas came back, he
certainly wasn't all that nice about it. Either he takes over Cas'
body again or he takes over his daughter's body. There was a promise
made and Cas broke it and he doesn't feel at all sympathetic about
doing so.
And then after being back for awhile, Cas moderated and helped out.
Post by Brian Henderson
Post by Mac Breck
Not only that, but how many times have the Daleks been back? How
about the Cybermen? Just when you think they're gone, they're
baaaaaack. They're the untimate recyclable villains.
I never want to see the Daleks or Cybermen or the Master or Davros
ever again as long as I live. They're played out, there are no more
stories you can tell with them. Unfortunately, in the Doctor Who
mythology, they are the ultimate villains and nobody has been
particularly creative in coming up with something better. All they
can remember is what made them hide behind the couch as children.
....and they (the writers) keep bringing them back. It's like watching
reruns, only the eps. are new.
Post by Brian Henderson
Post by Mac Breck
True, and it's a sign of being renewed past the point where the
writers have run out of good ideas. If you keep topping yourself,
it gets boring after awhile. It's better to end a show on a high
point, after the second or third big bad was defeated.
Which a lot of shows are and it shows. Going back to Doctor Who, now
that they've saved the universe again, it's time to go back to telling
smaller stories about the Doctor and his companion and avoiding
universe-changing events,
Ditto for Sam and Dean.
Post by Brian Henderson
especially since they have to keep coming up
with absurd ways to retcon them.
Post by Mac Breck
Sam and Dean have a Private Detective agency (with a paranormal
twist) in San Diego. ;-)
Sort of like Harry Dresden. :)
A mix of Harry Dresden and "Simon & Simon" (*cough* San Diego *cough*).
Dean would be like older brother, street smart Rick Simon and Sam like
the other brother, more educated A.J. Simon.
Post by Brian Henderson
Post by Mac Breck
Except from Cas, now and then.
Cas will say things that he thinks they want to hear, whether or not
it's necessarily true or even the complete truth. There's nobody in
the show, not even Sam and Dean, who you can count on to just be
honest.
Post by Mac Breck
Those missions were fun, well, for us, anyway.
They were very fun, even to go back and watch now.
To go back and watch it all now, I'd see Ruby in a whole 'nother light.
Sheesh!

