DittyDotDot
-
Posts
13.2k -
Joined
Content Type
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Discussion
Posts posted by DittyDotDot
-
-
11 hours ago, ruby24 said:
How does Joe Abernathy know the truth? I don't remember Claire telling him. And why would he just believe something like that with no evidence?
I can't remember for sure right now, but did Claire tell him when she went back to Boston to settle her affairs before returning to the past in Voyager? I think she told him so he would understand and look out for Brianna. I can't remember what she offered up as proof, though. Maybe he's just that open minded and trusted her? Sorry, I'm blanking on the details a bit.
-
On 6/29/2018 at 5:52 PM, tennisgurl said:
Hello everyone! I wondered if I could ask a favor, and I wasn’t sure where to go so, here I am. I gave up on this show around season six (the plot seemed to be going in circles, and was just...weird), but I’m considering picking it up again. Only, I don’t know if I have time to watch every season I missed. My question is: should I give this another go? And, follow up, is there a way to jump back in without having to watch about a thousand episodes? Maybe just a hundred?
Most of what I know about the show now is: Something something Lucifer, something something demons and angels, something something Scooby Doo.
TBH, I think you could jump back in at any point and you'd be fine. The show has a standard format to it and generally makes sure to give enough exposition to keep casual viewers from being lost. I can't bring myself to skip any episodes when rewatching. Every season has a few I don't enjoy as much as others, but even the stinkers generally have some nugget in it I either love or feel I need to keep the story in place.
So, I guess it all depends on what you're wanting to see. If you're wanting to get caught up on the mythology you probably should watch the first three or four of each season, the two episodes before the winter break, the two after the break and the last four of the season--that's about 12 of the 23 episodes per season. But, if you're looking for the character development more than the plot, it's hard to skip any since the show has become more serialized, IMO, so the MotW episodes don't stand on their own as much and are as easily skipped. And, if you're looking for only one character, well then I'm not sure what to tell you.
If it were me:
- I'd complete S6 and S7--I actually have grown to love both these seasons in retrospect, even though I was sort of meh on them at the time--but you probably could skip a couple episodes in the middle of each half of the seasons where they're just filling time until they get to the various sweeps and move the main arcs along. TBH, you could probably skip both these seasons if you're just looking to get caught up with the show currently. It seems to me that they don't refer back to these two seasons very much these days, but they are important to understanding where everyone is at at the start of S8.
- S8-S10, IMO, has a big tonal change so you might want to just feel your way through those seasons. In many ways, S8 is a sort of reboot of the show, so you probably could jump in at this point if you're just wanting to get caught up. Personally, these are the most frustrating seasons for me to watch, but quality being subjective and all, you may find you adore them.
- S11 through S13 are very uneven, IMO, but has some very good MotW episodes that you could skip if you are only interested in the main mythology, but I actually think these are some of the best episodes of the seasons...so again, it all depends on what you're interested in.
Hope that helps!
-
1
-
Jack: Sweet Smelling Son of Satan
-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, Commando Cody said:
I re-watched old episodes of the Tick. The original 2001 series only had nine episodes. I didn't know who this was until I saw his name in the credits.
I love that episode! Kurt Fuller is so versatile.
-
2
-
-
On 5/24/2018 at 9:59 PM, toolazy said:
Ugh. Why even bother?
I don't know. Even though Gayle is a very minor character, I think it's important to show Bree's life without Claire and all to help flesh out her as a character. Plus, I found Gayle to be good in setting the tone of the times. She was so very "American," for a lack of better word.
-
2
-
-
On 5/15/2018 at 1:16 PM, sarthaz said:
I'm watching Croatoan right now, and I know not everyone agrees with me, but this episode is terribly produced. The pacing is wrong, the editing is terrible, the music is atrocious. Shiban wrote some of the best eps in the first two seasons and Singer knows what he's doing as a director, so I don't get it. Has anyone seen/heard an interview where they talk about why this episode sucked so hard?
I agree with you!!! Personally, I rarely care for Singer's directorial style. Most of his episodes feel off to me. So, I blame it on Singer, but I'm sure there were other factors too.
I haven't ever heard them really talk about this episode other than the story Jared tells about how he got overly emotional and Singer had to reel him back in a bit when he gets asked about doing emotional scenes at cons. But then again, I can't remember much discussion about S2 in general.
-
Well, that's too bad for the cast and the fans who worked so hard on getting this going, but I'm not surprised it didn't get picked up. Pedowitz was nothing short of lukewarm when he talked about Wayard. Plus, I'm of the belief that fandom wouldn't have supported the show long-term. I agree with @Aeryn13, Supernatural is just a hard show to spin off and I personally wish they'd just let it go and stop trying. Sometimes a good thing is just a good thing and trying to make a copy of it just doesn't work.
-
3
-
-
8 hours ago, catrox14 said:
Big difference though. Dean moved them from one home to another home. Not dragging them around in a life on the road from hotel to hotel. He didn't...keep them on lockdown. It was one night of Dean lying about pizza because he was worried. Ben got to be in school and Lisa I guess picked up work as a yoga instructor along the way. I'm sorry but I just don't see anything the same other than on a surface level. The context is dramatically different.
