Re: Supernatural

I really enjoyed the 300th episode from an emotional standpoint.  I thought it was a really nice moment in the series, and I thought they hit on all the notes they were supposed to.

And I get why they had to have both brothers leave for story reasons, but their dad has been gone for 15 years and both brothers go out for groceries?  It could've been cool if they'd had JDM for more than one episode because this could've been a cool 2-3 episode arc.  Maybe get old John on one last hunt?

There are a lot of nits I could pick about how the timeline worked, but I'm going to leave it be.  The scenes between John and Sam/Dean were good enough for me.

Re: Supernatural

The storyline with Nick is interesting because Lucifer corrupted him. Lucifer's whole shtick is that he is appealing and following him makes people feel good as they head toward Hell. That said, I don't really get the story. This isn't Nick's body. Nick shouldn't be in there any more than Jimmy is in Castiel. It's another example of the show contradicting established mythology this season, and why I think it is time for a new showrunner.

I don't think that it would work to reveal the supernatural stuff to the world. Supernatural works as a truckstop horror story, but whenever they try to go bigger, it falls apart. Kripke understood this about the show, but others don't seem to. The more you see, the less scary something is. The bigger you go, the less impact it has. The more you bring people back from the dead, the less anyone cares about life or death on the show. This is why the Heaven/Hell stuff became almost comedic and silly after a while. People in suits talking about how powerful they were while accomplishing nothing. It was so much more powerful when we got bits and pieces, but never saw what was really going on.

Season 7 was the closest we've come to seeing the world let in on the big secret, and it was a mess. We later had the President and big government agencies, and it looked ridiculous. Whereas one FBI agent tracking Sam and Dean in the early seasons felt like a real threat.

One of the most overlooked parts of storytelling these days is just establishing boundaries. Now that we can show anything on screen by using computer animation, everyone wants to show everything.


The 300th episode had some good moments, but I'm not sure it was really on the mark. It captured how far Sam and Dean have come, but it didn't capture where John was at that time. He didn't act like the John Winchester of that era. I don't think that he needed to be all angry and abusive, but I think that he definitely would have questioned some of the decisions that his boys have made.

It did feel rushed (maybe we didn't need the whole storyline with the kids and the town). Parts felt too wacky (Sam's Steve Jobs costume). There was some good emotion, and I think that Samantha Smith did a great job of making us feel a connection with someone whom she barely worked with 14 years ago. That said, the overall execution of this scenario didn't feel... real. It seemed more fanfic-y than, say, the time travel episodes where Sam and Dean interacted with their parents in earlier seasons.

I get that they probably didn't have JDM for very long and it was easier to play it out on one stage, but it felt off to me.

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of Sliders.tv.

Re: Supernatural

It really did feel fanfic-y.  Like a small little story where the boys get this little moment because that's essentially what happened.  The rest of the story was simply set-up for the story to happen and for it to end so quickly.

I do wonder, if given more time, whether we could've gotten more about John's philosophy vs. the brothers'.  Whether or not the brothers have outgrown their father or not.  All those are interesting questions the show could look at.

I agree with your stance on the supernatural elements going public, but I wonder if, after 15 years, it's no longer believable that any of this would still be a secret.

Re: Supernatural

It's not really a secret. The show is (or was) based mostly on urban legends, ancient folklore and religion. All of those things are widely available. The world knows about reports of werewolves going back hundreds of years. Everyone tells ghost stories. We make tons of movies based on those stories.

The thing is, most people will choose to ignore the scary realities of the world until they're in a situation where they have to address it themselves. How many people take part in any charitable 5K when they haven't been personally impacted by whatever disease they're running for? What percentage of the population even joins the military to fight enemies that we know are actively trying to kill us? (0.4 percent. I just looked it up)

Hunters have always been portrayed like the soldiers who are fighting that war. The normal people might toss salt over their shoulder, or go to church on the big holidays, but they're not really interested in the war. They don't want to think about what could be lurking under their bed, or the demon that might take over their body at any moment. Even in our world, we have stories of demonic possession, and you could probably find thousands of people to back up those stories, complete with video evidence and horrible stories of normal people suddenly developing a taste for human faces. At the end of the day, people will laugh off the idea of a demon in favor of something that we can medicate and lock away, but do we really know for sure?


Granted, the show has gone a bit far with their monsters. As I said, they're relying much more heavily on showing us everything in great detail these days, and that doesn't help the show at all. They could easily have Rowena die and come back to life on camera, or Castiel do whatever his level of power will allow him to do this week (I'm still not sure what his deal is this season). But the general idea is that people know, but they'd rather not.

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of Sliders.tv.

Re: Supernatural

I never understood all the weight the fans and fan-press put on bringing Jeffrey Dean Morgan back. Occasionally, he was needed for flashbacks and they settled for a younger actor playing him at a younger age. But functionally, John Winchester was dead; he gave his life to save his son in the Season 2 premiere. What more was there to gain? Since then, the show had done a fine job of exploring the character’s mixed legacy with Sam often speaking poorly of John as abusive and insane while at other times saying that John had taught him how to protect himself and others.

From what I can tell, Morgan’s stipulation for returning for this guest-appearance; he wanted to play Sam and Dean’s father and was extremely displeased with the mixed memories that surrounded John after his death. Morgan had, he felt, always approached his role as a loving but misunderstood father and he wanted that to be his role in his return, which is why, as Informant notes, John isn’t played as the volatile, alcoholic solider forever at war but instead as Jeffrey Dean Morgan’s view of himself.

I liked the episode for all of Slider_Quinn21’s reasons, but I can’t help but think that SUPERNATURAL left Jeffrey Dean Morgan behind a long time ago.

Re: Supernatural

On Taking Monsters Public

Yeah, I hadn't really thought about it that way, but I agree that it's probably as public as it is now.  Someone could die and all the evidence could point to "Vampire" and I might not believe it a normal dude in America.  Without seeing it, I won't believe it.  And even if I saw something filmed on a shaky cell phone, I might think it's a student film before I believe it's legitimately a monster.

The only reason I even asked is because Nick is talking to this policeman about the Devil, and Nick literally holds all the cards to prove it.  He knows where the bodies are buried.  He could do this big Miracle on 34th Street - type show about it.  And for half a second, I thought that's where they were going and was briefly intrigued by it.  Then another half-second later, I thought he could flip on Sam and Dean and bring them in.  Because while the system might want Nick, would they be willing to bargain with him to get Sam and Dean?  I probably watch too many cop shows.

On John

I completely agree with all that.  I think, with more time, they could've done some interesting things with John.  What if he tried to assume leadership of the bunker?  Would Sam be okay with that?  Would Dean?  How would he have handled 13 years of season finale decisions?  Heck, how did the last 15 seasons look?  How did they avoid the apocalypse without Castiel or even Castiel knowing who they are?  These are things I doubt anyone thought about.

And one more thing - the last scene.  I read in an interview that it's simply John waking up from what he thinks was a dream in his time.  Which is funny because I read into it differently - I thought John was in Heaven.

Re: Supernatural

Slider_Quinn21 wrote:

I thought John was in Heaven.

I see no issue with that interpretation.

I think that the rationale for why John is so gentle in this episode in contrast to Sam and Dean's memories of him as a harsh taskmaster -- he's in shock from seeing his sons over a decade older from how he remembers them last, he's in shock from seeing his wife alive again. John never wanted to be a hunter until Mary died; it was Mary who descends from a legacy of hunters and reluctantly showed John her world, and when Mary is alive, John doesn't feel the call to be a hunter anymore.

Re: Supernatural

If they had the option of featuring John more, I could honestly see him on a completely different team than Sam and Dean. Maybe not trying to kill them, but probably trying to stop them... And maybe kill their friends. They live with monsters more than they live with people these days. Even the humans they know aren't of our world. They keep making deals and pushing the line, and while John might not be above those things himself, when it comes to saving his family, I think he would feel a need to correct course if he came back and took it all in. John would not like Castiel. John would not like Rowena. John may warm up to Jack in some ways, but he would always view Jack as a threat.

John would want Heaven to stay in Heaven, Hell to stay in Hell, and hunters to fight monsters, not have them as roommates.

And honestly... I might be on John's side of this fight.

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of Sliders.tv.

Re: Supernatural

ireactions wrote:

I think that the rationale for why John is so gentle in this episode in contrast to Sam and Dean's memories of him as a harsh taskmaster -- he's in shock from seeing his sons over a decade older from how he remembers them last, he's in shock from seeing his wife alive again. John never wanted to be a hunter until Mary died; it was Mary who descends from a legacy of hunters and reluctantly showed John her world, and when Mary is alive, John doesn't feel the call to be a hunter anymore.

It could be that, but I have two alternate explanations:

1. Instead of being plucked out of 2003, John was plucked out of Heaven.  And after spending 13+ years in Heaven, that's what softened him up.  If my interpretation of the final scene is accurate, then he's been hanging out in an idyllic place, softening up.  So he shows back up, things are looking great, and he stays in a Heavenly mood.

2. The pearl didn't bring back the real John Winchester, but an idealized version that had all the good traits of John but few of the bad ones.  The thing Dean's heart wished for the most wasn't the real John but one that would confirm that Dean did a good job and be someone who'd be proud of him.

Re: Supernatural

Informant wrote:

If they had the option of featuring John more, I could honestly see him on a completely different team than Sam and Dean. Maybe not trying to kill them, but probably trying to stop them... And maybe kill their friends. They live with monsters more than they live with people these days. Even the humans they know aren't of our world. They keep making deals and pushing the line, and while John might not be above those things himself, when it comes to saving his family, I think he would feel a need to correct course if he came back and took it all in. John would not like Castiel. John would not like Rowena. John may warm up to Jack in some ways, but he would always view Jack as a threat.

Yeah.  John is essentially Dean without a Sam, and Sam had to convince Dean to deal with all the monsters they work with.

Re: Supernatural

S14 has been a good one so far.  Yeah some dumb plot arcs here and there, but a lot of really good individual monster stories and whatnot.  Jeffrey Dean's return, despite the Negan beard, was excellent.  Wow!  The EP team they've had the last 3 years has been really strong.  We'll see how long the show goes, though I kind of feel like 15 will be the end, at least that's the impression Sam Smith gave me at a con last November.

Re: Supernatural

So....what is this season about?  Is it about Michael creating a monster army?  Or Jack possibly going to the Dark Side?  Or Lucifer coming back somehow?  Or the void's deal with Castiel?

It sorta seems all over the place.  I'm enjoying individual episodes, but the overall season-wide storyline seems a lot less clear than it usually is at this point.

Re: Supernatural

https://deadline.com/2019/03/supernatur … 202581010/

The longest-running series on the CW is coming to an end. Supernatural will wrap its run after its upcoming 15th season, which will consist of 20 episodes

Re: Supernatural

IB: "Lauren! Next year, will you watch FRINGE so we have something to talk about without SUPERNATURAL?"

LAUREN: " ... I am not ready to joke about this yet."

Re: Supernatural

I thought the way they announced it was pretty cool.  You can tell they felt terrible, like they were letting the fans down.  But I think Jensen and Jared are pretty fun actors, and I think it's time to let them do something else.