Did you enjoy "Yellow Fever" when they had Dean screaming like a little
girl, at the sight of a cat, or running from a Yorkie? How about on the
couch with the boa constrictor? How about Season 4 The Gag Real?
ROFL!!!
Post by Brian Henderson
Post by Mac Breck
...because the brothers (and Bobby, and the rest of the hunters) are
out of their league. Unless they (the brothers and maybe also Bobby
and the rest of the hunters) manifest some special abilities or get
some real angelic (or better) help, it seems like they'll be
floundering.
They're not just out of their league, they're irrelevant. Even if
they do get some special abilities or get some heavenly help, it
won't be the individuals who are saving the day, it'll be the
abilities and the angelic help doing it. That's the point, it's no
longer a story about two brothers, they no longer matter.
I wish they'd get away from the two brothers don't trust each other
melodrama. Dean can really wallow in it, and that gets tiring. The
comedic bits at least break that up.
--
Mac Breck (KoshN)
-------------------------------
"Babylon 5: Crusade" (1999)
Durkani: It doesn't matter if they believe us. Sooner or later the
truth's going to come out. The truth is....
Kendarr: ....out of fashion.
Brian Henderson
2009-09-20 00:12:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mac Breck
Cas and Anna aren't.
They're better than the rest, I still don't agree they're innocent of it.
Post by Mac Breck
....and they (the writers) keep bringing them back. It's like watching
reruns, only the eps. are new.
Unfortunately, Doctor Who is a 40 year old kiddy show and some people
haven't figured out that most of the people who are watching it today
aren't kids, they're adults who grew up on it. As such, a lot of what's
done is nostalgia for people who grew up watching the Daleks, etc. and
want to revisit it, but for the rest of us who really weren't all that
enamored with the Daleks to begin with, it's just not as interesting to
keep coming back to them again and again.
Post by Mac Breck
A mix of Harry Dresden and "Simon & Simon" (*cough* San Diego *cough*).
Dean would be like older brother, street smart Rick Simon and Sam like
the other brother, more educated A.J. Simon.
Actually, that's a good idea. I want to go back and watch some Simon &
Simon now, I've spent some time watching old 70s and 80s mystery shows
like Quincy M.E. lately, that's just another show that was really good
at the time that I ought to look up again.
Post by Mac Breck
Did you enjoy "Yellow Fever" when they had Dean screaming like a little
girl, at the sight of a cat, or running from a Yorkie? How about on the
couch with the boa constrictor? How about Season 4 The Gag Real?
ROFL!!!
Sure, but not because of the season story arc, but rather in spite of
it. Most of the really memorable stories they do are the ones where the
episode takes a hard right and does something entirely unexpected.
Post by Mac Breck
I wish they'd get away from the two brothers don't trust each other
melodrama. Dean can really wallow in it, and that gets tiring. The
comedic bits at least break that up.
It's been tiring for a while and it's just getting worse. I'm sure
they're doing it so they can reconcile at the end and become stronger
because they're together, but that's hardly unpredictable, lots of
stories have done exactly that.
Wickeddoll
2009-09-20 23:00:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian Henderson
Post by Mac Breck
Cas and Anna aren't.
They're better than the rest, I still don't agree they're innocent of it.
Post by Mac Breck
....and they (the writers) keep bringing them back. It's like watching
reruns, only the eps. are new.
*snipping Dr. Who stuff*
Post by Brian Henderson
Post by Mac Breck
Did you enjoy "Yellow Fever" when they had Dean screaming like a little
girl, at the sight of a cat, or running from a Yorkie? How about on the
couch with the boa constrictor? How about Season 4 The Gag Real?
ROFL!!!
Sure, but not because of the season story arc, but rather in spite of
it. Most of the really memorable stories they do are the ones where the
episode takes a hard right and does something entirely unexpected.
That was the best example of Ackles' magnificent comic timing; not just
that little pantomime at the end, and all of the other chickenshit
things he did in that one.
Post by Brian Henderson
Post by Mac Breck
I wish they'd get away from the two brothers don't trust each other
melodrama. Dean can really wallow in it, and that gets tiring. The
comedic bits at least break that up.
It's been tiring for a while and it's just getting worse. I'm sure
they're doing it so they can reconcile at the end and become stronger
because they're together, but that's hardly unpredictable, lots of
stories have done exactly that.
I want them to trust each other again, but I think it's realistic that
they're at odds, too. Don't most of us have fallings-out with our
siblings? I sure have.

Natalie
Wickeddoll
2009-09-19 21:55:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mac Breck
Post by Brian Henderson
Post by Beowulf Bolt
Even aside of the escalation argument, I can also argue that IMO it
was a good idea to firmly ground the show's handling of demons before
adding angels to the mix, and further more why it should be that they
made the angelic host such dicks (you don't want the brothers solving
every problem by merely phoning for some angelic air support).
Obviously, you're not going to have a "Dial-an-Angel" service, the
angels have their own agenda and they're going to do things their own
way, which may even be at odds with what Sam and Dean and the rest of
the hunters are doing, but there's no real reason to have the angels
be such assholes.
There's no reason to have _so_ _many_ of the angels be such assholes.
This is where I disagree with you and Brian. Were either of you ever
military? I see Castiel and Anna as having "military bearing" rather
than being jerks. If the mission is important enough, those lost along
the way are collateral damage. It sounds cold, I know, but it's just as
fundamental as Spock's line, "The needs of the many outweigh the needs
of the few." Sadly, yes.

I knew when I signed up that I might be put in the position of triaging
in the field, and trying to select who has the best chance of living. I
would have hated that to my very core, but thank God I never had to make
that choice.