Exactly why I said NOT literally being John, but taking something he learned from John. I think all @Iju was trying to say was that Dean was starting to move into paranoid John territory until Sam pointed it out and Dean realized he didn't want that. I don't think he was trying to say that Dean was being John though...that was my point.
-
On 4/21/2018 at 12:51 PM, Iju said:
i never said the similarities of john and dean is their hunting choices. obviously not. but john was pretty strict with them and didn't give them a lot of freedom, and that's just what dean was doing. they were doing it for the sake of love and protection but the similarities are there.
Yes, this was exactly what Sam was saying. Just because he didn't want Ben and Lisa in the hunting life doesn't mean that he wasn't doing things that John did with Sam and Dean, which was isolate them from everyone, moving them around from place to place and keeping them on lockdown. It's just not a sustainable way to live if you have to work and your kid needs to go to school regularly. But, it's all Dean knew to keep them safe and he learned it from John--not that Dean was literally being John, just using something he learned from John.
-
1
-
-
16 minutes ago, Katy M said:
I think @Iju meant that Dean should have just worn the ring and won the bet. Not that he should have worn the ring and crashed the cage.
Really? I mean, Dean lost the bet, but still won the money, so there wouldn't have been anything changed if he'd actually won the bet.. I assumed he was saying the episode should've been a two-parter and after Dean lost the bet, he kept the ring and decided to just go get Sam's soul out of the cage himself. But, that's what you get for assuming.
18 minutes ago, Katy M said:But, how dare you suggest there is something Dean can't do! Blasphemy:)
Yeah, I know.... . ;)
-
On 4/22/2018 at 12:32 PM, catrox14 said:
He had hot monkey sex with the doctor in Sex and Violence and was not under the influence of anything
He was drinking demon blood at the time, we just didn't know it yet. I thought the whole point of him having casual sex with her was to point out that Sam was off somehow. Dean sure took it as a sign he was different.
-
1
-
-
On 4/27/2018 at 4:21 AM, ruby24 said:
Okay, so I think I found another error along the lines I was talking about earlier. They say Mandy is three years old, yet also that they've only been back for just over a year. But they came back when Mandy was just a couple months old, right? So...that must be a mistake somewhere.
Seriously, this book is a time head-hurter with lots of inconsistencies. I finally had to just ignore most the dates and just go with it. I know it's not ideal, but it worked for me.
-
1
-
-
On 4/27/2018 at 12:43 AM, toolazy said:
Why announce Lizzie's father and not Lizzie? Especially since he'll only be in one episode (according to the thing I read.)
It probably comes down to the actors' management. Sometimes it's them who announce a role for their client, not the show itself. Maybe whoever they cast for Lizzie is young and doesn't have anyone marketing her the same way?
-
1
-
-
On 4/26/2018 at 2:56 PM, Iju said:
so...eh. they should have just stuck with dean keeping the ring on to get sam's soul back imo. i'm glad that sam's soul is back
Dean wore the ring, but he wasn't actually Death so I don't think he could've gotten Sam's soul back even with the ring on. And, remember Death hadn't been wearing the ring for over a year now, so not sure what the ring actually does for Death... .
-
1
-
1
-
-
I believe the mandate for the female characters was in S3 and was for Bela and Ruby. Although, I do imagine the show probably intended to do a Ruby-like character--someone who gets in between Sam and Dean--but I believe Jo was not mandated.
Dawn Ostroff was interested in female driven programming and Supernatural was the exact opposite of what she wanted so it got the shaft more often than not. Considering the wave of female programming cropping up now, one could say she was ahead of her time. I wouldn't say it, but I think it could be argued.
-
5 hours ago, janie jones said:
Janet is probably my favorite character and I agree with this.
I think this is true of all great characters. There is such a thing as too much of a good thing.
-
5
-
-
2 minutes ago, Katy M said:
I think Kaya told them in Wayward Sisters. I don't know how she knew. Felt it, I guess.
Gotcha. Now I remember. Thanks!
-
Hey, I have a question...how did Sam and Dean know that Jack was in the Alternate? I can't remember, is it just their best guess or did someone in the know tell them before Dean crossed over? I know Dean's first goal was to rescue Mary, but they seemed so sure that Jack was there too when it was just as likely that he could've ended up in any number of universes. I know they learned about Micheal's plans to invade from Cass through Lucifer, but Lucifer escaped the Alternate long before Jack ended up there. Did I forget something?
10 minutes ago, companionenvy said:I had the same thought! And yeah, it would have hurt, but it would have been a great twist.
Nice to know it wasn't just me. ;)
-
20 minutes ago, Catfi9ht said:
First, I want to apologize in advance for my general crankiness in this post. It seems that everyone generally likes this season and this episode in particular, and I'm really sorry I feel very differently.
