Re: Supernatural

So, my script is going to be posted tomorrow. It's been very interesting. Lauren obsesses over SUPERNATURAL the way I obsess over SLIDERS, but to the point of religiously attending SUPERNATURAL conventions. The high point of the last one was apparently this pajama party sleepover event with Kim Rhodes (Jody) and Briana Buckmaster (Donna), both of whom feature in my story, so I asked Lauren to take my draft and rewrite all the dialogue based on her personal interaction with the actresses and their line deliveries and sense of timing. It seemed to go really well; the beta reader said that Jody and Donna sounded just like Jody and Donna... so hopefully, it'll work for everyone else as well or the results will be viewed as an absurd caricature of a caricature which would be instructive as well.

Re: Supernatural

Okay. My Episode 5 is up... https://archiveofourown.org/collections … rd_Project

... and I'm not sure why Episode 4 is late/absent/missing in action while the rushed, cranked-out-in-four-hours Episode 5 made it out ahead of Episode 4 and on time, but the irony is hilarious.

Re: Supernatural

I'm a bit behind on Supernatural. Just watched episode 3 of this season, and I'm confused. First of all, they played Kaia as being more important than she was. The emotion they expressed wasn't warranted for a one-off guest star.

They played Claire's connection to her as being something that really didn't come across at the time at all. And... Did they just gay up Claire in an episode where she didn't even appear?

It's like they kept referencing a totally different show than what I was watching last year.


Anyway, it took me a while to watch this episode and I realized that the excitement just wasn't there. I don't think the Dabb era is working for me. It feels more like Once Upon a Time than Supernatural at times.

I'll still watch, but I'm interested in seeing what the next show runner can do.

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

Informant wrote:

I'm a bit behind on Supernatural. Just watched episode 3 of this season, and I'm confused. First of all, they played Kaia as being more important than she was. The emotion they expressed wasn't warranted for a one-off guest star. They played Claire's connection to her as being something that really didn't come across at the time at all. And... Did they just gay up Claire in an episode where she didn't even appear? It's like they kept referencing a totally different show than what I was watching last year.

The actresses were extremely flirtatious throughout the Wayward backdoor pilot episode from their hospital meeting to comparing scars to holding hands. The screenwriter confirmed on Twitter that the Claire/Kaia relationship was intended to be romantic. I'm told that Claire wasn't in this episode because the actress's quote has gone up so the show needs to focus on her whenever she appears to justify her rate.

Re: Supernatural

Maybe I'm just forgetting the backdoor pilot episode, but I have no memory of them being particularly flirty or sexual. Certainly not in any sort of real love. To me, it seemed like every time they referenced what happened in that episode, it was like a weird parallel universe version of what I saw.

I might not have been paying attention during that episode. Like I said, the Dabb era hasn't been drawing my attention as much.

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

The same source also tells me that Robert Singer directed last season's finale drunk.

... It would explain the wire fight and that ending freeze frame.

Re: Supernatural

That would explain a lot. I figured that they were going for a 1980s sci-fi/horror movie vibe, but it just looked bad. It was never even a good idea in the 80s.

The Halloween episode was pretty fun, and reminded me why I still watch this show. The arc episodes are a chore to get through, but the monster of the week episodes are great.

It also looked better than other episodes lately. I don't understand why some episodes of Supernatural look and sound like they were filmed by a soap opera crew, on someone's iPhone (usually the arc/mythology episodes), and other episodes look like legit tv show episodes that people care about. Do they alternate crews or something?

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

SPOILERS

S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S

I never thought this would happen.

https://tvline.com/2018/12/12/supernatu … -spoilers/

Re: Supernatural

About dang time!

Re: Supernatural

Don't get me wrong, it's always good to see Sid running around -- but I feel like SUPERNATURAL has moved past the need for Jeffrey Dean Morgan and they found a good actor to play the younger version of him. The spirit of John Winchester haunts the show, but given that the character is dead and the leads are perpetually struggling with his legacy, the actor's absence has always made sense.