Unless you mean the other angels, Urinal and Zachariah.
Post by Mac Breck
Post by Brian Henderson
Even Cas is a prick.
I wouldn't go that far.
Me neither.
Post by Mac Breck
Post by Brian Henderson
Post by Beowulf Bolt
I believe I can understand why you are disenchanted by the way the
story has evolved, yet at the same time I am not seeing any radical
changes in tone or mythology over the course of the series. To me
this all flows pretty organically - far, FAR more so than, say,
_Lost_.
Lost is garbage anyhow, that's not really saying much.
Post by Beowulf Bolt
The *only* aspect of Supernatural that appears to lend credence to
this possibility in my eyes has been the erratic seasonal variation
in Sam's 'gift'. Everything else seems to stick together pretty
well to my mind.
I think it really comes down to a general failure in the way shows are
written. In a lot of shows, ever season they feel like they have to
top themselves, do something bigger, more epic, more grand than they
did before. In Supernatural, they've really gone so grand that they
left the characters upon whom the show is based behind.
*snipping Dr. Who stuff, which I have never seen*
Post by Mac Breck
Post by Brian Henderson
If your only job is to
keep topping yourself, how can you do less? If everything you do is
universe-changing, you have to keep hitting the big reset button and
changing it back so you can keep telling stories.
True, and it's a sign of being renewed past the point where the writers
have run out of good ideas. If you keep topping yourself, it gets
boring after awhile. It's better to end a show on a high point, after
the second or third big bad was defeated.
That's why I hope S5 really is the end of this particular series;
however I absolutely want to see these two guys in a similar genre
series, under Kripke's authority.
Post by Mac Breck
Post by Brian Henderson
Granted, this is the last season of Supernatural, but Kripke keeps
talking about another series and honestly, where can he take Sam and
Dean from here that's bigger than the end of the world?
Sam and Dean have a Private Detective agency (with a paranormal twist)
in San Diego. ;-)
LOL It's been done - to death! "Night Stalker" "Angel" "Moonlight" on
and on...
Post by Mac Breck
Post by Brian Henderson
Post by Beowulf Bolt
So what you are saying is that both Dean and Sam are grappling with
being manipulated, lied to, and not knowing what is really going on.
How, then, are they NOT sounding boards for the audience? They are
in the same boat as us!
The point of a sounding board character is the one who asks the
questions that otherwise would not get asked so the audience
understands what's going on. The companion character fulfills that
role most of the time in Doctor Who, since I already brought that up.
They ask how things work and the Doctor, in explaining it to the
companion, also explains it to the audience. However, in
Supernatural, Sam and Dean are asking questions, they're just not
getting any answers.
Except from Cas, now and then.
I get the feeling Cas would like to tell them more, but can't.
Post by Mac Breck
Post by Brian Henderson
They stay ignorant, the audience stays
ignorant. That's not a sounding board.
Ignorant *and* deliberately misled.
Disagree - we're finding things out; very, very slowly, though.
Post by Mac Breck
Post by Brian Henderson
Post by Beowulf Bolt
Nor do I think that having more info on what was going on would
improve matters. How, for example, would last season have been
improved if the audience was explicitly in on Ruby's betrayal from
much earlier in the season? Ditto for the angelic overlords
complicity in the affair?
I think in a lot of ways, it would. Alfred Hitchcock used to use the
example of a bomb under the table. If a bunch of people are sitting
around a table and an unseen bomb goes off, killing everyone, that's a
shock. Boom and you're done. But if you show the audience the bomb,
let them see it counting down, let them understand the potential
ramifications of what they're seeing, that's suspense. The audience
becomes emotionally invested in what's going on and the entire
experience, even if it turns out exactly the same way as before,
becomes much more interesting.
Post by Beowulf Bolt
Frankly it seems to me that your objections to the show are so
fundamental in nature that I wonder how you ever liked it, save on a
monster-of-the-week basis.
The problem is, it did monster-of-the-week very, very well. When they
were fighting against urban legends and the like, that was a whole lot
more interesting than "we're out to save the world, yay!"
Those missions were fun, well, for us, anyway.
But as I've said before, how many more critters can they hunt? They've
already dealt with all of the ones I can think of from folklore, and
some I'd never heard of, so I don't see where else they could go. Any
ideas?
Post by Mac Breck
Post by Brian Henderson
They
initially had a very personal stake in their ultimate mission, they
were seeking revenge on the yellow-eyed demon who had killed their
mother and Sam's girlfriend. Revenge is a very easy to understand
motivation, but as time has gone on, they've lost that personal
connection to their goals and have become little more than tools,
beyond their control, in huge plots over which they have no say.
It's stopped being a nice little road trip with two brothers, their
car and their arsenal in the trunk and turned into something where
the brothers really don't mean much overall.
....because the brothers (and Bobby, and the rest of the hunters) are out
of their league. Unless they (the brothers and maybe also Bobby and the
rest of the hunters) manifest some special abilities or get some real
angelic (or better) help, it seems like they'll be floundering.
Which could very well happen. I'm willing to give it a go.