Oh, I think you're in the majority, in general, about not liking S7. You have to remember that this thread was created a couple years after the episode aired and only a handful people have commented on it. The old episode threads don't get much traffic and thus don't always represent the forum--or fandom--as a whole very well.
-
3 hours ago, Bergamot said:
It's just that this is another example of something I hate about the Dabb era of Supernatural, where everyone in the hunting world is in awe of the Winchesters and they are seen as these mythic, larger-than-life heroes. I liked the show much better when they were not VIPs and no one gasped at the sound of their names. I especially hate with a passion the way Dabb has insisted on making them into men who go around telling people, "We're the guys who save the world." Even though it may be true, I find it, frankly, repellent for them to be so self-important about it.
While I agree this is sort of repellent, I don't see it as a Dabb thing. I can recall it being said at least once a season since S5.
I don't really mind it most times simply because context matters. Like when Dean said it to Mary last season wasn't to be boastful, but he was telling her that her beating herself up about her role in how they were raised was a nice gesture, but pointless because without all that, they wouldn't be the men they were--guys who kick ass and save the world.
However, I liked the show when it was just two guys driving in and out of small little towns unseen too, but once they did the big apocalypse in S5, that ship sailed, IMO. At this point, it annoys me more when hunters or people who should know about the Winchesters don't. The show has simply been on too long for them not to be legendary at this point, IMO.
7 minutes ago, companionenvy said:I'm not sure I get the question, tbh, but I assume they have the same genetic makeup because they look exactly the same, and are presented as versions of the same person. To the extent that genetics is some of the shaping force behind the people we become, two people with the same genetic makeup also have some of the same predispositions - and indeed, this has been borne out in RL by studies of identical twins raised apart, who sometimes display striking similarities in later life despite having totally different sets of experiences. This certainly seems to be what they're going with on the show. Alt!Charlie is still brave and rebellious, alt!Kevin is still neurotic, and alt!Bobby is still a gruff but good-hearted hero.
Yeah, I agree they seem to be doing the same basic personalities, which I've been disappointed by, myself. I'd like to see more differences in the characters. In fact, initially I was expecting the twist of the episode to be that Charlie was working with the angels, not against them. Which, I would've found far more interesting than it being basic Charlie in an army jacket. But then I realized they would never do that for fear of pissing off Charlie fans again. Better to be safe and boring than do something daring and interesting, I guess.
-
2
-
-
39 minutes ago, companionenvy said:
They have the same genetic makeup, which means that they're pretty likely to wind up with some of the same characteristics.
I thought it was interesting that they both had the same fake name. I mean, our Charlie was born Celeste Middleton, she took on Charlie Bradbury as an alias.
40 minutes ago, companionenvy said:And I think it is a huge stretch to blame Sam for "bonding" with Gabriel on the grounds that he killed Dean.
Yeah, it wasn't like Sam was looking for a new drinking buddy, he was trying to draw Gabriel out in the hopes he might help them. I'd say Sam was more using Gabriel than bonding with him.
-
2
-
-
16 hours ago, gonzosgirrl said:
I asked in this week's thread but it's actually about this episode, so: did I miss an explanation as to how the MoL acquired Archangel grace? We see Sandy pouring grace into the bowl for the spell at the end of the episode, and presumably they must've needed some in 1917 as well. Where did it come from?
I had the same comment up thread and had the same question back in S8 with regards to angel feathers. Either an archangel gave up his grace willingly or the MoL captured and stole the grace from an archangel; both scenarios I find highly unlikely. But, no, it wasn't explained in the episode.
-
1
-
-
52 minutes ago, scribe95 said:
Honestly, I don't understand why they gave Gabriel the grace. It completely went against the plan with no explanation given.
I thought the explanation was they were hoping he could power up and heal himself if he had more power?
-
1
-
-
Felt like a pointless episode, which seems was the point so kudos to the show on that.
But, ding dong. Asmodeus is dead. Now if someone would just dispatch the Devil... .
-
3
-
Book 9: Go Tell the Bees That I Am Gone
in Outlander
· Edited by DittyDotDot
I don't know, I think the future is just as dangerous as the past, just in different ways. Despite the modern medicine and other conveniences, horrible things happen in the future too. I mean, Mandy or Jem could get hit by a bus or shot on the street and die just as easily as they could have some accident in the past and die. And, bad things were happening to them and their kids in the future--Jem was kidnapped, someone tried to set the house on fire with Brianna and Mandy inside, etc... . Plus, I think there are backward thinking people in any time period, even now. Obviously Mandy won't have all the same choices she would in the future, but she has a forward-thinking family who will support her in any choice she does make, so I'm not so sure she's any worse off in the past than in the future.
I'm not so sure Brianna thinks of the past in the same way Roger does. He calls it "home" because he found his place and a calling in the past. In the present, he was listless and didn't really fit anymore. I think Brianna actually prefers the future, but "home" is where her family is and they are in the past. Not to mention since the conspiracy nuts were chasing them, the past might be a lot safer for them. At least they have Jamie and Claire and the community to lean on and help protect them; in the future, they were basically on their own.