ahrtee

I've been staying out of most of the discussions because (full disclosure) I really am only watching for Jensen. I tried bingeing the first season to see the framework of the show, and frankly, I wasn't too thrilled, and gave up halfway through. Very melodramatic, and (to me) very slow moving. I watched the final ep of season 2 to know where things were heading, and honestly I didn't think I missed anything by skipping season 2. I do realize that, for those who were invested in the first two seasons and its style, that the new season is a pretty big change. But having said that, I'm enjoying this season more, mostly because it *is* so much faster paced and with so many varying storylines and different characters. There are still way too many annoying characters/character moments (Really? High heels on a police officer/anyone out on trails? Cringeworthy policing moments, and some over-the-top acting.) I actually think Jensen is bringing some well-needed toning down of OTT characters and situations. And while I specifically enjoy seeing a lighter, not weighed-down-by-the-weight-of-the-world Jensen (especially after the last ... oh, 10 seasons or so of Supernatural) I think he's giving enough nuance to show that there's something serious--maybe dark--underneath that does come out unexpectedly. You can underestimate Beau because he seems so casual but he's shown that he sees everything that's going on and is ready to switch to Sheriff/in charge mode when needed. And to those wondering what he's getting out of appearing in the show--consider it as "graduating" from the CW into the majors. No matter how good he was on the CW shows, he wasn't getting any serious recognition. Hopefully working on more mainstream networks (especially in The Boys) will get him noticed, and if the characters he plays are so varied, TPTB will recognize his versatility. JMO, of course.

Showrunner of Big Sky talking about getting Jensen to join the cast (from tvguide.com): "When I get actors to come play with me, I try to make sure that they have dimensions to play. If I were to call Jensen and go, "Hey, Jensen. You're gonna play a really cool, tough-talking sheriff who looks at blood splatters and handcuffs bad guys," he'd give me a hard pass tomorrow. So I spent more time talking with Jensen about his character's backstory, about what emotionally motivates him. And the same thing with Reba. That's what keeps the actors on their toes. ... "Everyone always talks about actors' first day on stage; there's something I call "the first day on the page." And it's happened to me multiple times where I've convinced a big actor or written a role for somebody, and then I can't make them talk on the page. I've never had that problem, ever, with Jensen. I have the opposite problem. I could write pages and pages for him. His character's demeanor, and the way Jensen's created this character, just really sparks something in me, and that's what we tried to do...."

Just because Jensen did this at a con a week or so ago doesn't mean it was unknown before that. He's the EP. I'm pretty sure he has some say in posters, so might have decided it was a nice nod to Zep (or the artist thought it fit the space better.) And maybe he decided to show it at the con to "explain" (or foreshadow, as @Featherhat said above.) Just sayin'. 😊

I don't doubt that there will be mass cancellations coming up. I was just curious (nothing against the show) why you think Walker might be left standing? Its demographics don't really match the new plan, and its ratings are sub-basement (and seem to be getting lower.) Or were you just being ironic? Sounds like they're getting picky about licensing. Maybe they want to have only their own goods sold, or maybe they feel they've been cheated out of royalties by fan art and non-licensed items sold by outside vendors. TPTB could have stopped fanfic at any time by citing copyright infringement, but it's never been a moneymaking proposition. Vendor sales are. (Pictures of an Impala--not specifically Baby--shouldn't be covered by copyright, because they exist outside of the SPN world, but Winchesters don't.)

That's what Sam did post-15-20. He married Ruby's twin sister and settled down in Texas. Since he apparently had about 50 years between then and joining Dean in heaven, there was plenty of time to screw up his family per the show. I'll assume Dean Jr. was from a second marriage, which is why he still looked so young when Sam was so old. I only watched a little bit of the show. I hate soap operas and family Drama (with a capital D) and that's what it seemed like to me. And I still kept seeing Sam instead of Walker. I don't know if that was my fault or Jared's.

Not in The Winchesters. He supposedly hasn't been born yet. I have an idea of how I might reset the whole show: Dean (in heaven) finds out that Mary wasn't supposed to be killed by Azazel way back when. Maybe he starts looking into it because he feels guilty (remember, Dean visiting the past is the reason Azazel found Mary in the first place.) So--he starts to check into things and finds that John and Mary had been hunters together long before they met in his timeline, and somehow, they were reset/mind wiped which changed all of their pasts/futures. So he goes back to the beginning of their "real" meeting, and has to follow along to see where/how things changed, so he can set things right again. That way, Mary isn't killed, John doesn't become obsessed, and he and Sam can grow up in a "happy" hunting family (all the Campbells seem to have families and not be too screwed up.) That would seem the perfect ending for Dean--having his family together, Sam could grow up "normal" (for a hunter, that is) and Dean wouldn't have had to become mother and father to Sam at all. SPN would have become an AU, and Dean could have a happy ending--maybe even a family of his own. The show could end with everyone in heaven, surrounded by multiple generations of Winchesters. 😀

