Aeryn13

Really cool.

Soldier Boy was somewhat of a tightrope IMO. His public persona - back when he was the poster boy Supe - was to be handsome, heroic movie star. So he needed to be charismatic. But they also wanted a more or less sledgehammer-y trope version of "toxic masculinity (of yesteryore)" so that by nature would make the character look bad. I think in the end result the charisma won out by far. I mean, this show is populated by horrible people, including the "good guys" so a character`s main onscreen bad traits being really outdated and therefore offensive comments - that even played out as comedic because how the other characters reacted to it - isn`t really shocking material. Which, I think they wanted charisma and were happy Jensen brought it in spades but banked on a lot more pearl clutching shock at SB than there probably was. Sorry, Kripke and co., reallife is hard enough as it is, I don`t spend my time in a state of perma-outrage at ficitional characters. I know he was a bad person but his entertainment value was insanely high which for fictional people is vastly more important to me.

Julie Plec said that both Legacies and Roswell got a heads up abour the (strong) possibility of cancellation (as did all CW shows that were in danger, one showrunner just decided to play chicken and lost) and fine-tuned the endings acccordingly.

I really do think it wasn`t a spoken line but just in the background in writing. Which could be technically misleading because the quiz is about "who said it". Unless "saying it" also included written interview/press release statements.

Neat. I actually got 100 % but I made two guesses on account I couldn`t remember Soldier Boy saying that but I most certainly couldn`t remember Dean saying it and one sounded a bit like a press release statement. So I went with SB.

I don’t think recognizeability is a marker of quality in that regard. Lead actors are usually easily recognized because they have the most exposure in a project. But that doesn't mean the lead can't be a character actor. Or that vice versa a more recurring played can't still be easily recognized for role xyz. The "hey, it's that guy" phenomenon I usually have for actors who had interesting bit roles in projects here or there but nothing so breakout or so long, that I instantly know their name. But if that's the case, that's honestly more of a career problem of said actor. Once an actor/actress has garnered some fame in whatever project, and even if it is just one signature role, I know them and of course recognize them in every other role. No actor can act so well to make me actually forget as a general rule where I know them from. Nor would that even realistically possible. But that's different to me than the ability to "disappear" into a new character.

While I know they initially planned to make the character look older (before Jensen was cast), I think the youthful looks are an integral part of the character they wanted to portray. Age-wise they have an out with Stormfront on the "don`t visibly age" front and if he was the poster boy of Vought before and a movie star and everything, it stands to reason that he was hot and charismatic. Because that`s marketable. And if he was looking old now, like his real age, the joke of him sprouting all these old-timey lines just falls flat. A lot of things they went for this Season work far better with someone looking young but acting (in-show, that is) old.

Of course every actor looks how they look - if they are considered good-looking or not (it's not like I can't pick out Danny DeVito in a project easily) - so they can always be identified like that. But IMO that is neither here nor there in terms of acting. I don't even consider super-physically transformative roles any indicator of how good an actor is, maybe how much they are willing to do for a role. Jensen is a very charismatic actor and he brings that in spades in roles like Dean or Alec or Soldier Boy. Whereas for example Ben in Dark Angel is the polar opposite of Alec in the same show (and that alone told me enough about his range) and while the character still has great screen presence, he isn't written or supposed to be charismatic in the same way as the above-mentioned, therefore Jensen doesn't play it like that either. CJ? on Dawson's Creek is also a much calmer gentler character (and not someone to be considered flashy on the show, that was Pacey, and honestly less well-written). Now at this point I can easily say Ben, Alec, Dean and now SB are definitely my fave roles of his. Alec and Dean as written has some likeness to the characters but also some big differences. And even in early SPN, I never really felt reminded of the Alec character. Now even a great actor can't totally help if characters are written too similarly. For example I think Robert Downey Junior is insanely talented and of course I could tell apart Iron Man and Sherlock Holmes but the character archetype was just so similar, I was reminded a lot of one in the other. But I wouldn't put that on the actor. He acted both roles similarly not because he has no range but because he was supposed to and cast as such.

I started watching as God intended...with Dark Angel's "Pollo Loco". 😁 Started SPN with the Pilot and I think it works pretty well as an introduction. You get a good feel for the "vibe" of the show here.

If I were Homelander, I would laser a couple more people and leave a note to the Boys "dear clown car, thanks for backing me, much love, your buddy Homelander".

I think his answer displays a current echo chamber thinking. Everything and everywhere is "toxic masculinity". Hughie is a guy, therefore it can`t be a nuanced story of how the eternal victim of bullies finally gets some powers himself and it`s just complicated. Nope, it`s a dude thing apparently. And the opposite end of the spectrum is "the girl thing" where she can do no wrong, even if she did the exact same thing. Even though nothing of their issues is gender-specific. For so many years female characters were relegated to damsels and eye candy in fiction, with only a few "pioneer" characters breaking through. Then it slowly started getting better and we got a lot more equality writing. And now they are super-overcorrecting and we`re getting super-simplisitc inequality thinking again where somehow they believe women have to be perfect saints. Who is the target audience for that? Not me as a woman as I like my characters flawed and nunanced. So I can look forward to balanced characters where gender matters little again in 20 or so more years? Splendid.