I have a feeling that they'll come back to this well at some point.  Maybe a TV movie or something.  I think they love the characters, but I don't think they should have to do the show forever.  And I think there's a chance the network was running out of eternal patience with them.

I'm glad they have a lot of time to plan the ending.  Because there's a lot of stuff I'd love for them to touch on.  Like, can we find a way to save Adam?

Re: Supernatural

In leaving his show, Jerry O'Connell was ridiculous, refusing to perform an exit story for SLIDERS. In leaving her shows, Katherine Heigl was ridiculous, whining about how she hated being on ROSWELL and GREY'S ANATOMY for the long hours when she knew what they'd be when she took those jobs. Wil Wheaton was also ridiculous, quitting STAR TREK after three seasons because he believed regularly being in people's homes every week was somehow holding him back from superstardom.

But Jared and Jensen -- they've been the leads of a show that has them in nearly every scene for 15 years. When SUPERNATURAL first started, their characters would pretend to be community college students; now they pretend to be FBI veterans. The recent 20 episode orders are to give them a longer rest after over a decade of 18 hour days. They've profited greatly from 15 seasons of pay, royalties, merchandising, conventions and other businesses. In return, they've done their part and more for the show and the fans.

The real disappointment, for me, is that WAYWARD SISTERS wasn't picked up. Had the spinoff been successful, the SUPERNATURAL universe could have continued in that form to cushion the blow. It is likely that SUPERNATURAL will continue after its conclusion as a digital comic that Slider_Quinn21 won't read just as SMALLVILLE and REVOLUTION did for a time and there could be a WAYWARD SISTERS digital comic as well that Slider_Quinn21 won't read.

SUPERNATURAL doesn't have anything left to prove or achieve at this point, so the reason why its departure is painful is because it had become an institution. I can't remember my life before watching the show; I am not sure if I even existed before its premiere and that's insane. I watched the pilot and then didn't watch it again for about eight years, getting caught up only because my niece was obsessed with it and I had to watch it to understand anything she was saying. Seasons 1 - 2 were a poor X-FILES clone, Season 3 found its feet and I've enjoyed every season of the show and outside of killing Kevin and Charlie and the alternate universe hunters, I've never felt hostile to the series or felt bored with its content.

FRINGE is often considered to be THE X-FILES done properly: it featured FBI agents investigating the paranormal, it played out its five season arc, it had running plotlines that were sustained and concluded, it had great love for its characters and gave them continuing and climactic arcs. But I think SUPERNATURAL is the true successor to THE X-FILES. Yes, it chose the supernatural over the FRINGE choosing the technological. It also features Chris Carter's multi-genre anthology attitude but, unlike Carter, the SUPERNATURAL writers were careful to keep Sam and Dean's characterization consistent even if they'd been in a splatterfest last week and were in a metatextual parody this week. It features lengthy arcs like THE X-FILES, but sustains the arcs even through the standalones. It ensures that monsters-of-the-week are thematically tied to the arc even if they aren't situationally connected.

Almost everything THE X-FILES attempted, SUPERNATURAL perfected aside from its portrayal of women. THE X-FILES inspired a generation of women to go into science, engineering and medicine; SUPERNATURAL wanted to inspire women to go into law enforcement and the military but WAYWARD SISTERS didn't make the CW's cut. Both SUPERNATURAL and THE X-FILES were renewed well beyond their intended or natural lifespan and SUPERNATURAL wrapped up its original myth-arc and conceived new ones while THE X-FILES stalled. THE X-FILES had a revival and still left us on a cliffhanger. SUPERNATURAL will end.

I kind of hope that there might be a revival (not a reboot) every 3 - 5 years with Sam and Dean in a six episode mini-series whenever the actors are available and willing. SUPERNATURAL conventions will likely continue for at least another ten years as 15 seasons gives actors lots of amusing on-set anecdotes.

Re: Supernatural

I actually knew about this from a cast member since last fall (won't squeal on who, ha ha), but I think it's time.  The show continues to churn out great scripts, it's really amazing.  It's been YEARS since I said, well that episode just sucked.  Probably going back to the Gamble-run years.  But it's time, I mean, they had to use a parallel universe to bring in new characters, there's just nothing left to hit on.

Re: Supernatural

Grizzlor wrote:

I actually knew about this from a cast member since last fall (won't squeal on who, ha ha), but I think it's time.  The show continues to churn out great scripts, it's really amazing.  It's been YEARS since I said, well that episode just sucked.  Probably going back to the Gamble-run years.  But it's time, I mean, they had to use a parallel universe to bring in new characters, there's just nothing left to hit on.

Once again, Samantha Smith cannot keep a secret about anything.

Re: Supernatural

ireactions wrote:

I kind of hope that there might be a revival (not a reboot) every 3 - 5 years with Sam and Dean in a six episode mini-series whenever the actors are available and willing. SUPERNATURAL conventions will likely continue for at least another ten years as 15 seasons gives actors lots of amusing on-set anecdotes.

Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman used to (they don't much anymore) talk about their version of Sherlock and how they'd love to come back and do a "series" of it every few years.  Their plan was, they used to say, to have Sherlock and Watson "grow old together."

I'd sorta love for that to be the case for Sam and Dean.  And while I do think it would've been cool to have Wayward Sisters (or even the other weirder spinoff) work, I think it's sorta appropriate in-universe to have these attempted (then failed) spinoffs.  Sam/Jared and Dean/Jensen would love to be able to retire - they've done the work/show for a lot longer than anyone thought they would, and they'd love to be able to pass it on to someone who could take it over.  Whether it be the Men of Letters/Bloodlines or the new hunters/Wayward Sisters.  But they realized no one could do it better than that.  So if anyone is going to hunt/do Supernatural, it needs to be them.

I know it wouldn't allow for a great wrapup if they left things open enough for Sam and Dean to return every few years, but maybe that's the best for this show.  Maybe Supernatural doesn't need Sam or Dean to die but just drive off into the sunset, allowing us to await the day they show back up.

Re: Supernatural

My niece seems to be experiencing some sort of mental health crisis over the announced conclusion of SUPERNATURAL. Honestly, I think she seriously needs to get a grip on reality because it's just a TV show.

ireactions' SLIDERS bibliography

Re: Supernatural

With Lucifer confirmed to be in the Empty and nothing truly dead ever in this universe, I wonder if the final season is setting up to be some sort of final confrontation with Lucifer.  Trying to recreate season 5 in a way?

Re: Supernatural

The Season 14 finale confused me and yet, it seemed oddly inevitable to make Chuck the villain. I think it's safe to say "Moriah" alarmed many viewers especially Chuck fans. The characterization didn't track with his arc up to this point. In previous episodes, Chuck was an awkward, earnest, clumsy, good-hearted writer who wanted to see people survive and succeed and be happy and he also very much wanted to be left alone. It suggested that God was on Sam and Dean's side but unwilling to intervene too directly as the Apocalypse was the result of humans, angels and demons exercising their free will and making poor and cataclysmic choices.

And when God returned in "Don't Call Me Shurley," this interpretation was upheld entirely. Chuck is characterized not as the Lord Almighty of Christian lore, but just a person who also happens to be the entity that created all of existence. Also, Chuck is shown to be fallible and his power is not infinite. Not only can the Darkness hurt and kill him, Chuck says that he does not feel divine intervention helps his children, merely enables their misdeeds and self-destruction and overdependency. "Nobody likes a helicopter parent," Chuck explains.

This perspective is reiterated in "Moriah" where Chuck describes Sam and Dean as "my guys" and "my favourite show," but when Dean refuses to act out Chuck's plotline where Dean is to sacrifice himself and kill Jack, Chuck gets upset and behaves in total contrast to his previous regard for free will. He offers to resurrect Mary to induce Dean to fire on Jack. He shows enjoyment and pleasure in Dean's agony.

Then he throws a tantrum when Sam also defies him and fires a non-lethal shot on him. Chuck is furious when Sam accuses Chuck of creating endless torment and loss for the Winchester brothers but does not deny Sam's claim that Chuck has permitted their suffering and finds it entertaining. And then Chuck, in a strange act of pettiness, unleashes every caged monster and demon upon the Earth and declares it "the end."

This is not the pleasant, aloof, distant father figure who wanted his children to be independent and self-reliant. This is a child frustrated by his pets not performing tricks for them and smashing apart their world for being insufficiently amusing and a completely different character. And yet, looking back at Seasons 6 - 14, Chuck's villainy seems oddly inevitable.

It's noticeable that despite Chuck's supposed interventions in Season 5, Season 6 saw the angels seeking to immediately bring about the once aborted Apocalypse with Castiel discovering that the angels could not grasp the free will and freedom their creator had now given them. In fact, Castiel's prayer for guidance and clarification from Chuck is flatly ignored.

In addition, the Leviathans and further lunacy with Gadreel, Metatron and Lucifer are met with no response from God. On one level, there's a grain of truth in Chuck declaring that Sam and Dean have what it takes to meet and overcome any threat to the world. But given the trauma, grief and sacrifice they've had to endure, how can Chuck claim to care for his creations when he condemns them to a life of endless torture? Why does he make them the center of the Earth's divine defense plan? Doesn't he worry about employee exhaustion and diminished job performance?

The reason for every season of SUPERNATURAL subjecting Sam and Dean to madness and cruelty is because it's a TV show and the writers are compelled to heap one threat after another upon their central characters. Giving Sam and Dean a full season of vacationing is not an option. However, within the fictional universe of SUPERNATURAL, it is Chuck who is if not targeting Sam and Dan, then at least permitting their continued situation while other humans deal with problems like mental health, financial security, raising children, caring for elders and retaining homes and employments.

Within SUPERNATURAL, if Chuck continually allows all the ills of the world to be entirely Sam and Dean's responsibility, then Chuck is a villain. "Moriah" declares that Chuck's insistence on making Sam and Dean the first line of defense for every threat with no concern for their well being makes him the villain of the series. It exposes his professed respect for free will to be a fraud and a lie.

It does not track with Chuck's previous characterization. It does not track with the in-depth exploration of Chuck's character in "The Monster at the End of this Book," "Dark Side of the Moon" and "Don't Call Me Shurley." But in retrospect, it seems inescapable and inevitable.

Re: Supernatural

I think this is something I've always struggled with in terms of my own faith and my own understanding for how the universe works.  To me, it doesn't make sense for God (Chuck, in this case) to be all powerful or all good.  Free will is great...and if we could blame all the problems in the world on free will, then that's fine.  But what about the child that gets a terrible disease out of sheer bad luck?  What about damage caused by things we refer to as "acts of God?"  If one person kills another, that's something that God would stay out of?  But what about things that free will seemingly is unrelated to?

If God has the power to fix some things, why can't he fix all things?  The scenario I like to use is a policeman who arrives on the scene of a man threatening another man with a gun.  The gunman doesn't know the policeman is there, and the policeman has a clear shot.  The policeman is, for the purposes of this scenario, an expert marksman.  The policeman has the time and ability to incapacitate, distract, or kill the gunman if he chooses.  The policeman lets the situation play out, and the gunman kills the other man.  The man's daughter sees it all happen, including the policeman's inaction.  Who does she get the most angry at?  The man who did it, or the man who had the ability change the situation and simply chose not to?