Natalie
Mac Breck
2009-09-19 16:25:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wickeddoll
Post by Brian Henderson
Post by Wickeddoll
Yeah, they dragged their feet with the angels, but they really do
belong on this series, IMO.
I don't think for one second that Kripke had any clue where the story
was going, things just show up when they show up and that's not a
good way to run a show. Even if you don't know if the show is going
more than one or two seasons, you ought to have the entire series
basically plotted out, especially if, as he's said, he was only
planning on having it run 5 years.
I disagree- I think he really does have a 5-year arc, but I think it's
possible he's tampered with it.
Post by Brian Henderson
Post by Wickeddoll
It got pretty gloomy in S4 (worst. season. ever.) but had some light
eps. Villains really are at the very heart of scifi/fantasy
shows/movies, and "Adam" on Buffy was the worst - what a windbag.
I never cared much about the villains in Buffy, it was about the
slayer and her target of the week, that's it.
I think that show was more about those around her, actually, which as
okay with me, since they were all much more interesting - except Dawn.
I wanted that little annoying twit dead from day one.
Dawn, right up (down, actually) there with Jar Jar Binks of Star Wars.
BtVS had Dawn, but don't forget Glory. :-P
Angel had Connor & Cordy.
B5 had Byron.
--
Mac Breck (KoshN)
-------------------------------
"Babylon 5: Crusade" (1999)
Durkani: It doesn't matter if they believe us. Sooner or later the
truth's going to come out. The truth is....
Kendarr: ....out of fashion.
Wickeddoll
2009-09-19 22:02:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mac Breck
Post by Wickeddoll
Post by Brian Henderson
Post by Wickeddoll
Yeah, they dragged their feet with the angels, but they really do
belong on this series, IMO.
I don't think for one second that Kripke had any clue where the story
was going, things just show up when they show up and that's not a
good way to run a show. Even if you don't know if the show is going
more than one or two seasons, you ought to have the entire series
basically plotted out, especially if, as he's said, he was only
planning on having it run 5 years.
I disagree- I think he really does have a 5-year arc, but I think it's
possible he's tampered with it.
Post by Brian Henderson
Post by Wickeddoll
It got pretty gloomy in S4 (worst. season. ever.) but had some light
eps. Villains really are at the very heart of scifi/fantasy
shows/movies, and "Adam" on Buffy was the worst - what a windbag.
I never cared much about the villains in Buffy, it was about the
slayer and her target of the week, that's it.
I think that show was more about those around her, actually, which as
okay with me, since they were all much more interesting - except Dawn.
I wanted that little annoying twit dead from day one.
Dawn, right up (down, actually) there with Jar Jar Binks of Star Wars.
BtVS had Dawn, but don't forget Glory. :-P
Angel had Connor & Cordy.
B5 had Byron.
LOL agree on everyone except Glory, Cordy and Angel. I liked them a lot
(Cordy had to grow up for me first, though, which she did). Glory was a
hoot, just like the Mayor, since neither of them seemed dangerous, but
both really were. Best kind of villain to me; one you'd never suspect.
Angelus was the WORST villain, though - "I'm evil, see? I'll prove it!
This is what I'm gonna do to you!" *SNORE* Evil for the sake of being
evil, no depth, no real agenda; very 2-dimensional. Angelus is also a
windbag. I fast-forward all of the scenes with that alter ego.