Re: Supernatural

Conversation with the niece!

IB: "So, something I noticed in the episode with the resurrected zombie boyfriend and the serial killer shopgirl -- "

LAUREN: "Yeah?"

IB: "Well, at two points in the episode, Jack and Dean have a clear line of fire to take Harper the Serial Killer Shopgirl out -- but they don't take it. They're keen to stop the zombie boyfriend, but the direction and the blocking and editing are very careful not to show them being physically aggressive towards a woman."

LAUREN: "Well, yeah."

IB: "And a couple seasons ago -- the British Men of Letters organization turned Sam and Dean's mother into a brainwashed assassin who'd killed any number of Sam and Dean's friends. So when they corner the lady who runs the Men of Letters, Sam should be well within his rights to execute this psychotic murderess -- she's declared honest-to-God, all-out war on hunters which is the moral equivalent of sending a sniper after firemen and paramedics. But Sam waits for the lady to pull her weapon BEFORE he shoots her."

LAUREN: "Yeah, it's totally justifiable -- but the show just doesn't want to show men killing women onscreen. Because even if it's not real, it's still -- it's a really disturbing image in real-world situations because in real life, when men kill women, it's about power and dominance and control and SUPERNATURAL doesn't want to endorse that or have footage for that."

IB: "Well, for the third time -- Harper is a serial killer."

LAUREN: "Oh, like Sam and Dean haven't murdered lots of people."

IB: "Like who!? I mean, there was that lady whose blood Sam drank, but she was possessed by a demon -- and there was the werewolf mercy killing -- "

LAUREN: "How about that Frankenstein family member who got dragged into breaking into the bunker?"

IB: "Oh, that's fine."

LAUREN: "How was that fine!?"

IB: "He was part of a home invasion! I'm sorry, but you invade someone's home, you die. Sam and Dean will never feel safe in the bunker again!"

LAUREN: "Oh, I hate the bunker. Sam and Dean are supposed to be working class heroes; I don't like them being heirs to the Men of Letters legacy."

Re: Supernatural

That's actually an interesting dilemma.

For some reason, now I'm trying to figure out where Dean sits politically. I'm fairly certain Sam would be a progressive liberal, but I'm having trouble with Dean.  I think he'd be a conservative, but he's definitely not a MAGA conservative.  He might be a bit more of a John Kasich republican?

(I don't mean to get this political - Lauren's talk about modern imagery got me to #metoo and wondering how the boys would think about modern topics).

Re: Supernatural

My opinion is that SUPERNATURAL is not the real world and that a planet Earth with monsters and angels and demons roaming the streets, even in secret, would be in a very different political place from our world. Dean has spent most of his life living off the grid; I can't imagine him bothering with politics.

I think trying to figure out if he voted for Trump or Clinton or third party or whatever is searching for something that just doesn't exist -- and honestly, I don't think we should bring it into existence. For all my Views about Informant, I would prefer that Informant could look at Dean and see whatever he needs to see. It's already tough for him when Superman is presented as an alien citizen of the world who was raised by a hologram of Jor-El instead of being Clark Kent raised by Jonathan and Martha Kent in Kansas. I would not wish to add to his burden.

There's also the fact that many, many, many different writers and showrunners have written for Dean and many fans have reacted to Dean differently and created their own Dean.

For example, Lauren's personal vision of Dean: he's bisexual. I cannot see this at all; Dean to me is one of the most hilariously, ridiculously heterosexual men on television and while I don't think he's homophobic, he's averse to homosexuality. It makes him uncomfortable. If he saw two men kissing, he would avert his eyes, apologize for his discomfort, declare he's trying to give them privacy and then say something like, "My problem, not yours. You do you, boys."

I don't really see Dean as a sexual harasser, either. Yes, Dean is very into casual sex, but Dean's attitude to women seems to be to approach with a compliment and a willing smile and then let the woman make the next move or fail to in which case he immediately moves on to another prospect. Dean is also deeply, innately unattracted to women who are unassertive; if a woman didn't seem interested in flirting back with him, Dean would lose interest straightaway. Dean wants women who match his sex drive.