To me, Chuck is a pretty safe way of understanding the world.  He's a good guy, but he's not all powerful.  He can fix some things, but he can't really fix everything.  He's also realized, on some level, that he shouldn't fix everything.  So he watches us from afar, either doing a little here and there or simply leaving us be.  He's essentially provided heaven as a place to enjoy eternity for putting up with what is essentially a broken world that he can't fully fix.

But even going there, it's kind of a nutty prospect.  Chuck created a broken world and then forces people to live in it.  Yeah, there's a reward at the end, but there's no guarantee of a reward.  Even his caretakers have their own issues of both good/evil struggle and lack of power.

Since he's not all-good, he's capable of evil.  And as he fancies himself a writer, the Winchesters are ruining his ending.  What good is a great novel with a bad ending?  There's still a chance that Chuck is painting himself as the villain because he needs a villain for his story.  It wouldn't surprise me if that's where they're going.

But they took down the Devil.  The only bigger villain can be God.  It was shocking for me to see it happen, but I didn't feel like it was unearned.

Re: Supernatural

Slider_Quinn21 wrote:

To me, Chuck is a pretty safe way of understanding the world.  He's a good guy, but he's not all powerful.  He can fix some things, but he can't really fix everything.  He's also realized, on some level, that he shouldn't fix everything.  So he watches us from afar, either doing a little here and there or simply leaving us be. .

I think this makes sense up to a point, but "Moriah" points out that Chuck's unwillingness to interfere looks less like respect for free will and more like a decision to put Sam and Dean in harm's way at all times for reasons that "Moriah" finally revealed.

From a real-world standpoint, nine seasons of Sam and Dean enjoying peaceful semi-retirement was never on the table. But from an in-universe standpoint, "Moriah" observes that Chuck has by passivity forced Sam and Dean to serve as Earth's protectors despite continual loss and suffering for them.

Season 11's "Don't Call Me Shurley" had Chuck putting the blame for the recent run of threats on Sam refusing to lose Dean to demonic conversion. But in Seasons 12 - 13, Lucifer's return and the alternate universe situation were due to Chuck once again abandoning his son and a "failed draft," yet Chuck did not return to help.

By Season 12, any benevolent employer in Chuck's position would have put Sam and Dean on vacation and found some new hires to act as Earth's divine defense division. It didn't have to always be Sam and Dean facing every conflict between heaven and hell. They'd done their part and more, it could have been someone else's turn to take up the mantle. It could have been Charlie. It could have been Jodi Mills, Donna Hanscum, Kaia Nieves, Claire Novak, Patience Turner, Alex Jones.

But Chuck allowed WAYWARD SISTERS to fail. What kind of God would fail to get WAYWARD SISTERS picked up? Why did Chuck always want it to be Sam and Dean?

CHUCK: "I built the sandbox -- you play in it. And you're my favorite show."

SAM: "But why, when the chips are down, when the world is -- is failing, why does it always have to be on us?"

CHUCK: "Because you're my guys."

Chuck says he's granting humans their free will, but then the episode points out that Chuck always puts the consequences of his supposed non-interference entirely upon Sam and Dean. Why is Chuck allowing two exhausted, traumatized, burnt-out employees to carry on performing their duties with steadily diminishing efficacy and ability? As if to answer this, Sam observes Chuck taking pleasure at the sight of Dean's agony.

SAM: "You're enjoying this!"

And when Dean refuses to follow Chuck's plot direction, Chuck suddenly gets upset.

CHUCK: "This isn't how the story is supposed to end. The story? Look -- it -- the -- the -- the gathering storm, the gun, the -- the father killing his own son. This is Abraham and Isaac. This is epic!"

DEAN: "Wait. What are you saying?"

SAM: "He's saying he's been playing us."

"Moriah" completely overturns the Chuck character as we know him. But "Moriah" makes a very clear point: Sam and Dean have been forced to manage Chuck's responsibilities since Seasons 6 - 14 when their roles should have been over by the Season 5 finale.

Part of this is, I think, a wry commentary on and from the writers who have, for nine seasons, had to come up with new threats and new suffering. The original authorial intention for Chuck was to make him a warm and loving father figure who represented the writers and their affection for the characters. Chuck allowing free will and acting indirectly throughout Seasons 1 -5 to maneuver Sam and Dean into averting the Apocalypse without overruling individual choice was heroic. Chuck acting indirectly throughout Seasons 6 -14 to keep Sam and Dean in the line of fire for nine years after the original crisis, however, is manipulative and cruel.

SAM: "This whole time. Our entire lives. Mom, Dad -- everything. This is all you because you wrote it all, right? Because what? Because we're your favorite show? Because we're part of your story?"

DEAN: "The Apocalypse, the first go-around, with Lucifer and Michael -- you knew everything that was going on, so why the games, Chuck, huh? Why don't you just snap your fingers and end it?"

SAM: "And every other bad thing we've been killing, been dying over -- where were you? Just sitting back and watching us suffer so we can do this over and over and over again -- fighting, losing people we love? When does it end?"

CHUCK: "Fine! That's the way you want it? Story's over. Welcome to the end."

Unlike the writers, Chuck is not required to deliver 20 - 22 episodes a year, not obliged to make Padelecki and Ackles' characters the center of a TV show and not bound to create a world-ending situation on an annual basis. The only explanation for why Chuck would continue to do it is because it amuses and entertains him to watch Sam and Dean suffer.

It doesn't fit the charming, grounded, silly character that Rob Benedict developed and played. This is a sociopathic puppetmaster, not the well-meaning observer who turned Benedict from a middle-aged, over-the-hill actor and part-time musician into an idol of positive masculinity and unthreatening appeal for a legion of fans.

This is a complete reversal to one of SUPERNATURAL's greatest creations. It's a shocking and painful betrayal. But it seems to me like the inescapable result of extending the lifespan of the series.

Re: Supernatural

ireactions wrote:

This is a complete reversal to one of SUPERNATURAL's greatest creations. It's a shocking and painful betrayal. But it seems to me like the inescapable result of extending the lifespan of the series.

Possibly.  But it could also either be some sort of trick (it's not really Chuck) or it's some sort of gambit to prepare the brothers for something bigger/badder.

Or, again, it's the only "monster" that the brothers haven't killed and the only way to end the show.

Re: Supernatural

Slider_Quinn21 wrote:

But it could also either be some sort of trick (it's not really Chuck) or it's some sort of gambit to prepare the brothers for something bigger/badder.

Or, again, it's the only "monster" that the brothers haven't killed and the only way to end the show.

I wonder if SUPERNATURAL will actually follow through on it. I wouldn't call SUPERNATURAL guilty of copouts, but their season-ending cliffhangers suggest season long arcs that don't last that long. Dean went to hell at the end of Season 3 suggesting that Season 4 would be set with Dean struggling to find some way to escape. The Season 4 premiere had him back on Earth right away. Castiel declared himself God at the end of Season 6, suggesting a human-angel-Castiel war for the whole of Season 7; it lasted two episodes. Season 10 was expected to be a season of Sam forced to hunt a demonic Dean like any other monster with Jensen Ackles now a villain; that lasted three episodes.

It's possible SUPERNATURAL will, by Season 15, Episode 3, have the boys encounter Chuck who is only human and explains that God separated the Chuck identity from the God identity to grant his human side independence, but now God without Chuck (while retaining the face) has become unbalanced and merging the two again will restore God as we knew him. It's not what I'd prefer, but it would get the show back to its usual formula. However, with Season 15 being the end, getting back on formula isn't as essential as it was for Seasons 4, 7 and 10.

But we just saw Dean finally taken over by Michael only for that to come to an end almost immediately in Season 14. We've seen this trick a lot -- although SUPERNATURAL does a great job of letting repercussions linger even if the resolutions come within a few weeks of the premiere.

I'm not entirely sure how Chuck would work as a villain. Can we see Chuck plotting villainy with his minions and addressing power plays like Crowley? Why would he need to? Can we imagine Chuck engaging in some lengthy plot of terror for some unknown end like Metatron? Seems kind of small-minded for God. Can we visualize Chuck trying to dominate and control all of America's hunters like the Men of Letters? I just don't quite know how SUPERNATURAL can fight God, but that's the appeal of the concept and the challenge for Season 15 -- unless they decide to gently nudge the reset button as they have before.

Re: Supernatural

Yeah, I sorta think something has to happen in the first two episodes, or it's virtually impossible to go back to the Monster of the Week stories.  What's interesting is that Jensen and Jared spoke at some conference recently, and Jensen was asked how he wanted the final season to go.  I tried looking it up but I couldn't find it (I didn't try super hard) but paraphrased, Jensen said "I would like the angels to go back to Heaven, the demons to go back to Hell, and we would just fight monsters like we did back in season one."

So Jensen, channeling Informant, said that he likes the Monster of the Week format.  If God is stalking the brothers or if they have to fight hundreds of zombies each week, that's virtually impossible.  The boys would literally have much bigger fish to fry.

I think you're right.  It'll look big and epic and then something will happen.  God will disappear again and no one will be able to find him.  Or something big will scare him away.  Or something.  And the boys will sit around the bunker, drinking beer, deciding that it's best that they go hunt a wendigo or something while they wait for Chuck's next move.  And then, like in previous seasons, Chuck will show back up in November and cause problems.  Then he'll disappear/leave again.  Then show back up when it's finale time.

Re: Supernatural

I was reading the comic BATMAN AND ROBIN ETERNAL (2015) and I was really struck by the character of Jason Todd. (WTF? What does this have to do with SUPERNATURAL?! I'll get there.)

Jason Todd was the second Robin in the 1980s, killed by the Joker, abortively resurrected in HUSH (2003) only for that to be shown as a fakeout only for writer Judd Winick to retroactively declare it hadn't been a fakeout after all in 2006 and Jason was back. Winick characterized Jason as the Gotham City equivalent of the Punisher, mowing down villains with handguns to Batman's dismay. Later writers, however, had varying characterizations. (WTF? Why is this relevant? Patience!)

In TEEN TITANS, Geoff Johns wrote Jason as unstable but non-lethal as he attacked Tim Drake (the third Robin) out of jealousy for how Bruce was proud of Tim but ashamed of Robin and beating up Tim Drake to best him and then walking away. Bruce Jones wrote him in NIGHTWING as a malicious prankster stealing Dick Grayson's Nightwing identity. Tony Daniel wrote Jason as outright psychotic in BATTLE FOR THE COWL towards the Bat Family after Bruce Wayne was thought dead: Jason attempts to shoot Dick Grayson to death and stab Tim Drake through the heart when they refuse to accept him as the new Batman. Grant Morrison subsequently wrote Jason as a hipster crime fighter who would document his crimefighting on social media and invite Gotham City citizens to vote on whether or not he'd execute criminals. (So WHAT?! What does this have to do with SUPERNATURAL?)