Byron sucked the life out of every scene he did, but Robin Atkin-Downes
is a great guy. (and much hotter in person) I met him at a couple of
Trek cons:

Loading Image...

Loading Image...

Natalie
Alane
2009-09-16 00:02:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian Henderson
Post by Wickeddoll
Oh it's a throw-in for this series, sure, but I still say it makes
sense within the Supernatural universe to have the antithesis of
demons, since holy items *do* affect the demons on this show. If
they'd left out the holy water, etc., then angels could logically be
omitted - that wasn't the case here.
If you're going to have the antithesis of demons then shouldn't it be a
little more obvious early on? It still came as a surprise to both Sam
and Dean that angels were real, even before it turned out that they were
complete douchebags. When Cas showed up, Sam didn't buy it. Seems
absurd if you're casting the series within this particular mythology.
Post by Wickeddoll
ABSOLUTELY agree with you there. It's been rather depressing lately,
but then should the Apocalypse be a carnival ride? ;-)
It shouldn't, but dark and depressing isn't what made this series work
in the first place. It would be like making Buffy the Vampire Slayer
suddenly all serious. It just isn't the same show.
I take it you didn't see BtVS Season 6 in which Buffy spent nearly the
entire time
moping around because her friends brought her back from ~HEEEAAAVVAN.~
Then, Willow became a Magic Crack Addict. It was far from a laugh riot.

Alane
Wickeddoll
2009-09-16 00:41:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alane
Post by Brian Henderson
Post by Wickeddoll
Oh it's a throw-in for this series, sure, but I still say it makes
sense within the Supernatural universe to have the antithesis of
demons, since holy items *do* affect the demons on this show. If
they'd left out the holy water, etc., then angels could logically be
omitted - that wasn't the case here.
If you're going to have the antithesis of demons then shouldn't it be
a little more obvious early on? It still came as a surprise to both
Sam and Dean that angels were real, even before it turned out that
they were complete douchebags. When Cas showed up, Sam didn't buy
it. Seems absurd if you're casting the series within this particular
mythology.
Post by Wickeddoll
ABSOLUTELY agree with you there. It's been rather depressing lately,
but then should the Apocalypse be a carnival ride? ;-)
It shouldn't, but dark and depressing isn't what made this series work
in the first place. It would be like making Buffy the Vampire Slayer
suddenly all serious. It just isn't the same show.
I take it you didn't see BtVS Season 6 in which Buffy spent nearly the
entire time
moping around because her friends brought her back from ~HEEEAAAVVAN.~
Then, Willow became a Magic Crack Addict. It was far from a laugh riot.
Alane
But that one was only gloomy up until "Once More With Feeling" - after
that, it lightened up quite a bit. I hate that ep, BTW. Buffy had
plenty of good actors, but as singers, they're good actors. Except
Amber Benson and Tony Head.

You wanna talk humorless, that was season 7 with those pathetic
"potential slayers".