Re: Supernatural

Yeah, I don't think they'd have time for politics.  No matter what's happening in the world, they've always got bigger fish to fry.  Global warming isn't a concern when Michael wants to end the world right now.  That would definitely skew any of their thoughts on any real-world issues, all of which they'd consider to be minor and petty compared to what they're dealing with.

But if I can humor myself for a while, I'm considering a world where Sam and Dean exist but monsters do not.  Sam might've gone to college, but I don't see him as a lawyer.  Honestly, I think he'd probably be better off as a teacher, but I could also see him in medicine of some sort.  I think he'd want to do something where he's helping mold or save lives.  I don't see him in a court room at all.  I could see Sam getting into politics.  Volunteering for people he believes in, trying to stir up support and votes for those people.  I think he'd skew liberal, caring about issues with the planet and animals.

Dean would be mostly apolitical.  But I think he's more resistant to change, and I think he'd lean conservative.  He'd be someone who'd support Republicans but would be sorta lost in modern politics.  I think he'd probably have gone into the army for a stint and then come back to be a police officer or federal agent.  He'd find harmony in the order of that, and he'd live off the thrill of danger and saving lives.

I'm now picturing an alternate world where Sam and Dean both live in a small town in Kansas.  Dean is either the Sheriff or a deputy, and Sam is the medical examiner.  They solve crimes together.

Re: Supernatural

I hate to say it, but this season really isn't working for me at all. The Michael thing feels weak, like they're just trying to think of somewhere to go with it, and at times the show is contradicting what's already been established. The whole idea of the Empty as being not only another afterlife where angels go, but also as an actual being runs counter to what we've seen before. God couldn't assemble an army of archangels to fight Amara because they were dead and he didn't have time to make more. If he could just pop over to the next room and wake them up, why didn't he? Jack is powerful, but not *God* powerful.
And how can there be a backdoor for Michael to use to get into Dean, when he would absolutely need a "Yes" to get into any person, and the slightest "No" after that would keep him out?

Having a 12 year old girl (or however old she is) leading an army of hunters (and by "army", I mean "the few who could fit into the back of the car") was weird. Especially since she's already been established as someone who isn't a great hunter.

None of it is working. And while I still love the stand-alone episodes, they don't even seem to be doing many of them this year. An like Marc Zicree said, when you're focusing only on one arc for the whole season, it's really hard to fix what's broken along the way, and so much of the main arcs are broken at this point. I realized that as I was watching Dean's dream world and I found myself wishing that *that* was the show each week. Winchester's Roadhouse would allow them to work with other hunters and give the actors time off when needed, but it would feel more "Supernatural" than what the bunker has become.

Speaking of which... this place was supposed to be so mystically warded that even an angel couldn't get into it without a key. Now they have more people breaking into it than the Arrowcave.


I don't think that the show is so broken that it can't possibly be fixed. However, I do think that it might be time for the next showrunner to step in. Someone who is a fan of the earlier seasons and wouldn't mind rolling back the style a little bit. Supernatural, at its best, is a road trip story, with brothers in a cool car, shooting up monsters and exploring the rich culture of America through its urban legends and folklore. Right now, the show is suffocating itself with its own mythology. I don't want to see it end like The X-Files.

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

Michael remarked on God: "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, 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! About you, me, anything."

As you, Informant, are a writer, what were your thoughts on Michael's thoughts on Chuck as a writer?

Slider_Quinn21 wrote:

Two quick notes: I don't really understand what they're doing with Michael.  Is he evil or is he not?  Because after trying to defeat Michael the whole season, the idea of them just letting him be the hero at the end was really strange.  I also don't really understand why Michael is evil in the Apocalypse World or what he was doing.  Is there no Chuck in the other world?  Did Michael kill Chuck?  Because Chuck was around during the Michael/Lucifer fight in the main world, and he was actively working to help the brothers.  We had that alternate apocalypse world in season 5, but that was based on Lucifer winning.