Judd Winick returned to the character after all this and had Jason confess that he'd been a little unstable after Bruce's death but he'd calmed down now. Ultimately, the character didn't seem to cohere until 2010 -- when there was an animated adaptation of Jason's resurrection story, BATMAN: UNDER THE RED HOOD, in which Jensen Ackles (Dean on SUPERNATURAL) voiced the character of Jason Todd (I told you we'd get here).

Since then, RED HOOD AND THE OUTLAWS (by Scott Lobdell) and BATMAN AND ROBIN ETERNAL (by Scott Snyder and James Tynion IV and others) have written a highly coherent take on Jason Todd -- Jason is written as a pastiche of Jensen Ackles as Dean Winchester with Jason having gone from being defined by lethal instability to being defined by sardonic humour to give voice to his troubled mindset. At one point, Batman, on a leave of absence, allows the Bat Family to help themselves to whatever they want out of the Batcave to carry on fighting crime. "Dibs on the Batmobiles!" Jason crows. "Just two or three. I'm not greedy."

In another issue of ETERNAL, Jason's immediate post-battle regime is to demand that Tim Drake accompany him to a bar to drink heavily despite Tim being underage. Later, someone remarks that Batman trained all the Robins well and Jason, regarded as the most unstable of all of them, snarks, "Yeah, every year in his Christmas card, Bruce tells me how proud he is of how perfect I turned out." At one point, Jason is fighting possessed college girls and remarks, "I dreamed about being smothered in college girls but it was more Drake video and less John Carpenter." These lines are plainly being written in the voice of Dean Winchester whether anyone will admit it or not and DC might owe Jensen Ackles some money here.

Re: Supernatural

S15 has been good so far.  It's a shame Informant has vanished, as they FINALLY brought back brother Adam from the cage!

Re: Supernatural

I’ll respond to this when my Chromebook laptop arrives in the mail. I’m currently down to a tablet for leisure computing; I’ve had to rip all entertainment and social media out of my Windows desktop to focus on Work. And I can’t do long form message board posts on an iPad.

Re: Supernatural

ireactions wrote:

I’ll respond to this when my Chromebook laptop arrives in the mail. I’m currently down to a tablet for leisure computing; I’ve had to rip all entertainment and social media out of my Windows desktop to focus on Work. And I can’t do long form message board posts on an iPad.

Important, urgent information. smile

Earth Prime | The Definitive Source for Sliders™

Re: Supernatural

Well, I think it's somewhat relevant that I have bought a new computer for the sole purpose of posting on this message board. (It cost two figures and it's been held up at customs.)

Re: Supernatural

Two figures? I'll take a Chromebook for that price point!

Earth Prime | The Definitive Source for Sliders™

Re: Supernatural

Chromebook running!

It is indeed a shame, but let us take comfort in knowing that Informant is in a better place (well, a better place for him) where he can express his views and declare them to be the consensus of his community.

I'm sure he'd be happy to see Eileen back and view that as relief after Charlie reappeared in the series (as a double) to his infuriation as he loathes Charlie. And there was a point in the third episode where I'm sure Informant would have despaired of the glacial pacing; I myself asked my niece if we were going to spend the entire 20 episode season in Harlan, Kansas as the boys spent three weeks meandering about the supposed outbreak of hell which turned out to be less global and more municipal.

Over in the STAR WARS thread, I remarked that THE LAST JEDI was an eccentric outlier and that expecting it to be the template going forward for the STAR WARS series was like expecting SUPERNATURAL to make every episode a metatextual comedy episode instead of having just a few a year. However, SUPERNATURAL's final season seems to have decided to wrap a metatextual comedy plot around the arcs for the year with very serious and dark stories framed in Chuck's comedy which itself has taken on a crueller sharpness.

The three part premiere and the way the story just stalled and waited -- it reflects a certain narrative desperation. God is an enemy and has unleashed hell on Earth -- except the budget clearly struggles to show even a small town under siege. The sight of monsters roaming in broad daylight should be terrifying; visually, it looks like a SUPERNATURAL cosplay contest.

So the show steps back, declaring that God has been weakened by Sam shooting him and that while God threw a (three week) tantrum, the status quo remains and Sam and Dean are free to battle monsters of the week.

Resurrecting Eileen is an interesting choice. Fans were enraged that a character with a disability and such an important area of representation was killed off and not even given any dialogue or interaction in the episode where she died. SUPERNATURAL resurrects the character and salves that wound well, much as bringing Felicia Day back to the series if not the original Charlie was well-appreciated in Season 13 and 14.

And then we get to the middle episodes and mid-season cliffhanger. We finally see God in his true identity without the Chuck affectation of harmless friendliness and without the sense that the Chuck persona is a Halloween costume worn by an omnipotent being trying to pass for human -- and God goes to hang out with Becky and he remains Chuck but sadistic.

Chuck is revealed to be an insecure, lazy, uninspired, desperate-for-approval writer who just happens to be able to rewrite reality itself while lacking the power to override individual decision and free will even if he can kill or disappear people on a whim.

His perpetually allowing Sam and Dean to face off against Leviathans and archangels and Metatron is revealed as a lack of inspiration or imagination: he doesn't write stories; he instead creates conflicts and then observes and documents, but now that his playthings have become aware of his approach, they are resisting his manipulation and have also reduced his power.

We see Chuck engaging in SUPERNATURAL villainy: murdering an entire casino of people, dispatching underlings to torment Sam and Dean and move them into position for his plot -- and the writing emphasizes how Chuck's plotting is sloppy and obvious because he's a selfish and awkward little man who is merely in the position of God -- but he's still no less threatening because of how even at half-power, he dwarves Sam and Dean and his pettiness is matched with invincibility. I'm intrigued to note that due to either a lack of power or the writers not wanting to kill their leads, he's threatening Sam and Dean rather than erasing them and moving on. I'm looking forward to seeing how it all turns out.

Re: Supernatural

Yeah, I wonder if they should've saved Chuck for the legit end.  Maybe end last season with Jack and then slowly find out this year that they were manipulated.  Chuck is the bad guy for the last three episodes.

Although, to be honest, I feel like Chuck is making the classic bad guy move of wanting his bad guys to suffer as opposed to just killing them.  I feel like Chuck's ending is to have the brothers kill each other instead of him killing them.  That keeps the boys safe (from him) for now.

Re: Supernatural

Unfortunately, COVID19 is going to delay the Supernatural finale for "a while" - and even though the CW is picking return dates for the rest of their shows (many of which won't get a true finale), no return date for Supernatural has been announced. 

Do we think maybe they'll save all the remaining episodes and air them as a "mini-season" to prep for the finale?

Re: Supernatural

The CW announced that the plan is for Supernatural to return with its final episodes in the Fall.  Since they still have to film two episodes, that's very much a question.  But, as I said in the DC shows post, that's about the only original programming planned for the CW in the fall.

Re: Supernatural

I was under the impression that the CW network had shuttered SUPERNATURAL  after the entire cast and crew were murdered in a strange event involving the Loom of Fate, an assassin, a shapeshifter and a drunk named John as revealed in the documentary series DC's LEGENDS OF TOMORROW.

Re: Supernatural

ireactions wrote:

I was under the impression that the CW network had shuttered SUPERNATURAL  after the entire cast and crew were murdered in a strange event involving the Loom of Fate, an assassin, a shapeshifter and a drunk named John as revealed in the documentary series DC's LEGENDS OF TOMORROW.

Ha!

I wonder why they didn't do a full crossover.  I know Jared and Jensen have talked about it with Stephen Amell years ago.  They couldn't get anyone to show up and play themselves?  Was Alexander Calvert busy?

Re: Supernatural

I haven't really been keeping up with SUPERNATURAL and am not familiar with this show. But I've now found another account indicating that SUPERNATURAL was abruptly cancelled in the middle of Season 6 after recurring actor Mischa Collins was murdered in a Vancouver alleyway and then a guest-actor went on an inexplicable shooting spree during which he murdered series creator and former showrunner Erik Kripke and lead actors Jensen Ackles and Jared Padelecki were too traumatized to resume filming, meaning SUPERNATURAL abruptly ended with episode 14 of Season 6 and the CW posthumously aired Kripke's OCTOCOBRA in his honour.

There was a high school musical sequel that the CW indifferently permitted to be performed. This production wrapped up the series satisfactorily, but it was, as I recall, written by a fan who dashed it off in a fugue writing state and it involved musical solos and aliens and there were some scenes involving rock star vampires, fat craving zombies, breeder parasites, killer robots, dinosaurs, dragons and remote controlled cars that shoot laser cannons or I may have confused that with some other fan fiction sequel.

Re: Supernatural

ringringring ringringring

LAUREN: "What."

IB: "Hey, I just watched the episode of SUPERNATURAL where Kaia comes back to life and I think it had alternate dialogue in one scene."

LAUREN: "Yeah?"

IB: "When Jody Mills says that Claire is in Yosemite, there was a weird insert shot where Kim Rhodes turned to the camera and said, 'This is our not terribly convincing explanation to cover how Kathryn Newton was busy filming THE SOCIETY this week.'"

LAUREN: "Pfft."

Re: Supernatural

Looks like SUPERNATURAL resumes filming on August 18 -- and the actors will need to self-quarantine for two weeks before that.
http://www.hollywoodnorth.buzz/2020/07/ … ugust.html

Re: Supernatural

Nice!!

Re: Supernatural

Last year, with my niece:

IB: "I think it is unbelievable, Lauren, that you would turn your back on your faith, your belief system, your theological studies and the bedrock of your foundational philosophies in favour of some empty diversions in amusement and ornamentation. You will be excommunicated for this."

LAUREN: "Pffft. I'm sure I will."

Lauren's mother enters the room.

HEATHER: "What's going on here? Who's getting excommunicated?"

LAUREN: "Ib says I'm turning my back on my religion because I decided to go to Disneyland instead of a SUPERNATURAL convention."

HEATHER: "Sorry I asked."

IB: "Hey, Lauren, which one is Sam and which one is Dean again? This is the show where they fight ghosts in New York City and their headquarters are an old fire station, right?"

**

Last night:

IB: "I'm sorry we didn't get to see Eileen, I know you like her."

LAUREN: "Well, it was a bottle episode. All in the bunker."

IB: "I wonder what it means that Dean came home from his date at night instead of the morning. I mean, Sam came home from his date before the morning. Does that mean it went badly?"

LAUREN: "I don't know. I can't tell."

IB: "Sorry I got Sam and Dean confused. I'd like to tell you that I do it just to annoy you, but no, I get them mixed up. I hope this slight against your religion doesn't incite a holy war or anything."

LAUREN: "You misspoke. I misspeak too."

IB: "I know who they are, I just get mixed up sometimes because Jared Padalecki played a character named Dean on GILMORE GIRLS."

LAUREN: "I believe you!"

IB: "You know, I feel insulted that Mrs. Butters waxed the Impala but we never got to see it. Oh, and Dean looked so sad when Mrs. B gave him a grilled cheese sandwich and then said he had to kill Jack. Jensen played that moment so beautifully."