Natalie
Brian Henderson
2009-09-16 16:43:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alane
I take it you didn't see BtVS Season 6 in which Buffy spent nearly the
entire time
moping around because her friends brought her back from ~HEEEAAAVVAN.~
Then, Willow became a Magic Crack Addict. It was far from a laugh riot.
Like most people, I think Buffy essentially ended at the end of S5,
except for some great stand-alone episodes in S6 and S7.
Mac Breck
2009-09-17 01:02:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian Henderson
Post by Alane
I take it you didn't see BtVS Season 6 in which Buffy spent nearly
the entire time
moping around because her friends brought her back from
~HEEEAAAVVAN.~ Then, Willow became a Magic Crack Addict. It was far
from a laugh riot.
Like most people, I think Buffy essentially ended at the end of S5,
except for some great stand-alone episodes in S6 and S7.
I did enjoy seeing Dark Willow kicking ass.
--
Mac Breck (KoshN)
-------------------------------
"Babylon 5: Crusade" (1999)
Durkani: It doesn't matter if they believe us. Sooner or later the
truth's going to come out. The truth is....
Kendarr: ....out of fashion.
Wickeddoll
2009-09-17 01:08:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian Henderson
Post by Alane
I take it you didn't see BtVS Season 6 in which Buffy spent nearly the
entire time
moping around because her friends brought her back from ~HEEEAAAVVAN.~
Then, Willow became a Magic Crack Addict. It was far from a laugh riot.
Like most people, I think Buffy essentially ended at the end of S5,
except for some great stand-alone episodes in S6 and S7.
Yeah, it went sour after that, but I just can't resist those characters.

Natalie
Beowulf Bolt
2009-09-15 19:53:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian Henderson
Post by Wickeddoll
Agreed that both of them have made me want to throw something at
them, but I can also see how confusing this situation would be.
Rightly or wrongly, most of us were brought up to believe angels
were always good, and that we should heed their advice. But Dean
was disillusioned long before Sam, and started thinking for himself.
(not always successfully)
I don't recall them ever mentioning angels before Cas showed up, for
all we know, there was never any intention for them to exist in this
universe. In fact, they seemed really surprised that angels were real.
There was an early (season 1/2) episode which tossed the concept of
angels around as a red herring (instead it was the ghost of a priest who
merely thought he was an angel). The differing attitudes of the brothers
towards religion was first introduced in that episode.

That Sam and (particularly) Dean had some problems accepting the
presence of angels was not terribly surprising, given that (a) the
angels had by their own admission been out of the picture for some great
span of time until the fracturing of the first seal, and (b) the natural
pessimism caused by the Winchester life experiences and having John for
a mentor.

That being said, given a universe with demons, the selling of souls,
and - explicitly - hell, one wonders how the Supernatural mythology
would work *without* a heaven. What value would souls have to hell if
there were nowhere else for them to go after death? Why the
glowy-ghost-whispereresque disappearance of John Winchester's soul after
its escape from hell, if he weren't moving on towards the equivalent of
some heaven? I believe that the creaters intended from the start that
the whole mythology was "real", not merely the presence of demons.
Post by Brian Henderson
Back in S1, they were hacking up demons and monsters but they were
having a good time doing it, cracking jokes, etc. There was a certain
levity that has largely been lost between then and now.
Whereas I think you are misremembering the tone of S1 (which I have
rewatched recently). S1 was driven by Sam's re-awakened desire to find
and kill Azazel after the murder of his fiancee. There was as much
bathos in that season over that murder and the need to find their father
as in the past season over their position in the middle of the war
between heaven and hell. Moreover, there were just as many "light"
episodes in this past season as in the first.