No, they do have supporting role nominations: Best Supporting Actress in a Streaming Series: Patricia Arquette (Severance) Danielle Brooks (Peacemaker) Jess Bush (Star Trek: Strange New Worlds) Nell Tiger Free (Servant) Kathryn Hahn (WandaVision) Moses Ingram (Obi-Wan Kenobi) Aleyse Shannon (Leverage: Redemption) But they seem to have some pretty strange ideas of what fits their nominations. Did anyone notice that they've nominated The Adventures of Ozzie and Harriet in the Best Television Series Release? (Granted, it's pretty far from reality, but SF/Fantasy/Horror?)

Maybe they're hoping he'll be the bridge between the mothership and the college spinoff. And they can always ship him off there if he gets too annoying.

Because of course we couldn't tell the difference between them if they both had the same hair! 😀

I got 100%. I was stopped by the same question, but I figured it was SB, because (a) Dean wouldn't have bothered with robbery suspects if they weren't supernatural, and (b) SB was the one being challenged about his lack of regard for human life. Dean always considered collateral damage and human lives, even when they were possessed.

Thank you. That was what I was trying (apparently very badly) to say. It's nothing against Jensen or his acting ability, or even the type of roles he's given. It's just that he doesn't fade into the background, even when he's not at the front of the shot.

All I'm saying is that I tend to watch Jensen in roles, not just because I like the character, but because I like him and how he can create the characters. There are many shows I wouldn't have watched if he wasn't in them, so it wasn't the character that was the draw, it was him. Of course, once I was sucked in, then Jensen's looks became part of the character. If they'd made Soldier Boy look his actual age--80 or 90--and given him Sam's fright wig from the final episode, I'd be more aware of the character himself rather than Jensen. It doesn't mean that Jensen wouldn't be playing him the same way, or that I'd like him less--just that I'd most likely lose *him* and see just the character. I'd say it's like voice acting, but then you'd miss Jensen's expressions and gestures that also add to the portrayal.

Geeze, I'm not insulting anyone. No need to insult me. I didn't say I *can't* see the character. I just said many people (including me) watch a show because they like the actor. And often, the way they look.

Also, no one ever, EVER mentioned that Dean had let Amy's kid go (after making sure he had somewhere to go) because he *hadn't* killed anyone yet. Did Sam even ask about the kid?

I'm not saying anything against Jensen's acting. I think he does a phenomenal job with just his expressions, voice, mannerisms. He may be a different character every time, but I'm always aware it's Jensen, just by the way he looks. After all, most of the time, he's the reason I'm watching the show/movie. So I enjoy seeing him play different characters, enjoy watching the way he can make the character come alive, but I'm always aware that I'm watching Jensen's body (sorry, that sounds creepy) inhabit the character. And I'm enjoying watching Jensen. It has nothing to do with always playing the same basic character. (And Cary Grant did try to play against type in quite a few movies, but they didn't succeed because people *wanted* to see him as Cary Grant--he'd become a character in his own right.) The main test for me for an actor "becoming the character" is when you're more aware of the character than who's playing him. Sometimes you don't even recognize the actor till later, or till you hear their voice.* And those who've built their following based on their looks usually can't accomplish that till they get older and less, well, recognizable. *ETA: That's "disappearing into the character." Most actors known for their looks can't do that unless they're heavily disguised. It's nothing against the actors; more about the audience and what they want.

I'll admit to Jack hate. (He was boring and yet put up on a writer's pedestal for no reason I could see except he was a new and shiny pet. They kept saying how wonderful he was and how everyone loved him--or should love him--without showing why.) Sam is more...dislike, coupled with extreme annoyance. It didn't start that way for me, but grew over the years, watching his interactions (mostly with Dean, but often with others.) I gained more sympathy for Dean over the years, and more impatient with Sam. IDK if that was the way they wrote him (what the writers thought showed "growth") or the way he was played. What happened was that I didn't want to watch him. ETA: About watching a different show--it's way too common. People can watch the exact same thing and see something completely different, depending on where their sympathies lie.

How could you forget Sam's Grief Beard! 😀

There are other (and better) ways to give the leads time off than adding a new character who takes over. The fact that he was so much younger seemed particularly pointed. But I wouldn't have minded him being "part of the team;" it was the focus being on him at the expense of the others (who became merely support/cheerleaders) that annoyed me.