LAUREN: "Haha, yeah. It's the story of Dean's life."

Re: Supernatural

I've enjoyed the first few since the show returned.

Re: Supernatural

I upgraded my laptop today. Like Transmodiar's life, it started out in good shape already when it came home from the store with an Intel i7 processor, a dedicated graphics card, 4GB of RAM, and a 1TB spinning hard drive. Now it has 32GB of RAM, a 256GB NVMe solid state drive and a 1TB SATA solid state drive. It is the most powerful computer I've ever held. It can conquer any adversary, triumph over any computing challenge. And now that this gaming laptop is operating at maximum capacity, I shall devote its powers to its most taxing obstacle course yet. I'm going to write three WAYWARD SISTERS screenplays for my niece as a Christmas present!

Re: Supernatural

Can Lisa Braeden have a cameo?

Re: Supernatural

Slider_Quinn21 wrote:

Can Lisa Braeden have a cameo?

There's many I'd like to see, for sure, though I suspect Bobby and Michael/Adam, possibly Jody, will be the main ones.

Re: Supernatural

I can't speak to the series finale specifically, but I've read that due to COVID-19, it became unfeasible to have all the guest-stars they wanted because they would have had to cover the cost of having every performer quarantine for two weeks for a brief cameo. But they must have been able to get some, because some special guest-stars were sighted and on call sheets. Just not all the ones you expect. It's really sad. BLINDSPOT, which had its series finale earlier this year, had a guest-star from nearly every previous episode for the last installment and there's always a joyful sense of closure to seeing familiar faces back for a series finale.

I hope they get Jody and Donna. It looks like they couldn't get Kathryn Newton.

**

I'm sure absolutely nobody cares about my WAYWARD SISTERS fan fiction which is aimed at an audience of one, so I'm going to make it a post-script. I'm trying to write three scripts, 46 pages each (to be plausible teleplays and they need to be done in time for Christmas). The conceit I've concocted is that after WAYWARD SISTERS wasn't picked up, the CW purchased two extra episodes of SUPERNATURAL for Season 14 and one extra episode for Season 15 -- but these would be episodes with the WAYWARD SISTERS cast, and I want them to slot into the existing continuity of the series like a media tie-in novel. I'm writing these for my niece who loves SUPERNATURAL, loved the idea of WAYWARD SISTERS and I'm assuming she is a bit sad that Claire and Kaia (whom she heatedly shipped) will never have an onscreen reunion. I'm writing these for her as a Christmas gift.

1 - Hunter's Rage (14.3b)
Reeling from the disaster in the Bad Place, Claire dives into hunting with reckless abandon, taking risk after risk and dangling herself as bait for any monster she can find. Avoiding Jody and Donna and her extended family, Claire soon finds herself into a trap with no backup, no rescue and no way out. This story is set before the events of Season 14, Episode 3 ("The Rage") and would fill in the gap where Claire went from not knowing Kaia too well and feeling guilty about her death to considering Kaia her "first love," as Jody puts it in "The Scar." It's a really interesting writing challenge and I have an idea for how to give Claire that journey inside a TV episode.

2 - Hunter's Reckoning (15.11b)
Claire's search for Kaia's killer hits a dead end in Yosemite, but during a stop for gas, food and water, Claire comes across a peculiar town where everyone has lost the ability to die. This story is set before the events of "Galaxy Brain" (in which Kaia came back to life) and features the return of Harper Sayles, the necromancer with the zombie boyfriend from Season 14 because I like the actress, Maddie Phillips, who was just awesome in TEENAGE BOUNTY HUNTERS which has sadly been cancelled. I don't believe SPN was able to get Maddie Phillips back to play Harper again even though her character is supposed to be hunting Jack.

3 - Hunter's Reunion (15.12b)
En route to Sioux Falls, Jody, Kaia and Claire are interrupted by a storm and take shelter in an abandoned campground with a terrible secret beneath the earth. (I don't really know what this one's about plotwise, but I there's so much interesting characterization to mine: Claire has all these romantic feelings to Kaia whereas Kaia has probably given Claire no thought in the two years Kaia spent roughing it; Claire has all these fantasies about Kaia that will be confronted with actual reality; I'm also going to have to write a lesbian sex scene for my niece to read, but for it to be plausible, it can't venture outside the limits of what the CW would be willing to air and I've also never written a sex scene before.)

Re: Supernatural

Oh man, I thought the finale was really touching.  I'm a bit surprised but not at all ashamed to say that I shed some tears.  I can wait until people have watched it to do any full commentary.

251 (edited by Grizzlor 2020-11-20 12:41:37)

Re: Supernatural

I watched it off the DVR this morning.  I thought the "clip show" was well done.  I most ways, the previous episode was really the finale.  "Carry On" was definitely touching, and I think totally fine the way they ended it.  Seen many fan comments about Dean which they were unhappy about, but I mean, they won, so, what more was there to do?

The other cool thing for me, they aired exactly 327 episodes of the show, and while "Baby" was a '67 Impala I believe it's only likely to have a small block Chevy.  One of the most prominent engines GM ever sold, the 327 cubic inch!

PS: I think we can do full commentary, I mean, there's only a few of us commenting on the thread and we've probably all seen it.

Re: Supernatural

I'm looking forward to watching it tomorrow.

Re: Supernatural

So regarding Dean....

.
.
.
.
.

I think the death made sense.  I wish he'd had a bit more happiness, but he needed to die a warrior's death.  If you'd flipped Sam and Dean in the finale, Dean would've been depressed.  He tried the normal life, and it wasn't what he wanted.  Some people can't die quietly at home - they need to go out fighting.  I thought it was a little odd that he died the way he did, but he won the war.  I think Dean would've been content with just about any death after defeating Chuck.

One thing I thought was interesting is the two boys.  When they pulled up to the barn, I started worrying what would happen.  The story I wrote for them was that the Winchesters would end up taking the boys in and training them to be hunters.  When Dean died, I thought Sam would.  Train the next generation of hunters.  I think that could've been a fitting ending.  Maybe even switch the deaths and have Dean be the new John. 

The odd thing about the finale was how open-ended it was regarding the universe while being fairly closed for the brothers.  I guess they could do a Sam and Dean (the son) movie, but Dean's definitively dead.  I think they left the universe open (Jack didn't destroy all the monsters) so that they could revisit the universe, but it was odd that they didn't definitively leave open any way for Jensen and Jared to both come back.  But the universe is still ready if any spin-off ever wants to happen.

Re: Supernatural

I watched episodes 19 and 20 last night and I thought both were really good. Episode 19 was an effective season finale. Sam, Dean and Jack wandering through an empty world was an eerie and pandemic possible-method of finishing filming on the season and Rob Benedict's depiction of a villainous 'God' has never been better with Benedict's warmth, charm and sincerity revealed as a falsely-affable shell on top of a demented, indifferent and sadistically amused entity. The sheer pettiness of Chuck disappearing a dog simply to needle Dean was painful. And the repeated shots of Chuck striking down Sam and Dean only for them to keep getting back up was powerful. And Chuck's fate to live out a normal human life was highly effective and fitting.

The only part that didn't work for me -- the boys' somehow expecting Michael's betrayal was odd, as was Michael's betrayal in general. The alternate universe version had proven vengeful and determined to kill Chuck; this Michael being loyal to Chuck regardless of Chuck's betrayals was peculiar. There was also something arbitrary about it to me; Michael could have just as easily warned Chuck of the false spell knowingly to lure him out. But it went by so fast that it didn't seem to matter.

It was a very interesting choice to wrap up all of the Season 15 plots in Episode 19 as much as possible and leave the slate clear for one last episode. There were some unfortunate setbacks that couldn't be resolved: despite a presumed offscreen restoration, we will never see Donna or Charlie or Eileen reinstated to reality onscreen. It sounds like the intention to bring those performers back was there, but once the pandemic hit, it became impossible to afford the cost of flying everyone to fly to Vancouver and housing them in quarantine for two weeks if they'd only be on set for a day to film their shots.

Episode 20 was an interesting depiction of what Sam and Dean's lives would be if Chuck were not constantly engineering apocalyptic situations every year that put them at the center of everything. They would fight monsters of the week. They would have pie. They would save people. They would age. And they would die either in one of their monster hunts or from old age.

The episode is somewhat marred by showing Sam's marriage but not whom he married; on a second viewing and on pause, the woman standing out of focus at a distance looks like Jared Padalecki's wife Genevieve. In the fictional reality of the show, the woman is clearly meant to be a restored Eileen, but it looks like it was simply impossible to afford the cost of having Shoshannah Stern flown in, put up in a hotel for 14 days and then on set for that shot. But it seems unlikely that Sam's wife is anybody else after this past season where the show resurrected Eileen from the dead, had Sam go out on a date with her offscreen, and had him texting her urgently two weeks previous. It looks like, because they couldn't get the actress, they didn't want to insist that it was her and draw attention to her absence, so there's no photograph of Stern to be seen; they decided to film it ambiguously rather than try to summon the presence of a performer who couldn't be there and let the audience summon her instead.

The pandemic also seemed to force a number of unfortunate but unavoidable concessions; there is decidedly less physical contact between the brothers, Jack and Bobby than one would expect. No hugs. A very minimal amount of touching, some of it engineered through clever editing and what may or may not be frame manipulation. These disappointments will be immortalized. SUPERNATURAL survived for 15 years on the same economics as SMALLVILLE and those god-awful horror movies that Rewatch Podcast is perpetually reviewing; it didn't make big money, but it also didn't cost big money, so it was also earning reliably. It's unlikely the resources will be there to film a few shots of Shoshannah Stern or Briana Buckmaster or Felicia Day to integrate into 19 and 20 for a future release. This is what it is.

I assume that if there were a Season 16, the child versions of Sam and Dean would appear in the present day, age into the present day Jared and Jensen through some magical MacGuffin. And I do expect a SUPERNATURAL Season 16 comic book at some point. But I think this is the end as a TV show: the spinoffs never came together, the lead actors are very, very tired and they have been working on the show a decade after they thought it would end. Season 5 would have been a great ending, but Season 15 was a good ending.

Re: Supernatural

I do wonder what would've been the original plan for the finale.  Because I don't think the ending felt stretched out.  It might've been Eileen in the scene where Sam dies and the scene where Sam is playing with Dean?  I never really thought that we'd seen John and Mary and Rufus in Heaven.  They needed a messenger, and while all of them would've made sense, I think Bobby made the most sense (you could make a really good case for John, but I think Bobby meant a ton to Dean).

The more I think about it, I think the ending makes a lot of sense.  Sam wanted a family and peace - Dean just wanted everyone to be safe.  Sam got to live in peace, and Dean got to rush to the big family reunion. 

One question I had coming out - did Sam stay a hunter?  Looks like Dean had the anti-possession tattoo, but I think it could've easily been just to get one like his dad's.  Or, even if they weren't hunting, Sam could've made him get the tattoo just to make sure demons stayed away from his son.

So if they ever do want to come back, Sam and Dean (the son) hunting could work.  I also assume they could bring Sam and Dean out of Heaven for one last job.  That could make some sense.  Because, yeah, all the spinoffs area dead, but if the actors get the itch, the CW would love a limited series return or a movie of some sort.