Biff
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"All around me darkness gathers, fading is the sun that shone,
we must speak of other matters, you can be me when I'm gone..."
- SANDMAN #67, Neil Gaiman
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Wickeddoll
2009-09-15 21:04:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Beowulf Bolt
Post by Brian Henderson
Post by Wickeddoll
Agreed that both of them have made me want to throw something at
them, but I can also see how confusing this situation would be.
Rightly or wrongly, most of us were brought up to believe angels
were always good, and that we should heed their advice. But Dean
was disillusioned long before Sam, and started thinking for himself.
(not always successfully)
I don't recall them ever mentioning angels before Cas showed up, for
all we know, there was never any intention for them to exist in this
universe. In fact, they seemed really surprised that angels were real.
There was an early (season 1/2) episode which tossed the concept of
angels around as a red herring (instead it was the ghost of a priest who
merely thought he was an angel). The differing attitudes of the brothers
towards religion was first introduced in that episode.
Oh yeah - forgot that. But, actually, at the close of that one, Dean
seemed convinced he'd seen divine intervention. Maybe he was only
considering the possibility. By the way, I don't know of any Christian
faith that states humans can't be angels, as that priest said, but I
know damned well a Catholic priest would never say that. Have you heard
of that?
Post by Beowulf Bolt
That Sam and (particularly) Dean had some problems accepting the
presence of angels was not terribly surprising, given that (a) the
angels had by their own admission been out of the picture for some great
span of time until the fracturing of the first seal, and (b) the natural
pessimism caused by the Winchester life experiences and having John for
a mentor.
But it left Dean floundering. He was used to being supervised, after a
fashion. He respected (and probably feared) his father, but it kept him
grounded. Now he has no such person to ground him - Sam doesn't count,
since he's the "little" brother - we don't respect our younger siblings
very much as a rule.
Post by Beowulf Bolt
That being said, given a universe with demons, the selling of souls,
and - explicitly - hell, one wonders how the Supernatural mythology
would work *without* a heaven. What value would souls have to hell if
there were nowhere else for them to go after death? Why the
glowy-ghost-whispereresque disappearance of John Winchester's soul after
its escape from hell, if he weren't moving on towards the equivalent of
some heaven? I believe that the creaters intended from the start that
the whole mythology was "real", not merely the presence of demons.
That's what I've been saying all along. Also, if holy water, etc., had
no effect on the demons, you could arguably omit angels, but they can't
do that with any credibility on this show.
Post by Beowulf Bolt
Post by Brian Henderson
Back in S1, they were hacking up demons and monsters but they were
having a good time doing it, cracking jokes, etc. There was a certain
levity that has largely been lost between then and now.
Whereas I think you are misremembering the tone of S1 (which I have
rewatched recently). S1 was driven by Sam's re-awakened desire to find
and kill Azazel after the murder of his fiancee. There was as much
bathos in that season over that murder and the need to find their father
as in the past season over their position in the middle of the war
between heaven and hell. Moreover, there were just as many "light"
episodes in this past season as in the first.
Biff
I think I did more laughing in S4 than S1. ("Wishful Thinking" "Monster
Movie" and of course, "Yellow Fever") S2 DEFINITELY had more hilarity -
my all time favorite funny ep, "Tall Tales". Alien romance...ROFLMAO!

Natalie

Natalie
George W Harris
2009-09-15 04:00:20 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 18:49:42 GMT, Brian Henderson
Post by Brian Henderson
Post by Wickeddoll
One thing about Supernatural angels I really love, is that they're not
these always-sweet little things people tend to think they are. They've
always been described as fierce when they need to be. At least in what
I was taught.
My biggest problem with it isn't that the angels aren't the good guys,
it's that there *ARE* no good guys. The angels are dicks, the demons are
dicks, it's hard sorting out who are the worst bad guys and Sam and Dean
are stuck in the middle, each getting used and abused by powers beyond
their comprehension or ability to fight.
Welcome to noir.
--
Doesn't the fact that there are *exactly* 50 states seem a little suspicious?

George W. Harris For actual email address, replace each 'u' with an 'i'
Wickeddoll
2009-09-15 06:24:57 UTC
Permalink
George W Harris wrote:
Brian Henderson
Post by George W Harris
Post by Brian Henderson
Post by Wickeddoll
One thing about Supernatural angels I really love, is that they're not
these always-sweet little things people tend to think they are. They've
always been described as fierce when they need to be. At least in what
I was taught.
My biggest problem with it isn't that the angels aren't the good guys,
it's that there *ARE* no good guys. The angels are dicks, the demons are
dicks, it's hard sorting out who are the worst bad guys and Sam and Dean
are stuck in the middle, each getting used and abused by powers beyond
their comprehension or ability to fight.
Welcome to noir.
--
Doesn't the fact that there are *exactly* 50 states seem a little suspicious?
George W. Harris For actual email address, replace each 'u' with an 'i'
Drugs are bad.