How do you feel about this plot point now as addressed by Michael?

Re: Supernatural

I think Michael's comments were similar to what we've heard before, from many other characters. And it makes a certain amount of sense to the characters, but we have seen God/Chuck step in pretty often.

One of the show's themes is free will. You can't have both free will, and God making every decision for us. He can tell us not to eat the fruit, but if He makes it impossible for us to eat the fruit, we don't have free will. The fact that Chuck stepped in so many times on the show just tells us that he loves his world/people too much to sit back and watch them destroy themselves.

God/Chuck is an interesting character, filled with contradictions and layers that ultimately make sense for the character. But I disagree with Michael's theory that Chuck keeps scratching drafts and starting over. If that were true, he wouldn't exist. Michael is avoiding the responsibility of his own actions. Maybe Chuck decided to give the angels a chance to run their own world, and what it became was what they made it.

As a writer, I let my characters run loose at times, but they don't have free will. If they did, they'd probably kill 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

ireactions wrote:

How do you feel about this plot point now as addressed by Michael?

It makes some sense.  It does feel sorta Chuck-like of him to let them try it their way, but I also sorta agree with Informant that, eventually, he'd step in and try to get things back on whatever version of track he believes in.

I guess I can answer that question with another question - is there only one Chuck?  If so, I think I completely understand where Michael is coming from.  Every alternate world is Chuck trying something else.  In our world, he protects Sam and Dean, and they saved the day.  In Michael's world, he wins and gets to do things his way.  In that case, Lucifer has a world where he won, there's probably a world where they destroyed each other, there's one where Gabriel saves the day, or Raphael, or maybe other scenarios.  Other endings.  He's a writer, and he's experimenting with different ways his story can end.

In that case, Michael sorta has a point.  Because we're cool writing fanfics where Maggie dies a heroic (and in some cases, very non-heroic) death, but none of us want Kari Wuhrer to actually die or suffer.  When Chuck writes something, living creatures die and suffer.  Free will or not, that's messed up.

It's like the plot of Cabin in the Woods or movies like that.  Michael feels like he's doing something he's supposed to do and living a normal life, but he's actually the part of some diabolical scheme.  He could easily be the hero of a story we're sympathetic with.  Instead of being Truman Burbank and giving Christof the metaphorical finger, he goes on a 3rd act rampage and gets his pound of flesh for messing with his life.

If there's one Chuck, I think it says a lot about the show as a whole.  It might also explain where Chuck keeps going.  He's got a lot of pots boiling, and he's really only able to deal with one at a time.

I think it's a satisfactory answer.

Re: Supernatural

Supernatural renewed for Season 15.

Ten seasons post one of the best series finales ever big_smile

Re: Supernatural

I haven't loved the Nick storyline, but I do feel like there was a missed opportunity for some cool stuff.  So Nick's official reason that he gave police was that he was possessed by the Devil.  People laugh at him like "ha ha, you're crazy"

But the Devil is real on the show.  Vampires are real.  Werewolves are real.  There's evidence.  It can be proven.

I know the show has been pretty consistent about "no one is ever going to find out that Monsters are real on any sort of big scale."  But is that something the show should really stick to?  Do we think it would kill the show from a narrative perspective if Nick took his case public.  Prove the monsters are real, and prove the Devil is/was real.  Prove it all without a shadow of a doubt.

Would that kill the narrative?  Or would it be interesting to see Sam and Dean fight monsters when people know they're out there?  Maybe even deputized as agents in some sort of official agency/business.  Men of Letters, Inc. or the Supernatural version of the X-Files.

Speaking of that, and tied into the post I just made about Arrow.....are Sam and Dean still officially dead?  If Nick were to try to flip and give up Sam and Dean, who faked their deaths, could that have been a storyline?  That's another thing the show doesn't really want to touch.

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.