Did you read that Jensen was dissatisfied with the finale?

Re: Supernatural

According to an interview with Andrew Dabb and Jensen Ackles, the finale's story was largely the same -- but anything involving large numbers of extras or returning guest stars was cut. There was an intended montage of guest-stars, so I assume that we would have seen Charlie, Donna, the alternate Bobby and others restored to reality in 15x19 and that we would have seen Eileen and Sam raising their son in 15x20.

I did read that Ackles wasn't happy with the ending, but he didn't specify what he wasn't happy with and he also said that Kripke assured him that Dabb's ending was the right one and he accepted it.

I remarked to my niece that to see Felicia Day die once is tragic; to see her die in the same show twice suggests that Chuck's rather sadistic. It's a shame production didn't film everyone being reinstated to reality at the same time as they filmed the erasures.

I also think that Castiel was supposed to be present. He's mentioned as working with Jack, but he's not onscreen and I have no idea why; I read that Misha Collins was quarantining in Vancouver, but that could have been a mistaken report. It's possible that with all the risks, production elected to not bring back an actor for whom they'd filmed a death scene before the shutdown.

From a storytelling stance, though, the finale was supposed to show Sam and Dean without Chuck's ongoing interference and from that perspective, it makes sense to show the brothers without Jack, without angels, and without anything other than Eric Kripke's original intention of SUPERNATURAL as a series about two brothers hunting American urban legends and the result that would come if Chuck hadn't been artificially extending the series for 10 seasons after the Lucifer/Michael battle was concluded.

The implication of the montage is that Sam continued to hunt as he responded to a call for help. It's the last image we have of Sam engaged with his career as a hunter. There is no later image to suggest that he walked away from the profession. At the same time, if any fans prefer to think that Sam retired, there is an open space for fans to think that.

It's the same logic by which I'd say that the woman standing at a distance behind Sam is Eileen; the last explicit update we ever got on Sam's romantic life had him dating Eileen, so any woman Sam subsequently marries is likely Eileen -- although if fans want to slot in any love interests that Sam met over the last 15 seasons who weren't killed off, there is again space to do that.

A lot of fans are upset that the finale was not explicit that Eileen was Sam's wife, something that could have been achieved through Sam engaging in sign language to the woman in the background or showing the actress in photographs. But... I really, really did not like it when the show tried to summon the presence of Kathryn Newton as Claire by having Claire text Jody from offscreen or having Jody say that Claire was in Yosemite. It was clumsy and artless. They might as well have had Kim Rhodes turn to the camera and say, "We couldn't get Kathryn because she's busy filming THE SOCIETY and also, ever since DETECTIVE PIKACHU and BLOCKERS, she's gotten really expensive."

I concede that I don't have an alternative to that. The show needed to address Kaia's fate and Claire's situation even if Claire wouldn't appear on camera. But I appreciated how the finale did not try to hammer Eileen into the episode without having Shoshannah Stern to swing the hammer. As Informant would say, you have to know when to hold them and when to fold them, and the finale accepted that it didn't have Stern and didn't have Eileen -- but it made some space so that if you wanted it to be Eileen, then it was Eileen, and if you wanted it to be Dr. Cara Roberts / Lana / Lori / Sparrow Jennings / Velma from SCOOBY DOO or someone else, it could be.

Re: Supernatural

The previous episode was the finale for me, and yes, maybe the way they "stuck it" to Chuck was a bit hokey, but I think that was the point.  I felt it was a very A-Team kind of story resolution, which is a good thing. 

The finale was simply an epilogue.  Was it necessary?  That I'm not sure, as they'd largely resolved the series the previous episode.  However, I mean, it's the last one, and I think it was a unique take on it, because with Chuck out of the picture, you feel like their lives return to how they were perhaps meant to be.  Honestly I felt it was a very heartwarming way to end the show, and again, both actors have no issue "returning to the characters" at some point in the future.  It may have sucked for future fan fiction, but it is what it is.  Eric Kripke has said that his finale would have really been hated, telegraphing that pretty much everybody goes out in a blaze of horrific glory, ha ha.

I wound up being lambasted on the SPN Facebook page for saying that the show basically closed all the arcs.  A bunch of mainly female fans they proceeded to read me the riot act on how a dozen different characters were not resolved.  Honestly, I had to google most of them!  They appeared like ONCE on the show.  These people are nuts.  Also, who Sam's wife was really isn't important.  Like I said, it was a 30-minute epilogue for a 15-season show.

Re: Supernatural

Yeah that's kinda how I felt.  And it's a 15-year show with two leads.  I think it's perfectly fine to make the show about them.  Cas got his finale.  Jack got his finale.  Bobby got more than one finale.  John got a couple.  Mary got a couple.

Again, the only real complaint that would make any sense is Dean's death.  One that it happened and two that it happened the way it did.  And I maintain that if Dean could write his ending, dying after saving a couple of kids from some legacy vampires is probably pretty high on his list.  Even if Sam had died and Dean had lived as a John figure to those boys he saved, Dean needed to go out in a blaze of glory like John and Bobby and Rufus did.  It's the hunter way, and Dean was a true hunter.  Sam didn't care as much, which is why you could easily see Sam go into retirement.  I mostly agree with ireactions regarding whether Sam retired, but my head canon says that he stopped hunting as soon as Dean was born.

Did they pick the best way to kill Dean?  I don't know.  Again, it was a case from John's book, and a vampire is formidable.  The rebar part is a little off, but it needed to be a death that allowed Dean to win the fight decisively and then have time to talk to Sam.  And a death where Sam doesn't have reason to rush him to the hospital.

The other question is - could Jack have saved him?  Could Cas?  And I think the answer to that is that Dean needed to die right then.  He'd done his work.  And he could've lived for another 20 years and saved a few hundred more people, but there are other hunters that could do that.  And Dean deserved an eternity of happiness.  He'd earned it, and there was no reason to make him wait any longer.

Re: Supernatural

I assume that even a retired Sam would train new hunters, give advice, set up waystations and teams, collate new data on monsters, maintain a weekly email newsletter, let people know about exciting sales of wolfsbane and dead man's blood, etc..

**

I can understand the irritation that after 15 seasons of battling werewolves, vampires, poltergeists, serial killers, Satan, archangels, Leviathans, mutated angels, Robert Singer, the King of Hell, the Men of Letters, God's disgruntled sister, the FBI, God himself and dental cavities, it's frustrating for Dean to be taken out by a vampire and a nail. But to me, that just captures how death sucks whether it's some self-sacrificing explosion or a small scuffle. Death is never happy in real life, and SUPERNATURAL was quite true to life in that respect.

In addition, Dean has died 112 times: 106 freak accidents in "Mystery Spot," a car accident, dragged to hell, shot to death, becoming Death and self-induced death to talk to Death (twice). The only death that the show hadn't done at this point was something small and low-key. As for whether or not Dean had to die -- I think that it was a dramatic necessity because the show had repeatedly resurrected Dean (and Sam). But this was to be the series finale, and rather than leave fans wondering how Sam and Dean would come back for some hypothetical Season 16, they showed Dean die and in the afterlife to make it clear that this was the end.

There's also the fact that SUPERNATURAL has had a decidedly unromantic view of death, often at its own cost and to the outrage of fans, specifically with Kevin Tran and Charlie -- but I'm not sure SUPERNATURAL was wrong to kill those characters the way it did. There was a strange sense of consequence to Kevin's death. He was only ever expected to be a guest star, but Osric Chau won over the fans and the cast and crew, so they kept him on -- but the character was in a difficult position. His mother was kidnapped. His girlfriend was murdered. He couldn't protect them.

Kevin was not a fighter, and while the show could have had him training with Sam and Dean and present him as combat capable, there came a point of no return where Kevin had spent so long as a non-combatant that it was too late to overturn it. Kevin was a scholarly student hiding in the bunker, incapable of defending himself against monsters like Sam and Dean -- so his eventual death at the hands of any threat that could gain access to the bunker was inevitable.

The show refused to excuse itself or Kevin from this painful but inescapable path of cause and effect, only giving Kevin the slight comfort that in death, he could bid farewell to his mother before Chuck sent him to heaven -- except it turned out Chuck sent him to hell to keep him in circulation for future episodes of his favourite show. (Presumably, Jack sent Kevin to the rebuilt heaven afterwards.)

And with Charlie, we had a somewhat inverted version of Kevin that came to the same unfortunate conclusion. Charlie rose to the challenges of becoming a hunter: she became combat ready, she drew upon her past skills to defend herself in her new life, she proved able to disguise herself, she was fit for life as a wanderer and researcher and fighter. But the life of a hunter is constant, endless, repeated exposure to deadly situations with enemies who are stronger than any human. Hunters survive based on knowledge of monster's weaknesses, partnerships, teams, preparations -- but those can fail and in the end, Charlie was trapped in a room with a monster too strong for her to beat and she died.

This was incredibly offensive to many fans. Felicia Day was offended. The cast were offended; when Season 10 showrunner Jeremy Carver was asked to explain this at a convention, the cast and crew around Carver took a step back from the microphones; they would not defend him or side with him. Carver said that it was where the story took him and ultimately, Charlie's death was upsetting and hurtful because death is upsetting and hurtful and most hunters die horribly.

The fan protest is that Sam and Dean have repeatedly been spared death and that surely a beloved character played by a beloved actress had earned the same privileges as the straight white men who lead the show; that surely a lesbian and a female hunter and a beloved role model to young girls and LGBTQ viewers should be excused from the likely outcome of a dangerous life, and that refusing to give some of Sam and Dean's privilege to Charlie and Felicia Day proved ghastly and horrific.

And I can see that -- except the show seems to have addressed that with Season 14 - 15, noting that Sam and Dean were spared because Chuck spared them. Because they were his "favourite show." Season 15 in "The Heroes Journey" further notes that Sam and Dean have been granted many special exemptions by being the leads of Chuck's favourite show that other characters like Bobby, Garth, Kevin and Charlie don't receive. Sam and Dean have exemptions from death, credit limits, parking tickets, the common cold, car battery failures, dental decay, indigestion and food allergies.

It's also fair for fans to feel sad that many guest-stars and recurring characters never got an on camera resolution. This was an unfortunate effect of the pandemic making it impossible to bring back many guest stars for the finale. I am sad that we never saw Jack face off against Harper Sayles the necromancer again. But -- the unfortunate truth is that any show that makes it five years (never mind 15) is going to have unresolved arcs because TV is perpetually hit by actor unavailability or sudden changes in the rush to crank out 20 - 25 episodes a year. No series escapes this.

From a creative standpoint, SUPERNATURAL absolutely grasped that it needed to give its guest-stars more screentime and development, especially its female characters. Over several seasons, the show built a cast of recurring female guest stars in Jody Mills, Donna Hanscum, Alex and Claire and then built momentum to launch a spinoff in WAYWARD SISTERS, a place where they could finally offer their female players the same advantages as Sam and Dean. The spinoff wasn't picked up due to (a) Kathryn Newton's success in BLOCKERS and DETECTIVE PIKACHU making her more expensive and (b) the CW having a lot of other shows that year that wouldn't come with the Kathryn Newton pricetag. The SUPERNATURAL creators had absolutely no control over that; they saw their own flaws with women, they attempted to balance it out, but their measure was rejected by the network.