Natalie
~consul
2009-09-14 17:58:22 UTC
Permalink
and thus Arthur Lipscomb inscribed ...
Post by Arthur Lipscomb
Post by suzee
I thought they were on their way to fixing things...
There was a bit of meta commentary when the fan was saying how the angel
story line was better and then the comment about Sam being magically
detoxed.
And the gay fan fiction she was writing. :D
--
"... respect, all good works are not done by only good folk. For here, at the end of all things, we shall do what needs to be done."
--till next time, consul -x- <<poetry.dolphins-cove.com>>
Brian Henderson
2009-09-13 18:45:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by suzee
Post by Brian Henderson
Post by Windowwasher
3, but I'm not a viewer of the series any longer.
If it doesn't improve in the next episode or two, I won't be either.
As much as I hated the last season, I gave the first episode a shot,
hoping that they realized how badly they screwed everything up, but
nope... seems they're following the same awful course, at least in the
first episode.
I thought they were on their way to fixing things...
I don't mean "fixing things" as in defeating Satan, I mean fixing the
horrible direction the show has gone, where both Sam and Dean are just
being screwed over by the powers-that-be and really don't matter much to
the show anymore. It used to be a great show about brothers, now it's
"who can we fuck over more?" The core of what made the show great is
long gone.
Kujo
2009-09-13 03:51:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian Henderson
Post by Windowwasher
3, but I'm not a viewer of the series any longer.
If it doesn't improve in the next episode or two, I won't be either. As
much as I hated the last season, I gave the first episode a shot, hoping
that they realized how badly they screwed everything up, but nope...
seems they're following the same awful course, at least in the first
episode.
Really? I thought last season was great. I liked the really dark turn it
took last season (Sam's transformation). I also liked the whole Angels vs
Demons thing. I hoping this season will be even better.

Solid premiere. I liked how they showed the devil courting the host. It'll
be interesting to see this Lucifer character plays out. I think Mark
Pellegrino is up for it.

3.5 stars.
Mac Breck
2009-09-14 04:45:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Avalos
"Sympathy for the Devil"
9-10-09 Supernatural
5 stars (some restraint)
0-1 stars (blitzkrieg raged)
-George
3.75 stars. Glad to see Castiel back.
--
Mac Breck (KoshN)
-------------------------------
"Babylon 5: Crusade" (1999)
Durkani: It doesn't matter if they believe us. Sooner or later the
truth's going to come out. The truth is....
Kendarr: ....out of fashion.
Jim Gysin
2009-09-15 21:34:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Avalos
"Sympathy for the Devil"
9-10-09 Supernatural
5 stars (some restraint)
0-1 stars (blitzkrieg raged)
3.2. Predictable, but with some good moments. The continuation of the
whole slash incest meme was hysterical and completely unexpected. (I
thought the writers got that out of their system last season. This
week's fanfic author was a riot. Heh.)
--
Jim Gysin
Waukesha, WI
DJensen
2009-09-20 15:51:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Avalos
"Sympathy for the Devil"
9-10-09 Supernatural
5 stars (some restraint)
0-1 stars (blitzkrieg raged)
The corruption/seduction of Mark Pellegrino was too rushed, and he had
no reaction to the insanity going on around him which really makes it
hard to believe he was in mourning.

More fan (fiction) service, Kripke? Cringe-worthy, even if she was a Sam
Girl.

Dean's the Chosen One? Is it too much to as that The Dean Show not be
canon within the show?

3.0
--
DJensen

P.S. - George, by my count you never posted voting results for episodes
18-22 of season 4. Did I miss them?
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...