Not unlikely by fall 23 the only programming on the CW is news and reality shows, nothing scripted. At which point, which doesn't go to HBO Max or other networks/Streamers would be gone.

Homelander is clearly the powerhouse of the show with his character and Butcher on each ends anchoring it. I love Jensen and I think he gets a really cool role this Season as SB - thouroughly enjoy his portrayal - but he is not the main star. And I never expected him to be coming into the show. That would be unfair and disrespectful to the great work of a cast and crew that was there from the start and build the show. SB is clearly supposed to show that previous generations had their problems, too. He wasn't exactly like HL for several reasons but Vought was evil back and is now. And they are exploiting everyone, Supes and humans. To me they are the true antagonist Really enjoy the team-up with Butcher and Hughie and SB. The synchronized wall punch was aces. Im conclusion: Edna Mode was right.

In regards to intelligence the go-to for most TV writers is assuming the audience is dumb so when they want to make a character look smart, they just dumb down other characters in their vicinity and outright put it in dialogue who is supposed to be oh-so smart. Because it takes real skill to portray everyone as smart and competent and still make one particular character stand out with clever and strategic thinking. The very few times in TV shows writers have done that is when I actually consider a character really smart. Sam on SPN is not one of these cases. Fringe is a good show to watch for smart characters.

It is sonething writers do over and over again, not only on this show but others as well. To me one of the pitfalls of bad writing is when it overly tries to push you in one direction or another. "See, this character, you have to love and agree with them above else because they just can't be wrong." Even when they are called out for being "wrong", it's an obvious set up on how they are persecuted. And other characters are put down over and over to sell me on how great the pet character is. This always, always backfires for me because outside of fairytales, things are not as overly good and evil and zero sum as that. Badd's comics were so ludicrously lopsided and he brought that exact same attitude to the show. And then he proceeded to run the entire Mythos and drag every episode, from the Pilot on, down on the altar of what he wanted.

Yes, they are having a few other things and TVD might get a little nostalgia boost now the entire verse is ending but it was never as big as SPN in terms of Cons and is losing steam even quicker. Star Trek is complicated because the new shows are met with divisive reactions. Only Strange New Worlds works favorably. They actually struck a goldmine with SPN. A show that went on so long and garnered such a big cult fandom. And endless cons with the lead actors always in attendance. Super rare for other fandoms from my experience. I think it made Creation both complacent and overly greedy because this gravvy train is slowing and will eventually stop. And there is nothing really on the horizon that could replace it. I can't think of any show right now that would produce the kind of fandom they would need and want.

Their problem is they haven't built any other nest eggs beyond SPN. I know they are doing other Cons and they used to do Vampire Diaries-related stuff but that has dried up even more. No idea which bankable fandom they could even jump on at that point.

Not everyone will like an actor's acting. That is normal and I have no problems with it. The Soldier Boy character has been onscreen so little, though, I don't put stock in any serious assessments so far. That is like how my Mom proclaimed Lord of the Rings was bad and boring - after watching the first 10 minutes. Can't take that criticism seriously.

Real person slash (fanfiction).

Fringe was a great show, awesome writing and characters. I would always highly recommend it. As for the Con, I don't think questions or lack thereof for the Winchesters mean a hill of beans, to be honest. They are something completely different than promo events so to me the indication of how the show would do would be nil, one way or another. Maybe it will do well, maybe not, we can only see after it airs.

Both guys have other commitments for the time being and as long as Walker runs (and if it keeps to a 18-20 episode Season), it would be pretty hard to fit in a 10-12 episode show. And if they were not heavily involved in a Reunion project, what would be the point?

Season 10 was bogged down by very bad and repitive writing. Dean wasn't the main character in say Seasons 1 or 2 and took a backseat in mytharc eps but tended to be the stronger and far more standout character in the MOTWs. And even some mytharc ones if you count Season Finales and Openers. So IMO it doesn't indicate anything rhat Season 10 lost ratings in terms of which character fans come out for. Viewers might have a fave character but they will come out more for interesting writing and characters who get to have some charisma and charme. Even charismatic and charming actors can't do things with nothing. I love watching Jensen but outside of SPN which I don't know if I'll ever watch again, if you give me a choice between Dark Angel and say Dawson's Creek, I know which I'll pick in a heartbeat. Now both Jensen and Jared are at a point where they will have a certain number of viewers even if they literally read the phone book or something. Even if they do projects that hold zero appeal to the viewer otherwise. Not everyone and maybe not forever but some.

I think CW shows are still "behind schedule" though because of the pandemic pushbacks since 2020. They used to wrap in March, early April. Now shooting goes to May so they start later on the new Seasons. Independence could start earlier but as just a producer why would he need to be on set for that for a specific time? If actors or directors had a scheduling conflict for that, I could see it. But producing could be done via phone or vid calls and still easily make the Con.

I don’t know, has Walker wrapped shooting for the Season? I thought all CW had done so but I'm not on the up and up. If not that, I have no idea. It could be not a shooting schedule conflict but usually other stuff can be rescheduled more easily to fit pre-booked appearances.

The Purge speech with the writers gleefully touting about Sam speaking "hard truths" was one of the most obnoxious moments in the show. And if the scene was supposed to show that it was painful for Sam to say these things? Don't play the scene as if he went to his room afterwards to have an orgasm.