Also, SUPERNATURAL addressed the Charlie issue by bringing in an alternate universe version of Charlie which proved satisfactory. This would suggest to me that the issue was not killing off Charlie, but rather killing off Felicia Day, and since Felicia Day returned to the show, SUPERNATURAL's point with Charlie's death has a clearer validity: hunters lead dangerous lives and will likely die during a hunt, their deaths will be violent, and death is always upsetting. And ultimately, once Chuck was no longer forcing Sam and Dean to be the star of his favourite show, Dean was treated in the same way as Charlie: he lived a life of constant kill or be killed situations and he was killed. His number came up.

Could Jack have saved Dean? Of course. But Jack freed Dean (and Sam), liberating them from the endless cycle of death and resurrection and being at the center of Chuck's favourite show. To resurrect Dean again would have been to steal his freedom instead of granting him peace.

I think it's fine to dislike it. But it was a perfectly valid writing choice and there weren't that many options that hadn't been explored after 326 episodes.

Re: Supernatural

ireactions wrote:

In addition, Dean has died 112 times: 106 freak accidents in "Mystery Spot," a car accident, dragged to hell, shot to death, becoming Death and self-induced death to talk to Death (twice).

Maybe it was in the episode where Dean died a bunch of times, but didn't a reaper or Death tell the boys that they'd died many more times than that?  I can't remember the context but I keep having this thought that the universe was repeatedly fixed numerous times so that the Winchesters wouldn't die.  So whatever situation would happen where Sam and Dean would live, that's the situation that would happen.  I feel like it was pre-Chuck storyline, but I can't guarantee the scene ever even happened.

Either way, I think the "unlucky" episode proves that the Winchesters, while very talented, aren't the incredible hunters that we've been led to believe.  They have infinite deaths on, and anyone can beat any game if you have infinite chances.  And in addition to being in a very dangerous line of work, I felt like the brothers were also pretty impulsive and reckless.  Even in the final confrontation, they aren't doing much recon, and they go in just expecting to come out the other side.  With no cheat code on, one of them didn't.

Re: Supernatural

Billie in 11x02, "Form and Void":
You and Dean dying and coming back again and again -- the old Death thought it was funny, but now there is one hard fast rule in this universe: what lives, dies. So the next time you or your brother bite it, well, you're not going to heaven or hell. One of us -- and Lord, I hope it's me -- we're going to make a 'mistake' and toss you out into the Empty. And nothing comes back from that.

I don't recall Billy giving a number of deaths.

As for "The Heroes' Journey," I genuinely don't think the authorial intent was to say that Sam and Dean were talentless and inept and only ever propped up by Chuck. It's simply that they were given the means to bypass things that Kevin, Charlie, Bobby, Rufus, John and Mary had to deal with.

Sam and Dean's sudden inability to pick a lock is often cited as an example of the brothers being incompetent without Chuck stacking the deck in their favour. But, in my view, it's actually a subtle DOCTOR WHO reference to how after many seasons of the Doctor being stalled and delayed by locked doors, the writers introduced the sonic screwdriver and spared the audience the tedium. (Any show that names a character "Amy Pond" has some WHO fans on staff.)

Chuck clearly didn't find it entertaining to watch Sam and Dean delayed by locks, so he gave them a sonic screwdriver -- lockpicking -- but once he lost interest in them, it became something they had to deal with.

Also, "Heroes Journey" has Chuck deciding that anything that can possibly go wrong for Sam and Dean will finally go wrong. No one would miraculously manifest cavities within weeks, so Chuck was now stacking the deck against them -- and any lockpick artist will be defeated by a lock at some point.

It's also a bit comforting, in some ways.

Dean in "The Real Ghostbusters":
I think that the Dean and Sam story sucks. It is not fun. It is not entertaining. It is a river of crap that would send most people howling to the nut house. So you listen to me. Their pain is not for your amusement. I mean do you think they enjoy being treated like... like circus freaks?

While Dean's life has been horrific, he has also enjoyed a life without worrying about bills, cavities, colds or car trouble except for a brief two week period. He may have been cursed by God, but he was also blessed in many ways.

Re: Supernatural

Look you have to work backwards when you are the creative staff wrapping up a 15-year series in one hour long episode.  You guys I agree with, the Chuck-led story ended.  Had there been another season, I'm sure Chuck probably tries to magic his way to one up Jack.  Save that, I mean, what was left for The Winchesters to even do?  What were the writers to show, the boys fighting the SAME creatures over and over, for another 30-40 years?  I mean, they literally defeated Death (twice), God, Amara, Lucifer (frequently), arch-Angels, original vamp, Egyptian Gods, Roman Gods, I lost track.  Their friends were basically all gone.  They beat the game!!  They unlocked all the secrets.  It's over.  Sure Dean and Sam might have both retired, but the point of the story was that Dean would NEVER retire.  Hunting was his life.  Sam lived it for Dean, not himself.  As I've said, beyond the questionable makeup choices on JarPad, I felt it was the RIGHT way to write the finale.

Re: Supernatural

I've already given how I would do it - which actually isn't all that different from how they did it.  I would've ended with Sam or Dean dying the same way they did, and the other raising the two boys they found as hunters.  A new John and two new Winchester boys.  I think there's a symmetry to that that I like.

I think my other alternative would've been to have Jack erase all the monsters.  End the hunt for good.  And the finale plays somewhat similar - the brothers are bored, Dean gets pie, and then Dean dies saving someone.  Maybe they starts tracking down human monsters, and they get in over their heads.  Or maybe it's just some sort of accident in a burning building or on the side of the highway.  And keep the rest the same.

I think either keeping up the family business or closing it up for good are the only better endings.  For me, at least.

Re: Supernatural

*sigh* So busy lately...

I was very satisfied with the SUPERNATURAL ending. The only thing that I would have changed would have been for the CW to announce that they would have WAYWARD SISTERS next year after all.

That said, I was surprised when my niece, a big SUPERNATURAL fan, told me that she was deeply disappointed with it.

Historically, she has strongly disliked Eugenie Ross-Leming and Brad Buckner scripts for being filled with forced, plot-driven occurences with characters making nonsensical choices to serve the plot, and she felt that "Inherit the Earth" had Ross-Leming and Buckner's worst tendencies from a contrived and rushed means of defeating Chuck to a random and unearned betrayal from Michael and a ridiculously haphazard deceit from the Winchesters.

She was also dismayed by Jack being a God who would do absolutely nothing as though inaction and indifference were somehow to be admired. "You can tell that SUPERNATURAL was started by a Jewish writer and finished by two Christian writers," she said, and she was also unimpressed by Jack's claims that he would be present in all aspects of life but absent in any practical sense.

She thought it was a waste of dramatic potential for Dean to have no further development on Castiel's apparent death. She was also disappointed by "Carry On," noting that the episode seemed to be struggling to fill its timeslot with two musical montages and she disliked the idea that the point of life was to die and reach the afterlife.

I talked a bit about how Charlie and Kevin's deaths were to show how hunters lead dangerous lives and that Dean, once no longer having his life written by Chuck, suffered the same fate as so many other hunters and that it made sense. I said I felt that Jack might not write events for drama as Chuck did, but to me, the definitive Jack-scene is "The Bad Place" where Jack attends a Narcotics Anonymous group and regards the attendees with interest, enthusiasm, respect and without any judgement, pleased to be present, requesting assistance but not forcing it -- and that I imagined Jack using his omniscience to be there for people in a conversational sense but never a dictatorial one -- although I confess that this is not in the show, based in my fondness for the TV show JOAN OF ARCADIA where God makes requests and offers advice but does not coerce, threaten or offer anything in return. ("I don't bargain; that would be cruel.")

My niece replied that while my responses were very logical, she was more concerned with the themes of the series and she felt that the finale didn't fulfill them, although she said that it was more about the 15 year journey than the finale at the end of it.

I just really wish, for her, that WAYWARD SISTERS had been picked up. She loves SUPERNATURAL conventions and travels around the continent to attend them, but she doesn't go for Jared and Jensen. She goes for Kim Rhodes, Briana Buckmaster, Ruth Connell, Rob Benedict, Richard Speight Jr. and it's a shame that Rhodes and Buckmaster never got their show.

Re: Supernatural

Something interesting about Chuck.

In Season 11's "Don't Call Me Shurley," Chuck expressed irritation with humanity and a desire to give up and let Amara destroy it all. Chuck pointed out that the angels, despite being given their freedom, had chosen to continue pursuing the Apocalypse. Castiel had become a mutated angel of his own accord. Dean had pushed for Death to restore Sam's soul; Sam had insisted on restoring Dean from a demonic existence that ultimately led to Amara being unlocked.

Chuck declared he was done watching his children fail and that he was done -- until Metatron, an unlikely advocate for humanity, demanded that Chuck stop seeing himself as an awkward human being and as God Almighty and respect humanity's perseverance, creativity and indomitable spirit at which point Chuck decided to get involved. Chuck resurrected the dead, approached the Winchesters, brought Kevin's ghost to the bunker and sent him to heaven and won the Winchester's (hesitant) trust. Metatron would later sacrifice himself pleading for humanity to be spared.

Informant watched these episodes and declared that Chuck hadn't really been depressed and hadn't given up on humanity and was just pretending to be an indifferent God to inspire Metatron to get back on track. In terms of the actual onscreen events, this was Informant's usual attitude to God; that only Informant's view of a Christian God is permitted to be considered, worshipped or depicted in fiction -- to the point of declaring with no onscreen evidence whatsoever that Chuck was play acting in his exasperated frustration with Sam, Dean and Castiel.

Except... as of "Moriah" in Season 14, it turned out that Informant was absolutely right about one thing -- Chuck was indeed playacting in Season 11. "Moriah" asserts that Chuck has been deliberately forcing Sam and Dean to the center of every apocalyptic crisis because SUPERNATURAL is his "favourite show" -- and given that Chuck would not have wanted his favourite show to end with Amara destroying all reality in Season 11 (or end at all), that means Chuck's indifference to Sam and Dean in Season 11 was indeed feigned.

However, Season 15 asserts that Amara really was a threat to the world and Chuck and exists independently of him. Season 15 also has Chuck, when left to his own devices, utterly sincere in his view of himself as a writer, seeking out former fangirl Becky for inspiration and encouragement in his writing. So how much of Chuck's behaviour in Season 11 was sincere, how much was counterfeit, and why did Chuck lie or pretend to be uncaring that his favourite show could end with Season 11?

This is a question that may or may not have an answer. After Season 5, SUPERNATURAL was generally written one season at a time. In addition, Chuck being the final villain of the series was not intended; in fact, Chuck's true identity was an area where even Eric Kripke himself was decidedly noncommital. He didn't tell Rob Benedict until late into Season 5 that Chuck was God, meaning Benedict played Chuck's terror of angels and awkwardness at fan conventions as absolutely genuine. Chuck's absence from Seasons 6- 11 outside a brief cameo in Season 10's "Fan Fiction" maintained the vague uncertainty.