One of the problems of being very good-looking is that you can never *really* disappear into your roles as long as people can identify you. That's nothing against Jensen or his acting abilities. Cary Grant was always Cary Grant, no matter what role he was playing or how old he got, and he always did a wonderful job. That's why easily recognizable actors tend to go to parts that require major changes to their looks in order to showcase their abilities, and why they tend to get so many more accolades when they do.

No, I'd still be against Jack, mostly because he "sucked the air" out of the rest of the story, and the rest of the characters. Maybe he might have developed more of his own fan base like Misha did, but Castiel was supporting the Winchesters, not becoming the lead on his own. There would always be many who resented him for taking over the story, especially if the writers spent *more* time on him. ETA: It felt very "Cousin Oliver" to me. The leads were now 15 years older than when they started, and TPTB wanted to appeal to a younger audience.

Are they supposed to be the next gen of supes? Actually getting some training? Are we supposed to be rooting for or against them? (Or, I guess, we'll get to see which ones turn out good and which ones bad....) I don't think I can deal with teenage superhero angst at this point.

College spinoff, "Gen V". I think I'll probably give it a miss. https://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/news/the-boys-teaser-reveals-official-title-for-upcoming-spinoff-series/ar-AAZCvg9?cvid=018b5599a0d64b42be1ffc70319dcccc Or here's the official tweet:

They tended to blame Dean for everything that Sam had decided on his own. Talk about not having his own agency? If everything Sam did wrong was because of Dean (even though most of the time Dean had specifically told him *not* to do it) then what agency does Sam have to take away? That includes sneaking away/running away, following Ruby in season 3 (even before Dean died), and all the events mentioned in the posts above that were Sam's choices but framed as Dean's fault. One of my favorite (worst) parts of Sam in season 5: In episode 1, when he was remorseful and apologized for following Ruby/letting Lucifer loose, Dean told him how much his lying had hurt him and how he felt he couldn't trust him; but within, what, 2 episodes? 3? He was already chafing at being "on probation" and Dean not trusting him, as if "I said I'm sorry. Why aren't you over it yet?" was enough. He almost literally told Dean to get over it. What was with that ''again''?! What was she talking about? Stanford? But Charlie hadn't read Chuck's books back then. Then what? No one seems to remember that *Sam* left Amelia first, before he even knew Dean was back, because her husband was still alive. And even the second time, when he had the chance to go back to her, he decided not to, *not* because Dean wanted him to/made him, but because Sam decided on his own not to break up someone's marriage. So the one time Sam actually did something for the right reasons it was turned into Dean's fault.

The difference is that, back in the 60s, there wasn't as much fear/danger for kids as later. There were certainly as many dangerous people around, but people weren't as aware. I grew up in the 60s at a time when the worst thing to worry about was a kid accidentally setting fire to the house, not someone breaking in or kidnapping them from a playground. My sister and I and all the neighborhood kids used to play together unsupervised all day long. If someone got hurt, we went to whatever kid's house was nearest and there was always a mother there somewhere to put a bandaid on it. But John not only knew the modern dangers facing "normal" kids, he knew about the supernatural dangers. And while I could see him trusting Dean, the son he'd trained to recognize and deal with that kind of danger, better than any unenlightened babysitter, it was still too much for a boy of 7 or 8 (as we saw in Something Wicked). John didn't need his mother to correct him. He would be the one telling her of all the additional dangers she would never have dreamed of. And yes, leaving the boys with Bobby (or Pastor Jim, or the Harvelles, or any trained hunters) would have been better. Dean wouldn't have had all the burden of protecting Sam, because there was another trusted hunter around to take that responsibility, even if they were left alone for brief periods. I would have hoped that, if John hadn't felt so guilty about Bill Harvelle, Ellen would have been the perfect place to drop the boys off, even if only for brief periods. We don't know exactly when Bill was killed, but Jo was already "in pigtails" (and roughly Sam's age) so there would have been several years, when John was considered "like family", when it could have worked, but since Dean had no memories of them, apparently John didn't want to.

IA that he wasn't aiming for John's approval. After all, I don't think he ever really got it (except for the time he bullseyed all his targets at age 6.) That's why he was so suspicious when John told him he was proud of him in Devil's Trap and IMTOD. No, I think he was more afraid* of John's *disapproval* (as in Something Wicked, when he said John "looked at him different" after his failure.) And yes, failure meant putting his family (especially Sam) in danger. *ETA: Maybe I should say, "wanting to avoid" rather than afraid.