And in Season 11, Chuck was unquestionably intended to be a force for good by the writers under showrunner Andrew Dabb; the original plan was for Chuck to be killed off after "Don't Call Me Shurley," upping the stakes even more with the boys losing their most powerful ally -- except the CW intervened on Chuck's behalf, declaring that killing off the character of God was courting entirely too much religious and metaphysical controversy for their taste.

The decision to make Chuck a villain tracks with various characters questioning God's motives from Seasons 1 - 13 -- except that having Chuck potentially malevolent was never a serious plan. It was simply an obvious and worthwhile avenue of drama when writing for a largely offscreen character who wasn't around to defend or justify his actions. It's only with Season 13 that SUPERNATURAL began actively laying the groundwork for presenting Chuck as a villain, first by showing a parallel world where he'd abandoned humanity to an angelic apocalypse, and then in Season 14's tenth episode, "Nihilism."

Michael said:
Me and my brother -- my Lucifer -- when we fought in my world, we thought that God would come back. Give us answers: why he'd gone, what we'd done. But instead, do you know what happened?

Nothing. No God. Nothing. And now, now that I'm in here -- now I know why.

God -- 'Chuck' -- is a writer. And like all writers, he churns out draft after draft. My world? This world? Nothing but failed drafts. And when he realizes that they're flawed, he moves on and tries again. Because he doesn't care.

There is a thematic inevitability to God being the final enemy for the Winchester brothers. But retroactively, what was Chuck doing in Season 11? Humanity was genuinely under threat as was Chuck himself; did he decide that, if he had to insert himself into the story, he would wait until the most dramatic moment and risk his favourite show being obliterated? Was that why he pretended to be disenchanted with SUPERNATURAL? Declaring Seasons 6 - 11 to be "all reruns" when the truth was he'd been fervently watching every episode the entire time?

And in his gentleness with the Winchesters -- was that sincere? Or was he playing the role he thought would work best for his story? The role of a cautiously distant but loving father who had, for better or worse, felt he had to stop being a "helicopter parent"?

It's also most interesting: Chuck wins the Winchester's trust by sending Kevin's spirit to heaven. But Season 15 reveals that Chuck sent Kevin to hell. Why? From a behind the scenes standpoint, Season 15 wanted a familiar face to explain the situation and Osiric Chau was available to reprise his role. But from an in-universe perspective, why did Chuck say he was going to give Kevin an "upgrade" to heaven but instead send him to hell?

It's possible that there simply isn't an answer outside of the writers having written Chuck season by season and having had one intention in Season 11 but chosen to alter their plans after that and that's the only explanation we'll ever have.

Re: Supernatural

I have trouble with God in a lot of senses.  When you look at the world and see all the bad stuff, it's easy to see how it's possible that God could be the villain.  Or, at best, gone.  I could understand the villain God from Supernatural or the villain God from Preacher as beings that were "gone" but also, when confronted, were villainous.  There's so many things that happen in life that are both unfair and independent from the free will of others.  I decided at some point that a god that was all powerful couldn't be all good and vice versa.  If he was all powerful and all good, there wouldn't be nearly as much bad.  The all-knowing also bothered me, as God would've known before he created the world all the bad things that would happen as a result.

So I think my version of a fictional God wouldn't be all-knowing or all-powerful.  And probably not all-good - but maybe just very naive when it comes to bad.  He's a being that existed but was lonely.  So he used his immense power to create the universe.  Angels and life.  But it drained him, badly.  And when bad things started happening - rebellion and anger and hate, he was taken aback by it.  And then, whatever happened in the holy texts (whether Christian or Jewish or Muslim) sapped the rest of his power.  And now he can watch humanity and hear humanity but he can't do much else.  He's Oppenheimer - forced to watch whatever happens to his creation with little power to do much else.

And I think if I were writing Chuck, that's what I'd do.  Chuck still has influence.  He can still pop in and out and Heaven still listens to him.  But it'd be interesting if he could be killed.  Or at least overpowered by a demon or even a human.  They get him to show up in Season 11 and he's just essentially Garth.  No skills, no power - just doing his best.

I don't know how that helps with a 15-season arc.  When the devil was defeated in Season 5 and the show kept going, the show never had a logical ending.  And the only thing bigger than beating the devil is beating God.  So I see why they did that.

Although I don't know why the CW would wince at a dead God but be cool with an evil one.

Re: Supernatural

I think, although the CW wouldn't permit Chuck's death in Season 11, they couldn't force the issue in Season 15. What could the CW do to SUPERNATURAL? Cancel it?

God is a difficult character to write. One of the best renditions of the character, JOAN OF ARCADIA, was cancelled in Season 2 and that's always been a shame.

In terms of SUPERNATURAL, I think the show has largely done a decent job, but due to the show being extended to three times its original lifespan, Chuck's characterization and reveals and overall arc are not entirely airtight.

If the intention from Season 4's "The Monster at the End of this Book" had been for Chuck to be eventually revealed as God, certain scenes in "Monster" would not have been present. Chuck is shown alone and experiencing psychic visions of future episodes and seeks to warn Sam and Dean only to be intimidated by the angel Zachariah who informs the agonized Chuck that even if he killed himself, the angels would simply resurrect him.

This doesn't actually track with later episodes where Chuck is decidedly not omniscient with regards to future events. He predicted and planned for Dean to execute Jack with the Equalizer gun and was taken by surprise. And his supposed omniscience didn't allow him to predict Jack siphoning his power; in fact, Jack is a massive blindspot even in his omniscience for present and past events. SUPERNATURAL's prophets are also less precognitive than their title would suggest; they predict inevitable events but not outcomes, much in the same way a mechanic predicts that you'll need an oil change eventually.

Had Chuck been planned all along to be revealed as God, "The Monster at the End of this Book" would have left it vague how Chuck receives his 'visions' (because he doesn't receive any) and rather than have Zachariah frighten Chuck, perhaps Chuck would have fallen asleep and Zachariah would read his next manuscript malevolently. Alternatively, a future Chuck appearance could have revealed that Chuck suppressed his true identity as a 'sleeper' personality not to be reawakened until after "Swan Song."

And had it really been planned all along that Chuck is a sadistic voyeur, I think "Swan Song" would have altered Chuck's monologue slightly, saying that "endings are hard," but then intoning that some endings aren't endings at all, just one door closing while another one opens as we go from Dean eating dinner with Ben and Lisa to Sam somehow restored and watching at a distance -- hinting that Chuck is determined to maneuver events to keep Sam and Dean hunting monsters for even longer.

"Don't Call Me Shurley" would also have needed a slight adjustment: rather than have Chuck indifferent to humanity's impending doom at Amara's hands but ultimately return as a loving father who took a step back, the episode would have needed to present Chuck as a viewer. With "Moriah"'s revelation coming in the future, "Don't Call Me Shurley" could have had Chuck declare that he didn't want his favourite show to end, but it looked like it was ending and he was simply going to keep his distance, survive Amara's onslaught, and then start a new TV show/reality and try again. Metatron would chastise Chuck for his indifference and then declare that if Chuck truly believed in his story and creations, he would get involved in the story even if it might mean Chuck might not exist afterwards to tell a new story should Amara win.

Chuck would respond to Dean saying Chuck abandoned humanity by saying, "I know you think I'm some all powerful deity to be worshipped, but I'm not. I'm just a dad who had to take a beat and let my boys make their own choices, find their own way and fight their own fights -- but I'm here for you now with this fight."

Dean might have protested, "A father's there for his kids! He inspires them! He helps light their way even if he can't carry them, but you just left us in the dark!" And perhaps Chuck would say he'd try to make that right and then at the end of Season 11, he'd declare, "You're right, Dean. I did leave you alone. A parent shouldn't do that. Amara and I want to fix that now," and that would have Mary Winchester return.

But then "Moriah" could reveal that Chuck is actually not the passive viewer he claimed to be. He is the showrunner. And anyone who inflicts this much grief on his children so that he can have more episodes of his "favourite show" is the villain.

There is a degree of wiggle room in that what we see onscreen as Chuck is a facade; the face and charisma and warmth of Rob Benedict is a shell inhabited by a much more complex personality who wields Benedict's affability and emotional accessibility for his own purposes and with Season 15's Chuck using the Benedict skin as a subtly toxic and indirectly cruel blade against those who trusted in Rob's gentle screen presence.

And the writers certainly mined past decisions well and did their best to earn it and play fair with it and did their best not to blatantly contradict the past except in areas that were always open to suspicion of onscreen events. But Seasons 1 - 12 were certainly not building to a grand showdown against Chuck; Rob Benedict was not playing Chuck as God pretending to be normal in Season 4 - 5, nor did he later play Chuck in Season 11 as Chuck as a sadist masquerading as an exasperated father who came back to save his kids.

Ultimately, Chuck's turn to villainy is a retcon, albeit an inevitable (if unexpected) retcon.

Re: Supernatural

I was watching Rob Benedict talk about playing CHUCK and he says that, as is obvious from a rewatch, he was not informed that his Chuck character was actually God or that his Chuck character would be revealed as evil at the end of Season 14 and be the villain of Season 15. Therefore, his acting in one episode could never hint at any revelations in future episodes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRd35H7Eu9w

But it's so interesting: Benedict says that he viewed Chuck as a character perpetually discovering himself: thinking he was a troubled writer, realizing he was a prophet, then realizing he was God, then realizing he was a villain. Benedict explained that a lot of that was because he wasn't told anything about his character beyond each individual script for each individual episode. But the result: Benedict played Chuck as 'God' having brainwashed himself into genuinely thinking himself a human named Chuck with 'God' as a sleeper personality that gradually reasserted itself, first with an aloof divinity at the end of Season 5, then as a blend of Chuck's assumed human identity but with God's power in "Don't Call Me Shurley," but finally with God's true personality at the end of "Moriah" as a cruel voyeur who torments his children for amusement.

It's as good an interpretation as we can get and I commend Mr. Benedict for his rationale and finding a way to believe in what he was performing as an actor who would perform a script with no idea what his character would be doing in the next one.

Andrew Dabb wrote:

I think we’ve done a lot over many seasons to differentiate our God from any one that anyone out there in the actual world worships, if that makes sense. He’s a character on a show, he’s not meant to be a representation of any deity that anyone is in any church praying to.

I think that when you’re writing a writer -- there’s a real danger to making it too authorial. Chuck’s a character. He’s not meant to be me or anyone else on this staff. He’s meant to be a character we’ve created over a number of years.

And the type of writer he is -- I don’t think that’s a very good type of writer.

A good writer will tell you that if you write good characters, they’ll go their own way and talk to you themselves. Chuck is the kind of writer who just wants his characters to do what he wants them to do and he gets frustrated when they -- because they have a little bit of agency -- kind of refuse.

I don’t think he’s a particularly good writer. https://www.themarysue.com/interview-su … drew-dabb/