Bergamot

So then if they did a story of the earlier adventures of Bobby and Rufus, that would mean re-casting the roles with younger actors. The idea of seeing those two characters played by someone else doesn't interest me very much. Unlike say, the roles of John and Mary, which have already been played by different actors, my enjoyment of the characters of Bobby and Rufus was tied to seeing them played by Jim Beaver and Steven Williams. Not just because of the fact that they are both very good actors, but because of the way they played off each other and the on-screen chemistry they had. To be honest, the idea of seeing more of the adventures of Bobby Singer by itself doesn't thrill me. In earlier seasons, I enjoyed seeing Bobby appear in episodes, but they kind of ran the character into the ground for me. Nothing against Jim Beaver, but by the end of the show I was just really tired of Bobby. Unfortunately the show reduced him to a caricature; the originality and "realness" which the character had in his first appearances got lost along the way. Maybe that's one reason why I can't picture Bobby being played by another younger actor. I mean, what would they do, stick a dirty cap on the young guy's head and have him repeatedly growl "Balls" and constantly call people "Idjits" so that we would know it was Bobby? The thought makes me kind of cringe. It would almost be like they would be doing a parody of Bobby. I actually would watch a series with just Steven Williams as Rufus, though, just because I love the actor so much. He was so awesome as Rufus! And he managed to maintain the integrity of his character right up to the end, in a way I don't think the show did for Bobby. Rufus never lost that realness for me, and he helped make the character of Bobby more authentic and interesting as well when they were together, in a way that Bobby no longer was for me in his relationships with other characters. And Rufus was always entertaining to watch. Like in "Weekend at Bobby's", with his banging on the door: "Oh good, you're home!..You gotta help me bury a body." Or in "And Then There Were None", when he learns that the man Dean wants to kill is his grandfather: "Ow! Somebody needs a hug!" ( It makes me laugh every time, the way he says that!) Or his wonderful introduction in "Time Is on My Side", where he and Dean drink a bottle of scotch together, and he tells Dean, "Folks like us...there ain't no happy ending. We all got it coming." What a great scene that was! I would like to know too! I guess that I wouldn't have minded seeing more episodes with the two of them, so long as they were played by the original actors. But an entire series? I don't know about that. Anyway I don't think that not getting a series about them means that any other idea for a new series connected to Supernatural must be rejected as wrong and a mistake.

Thank you for your service, PA! To be honest I don't see how anyone for whom any violation of canon makes watching a show a complete "no-go" could ever have watched Supernatural in the first place, at least not after the first season or so. I'm not saying that it never bothered me -- it did, sometimes a lot -- but I still watched. (It's funny, but for me it was the little things that really drove me crazy for some reason, even if it was something that didn't really affect the direction of the story! Like, did they ever visit the Grand Canyon or not?!) Actually, though, I don't consider the revelation that Mary continued to hunt after marrying John (see "Celebrating the LIfe of Asa Fox") to be a violation of canon. It was just us learning something new about the character that we didn't know before. The fact that we as viewers never knew this does not mean that it was impossible that it could have happened. To me, this is like learning from Jerry in Phantom Traveler that John often spoke with pride about Sam while he was at college, and learning a few episodes later that John used to swing by Stanford whenever he could to check that he was safe. I mean, I could have said, "Wait a minute! It is CANON that John repudiated and disowned Sam completely when he left! This is a violation of what we were told since the very first episode!" No, it was just adding a new layer to the character which made him more interesting and complex. (Not that it made me approve any more highly of John as a father, but it was interesting!) Anyway, if the new show makes it to the air, I will give it a look. I don't plan on laying on it the burden of all my resentments and grudges against the original show, so if it is interesting enough I think I will watch it. At least long enough to give it a chance on its own terms to make me a viewer.

Obviously there are two sides to the story, and we have only heard Jared's side. People who want to defend Jared are leaping to a lot of unwarranted assumptions and conclusions without really knowing the whole story, but I guess for them it is only Jared who deserves the benefit of the doubt. I doubt we will hear Jensen's side because he is not going to discuss it on social media. Bickering on twitter is not his style. Personally I think that if the whole story did come out, it is possible that what we learned would not be complimentary to Jared. It occurred to me, anyway, that it might be that Jensen is actually doing Jared a favor by not discussing it in public. Yeah, this is the real issue for me as well. And I am somewhat taken aback by those who try to brush this aspect aside by weakly saying, "Oh well, yes, that was maybe not the best way to handle things." Ya think?!!! I'm sorry, but I do not know how anyone could deny the fact that this is a pattern of behavior for Jared. He gets mad at someone, he jumps on social media to weaponize his fans against the person he is angry at, and then once the attacks against that person have really gotten going, he sends a pious little message asking them to PLEASE not "send hate". That is BS, getting his fans riled up to attack the person is the whole point. I guess he figures it has always worked for him before as a way to get attention and sympathy, so why not? Except he miscalculated this time. It has always worked well for him before because of the huge power imbalance between him and the poor waitress or airline clerk that he is targeting. This time he went after someone who is not powerless. Fortunately it was someone who I honestly believe does not want to hurt him in any way. I do wonder what those in the entertainment industry who have observed this whole thing are privately thinking about it. But that's something else we may never know. Speaking of which, I think Jared owes Robbie Thompson a personal apology for essentially calling him a back-stabbing coward and traitor. A PUBLIC apology, because I don't care if Jared deleted the tweet, that was a public insult and the apology should be equally public.

I remember Jensen saying a few months ago -- maybe in March -- that Chaos Machine was working on an exciting project connected to Supernatural. He said that he didn't want to give away too much at that time so he didn't give any details. But I remember seeing something about it on Twitter. So I am surprised to see Jared saying that this was absolutely the first time he had ever heard anything about this. Why did he not ask Jensen for the details back then? Or does he not listen to what Jensen says about his new projects?

Thanks! That is an interesting discussion in the video. And Jensen is of course, as always, so gorgeous and charming! The movie comes out on June 22nd, and I went today to Amazon to pre-order a copy. I noticed that it is already listed there as a Best Seller, ranked #10 in Movies & TV, and #1 in Anime Movies & TV. I know that those rankings are always changing, but still I was excited to see that! Here is one of the reviews of the movie from a couple days ago: Batman: The Long Halloween, Part One Review; "Jensen Ackles Proves To Be A Perfect Pick For The Dark Knight" .

Who is saying he didn't? I see no one here who is saying that Jensen didn't always give 100% or do his best with what he was given. I like this! 😊 I feel this way also, that Dean isn't really dead! I also agree with what you say about how this is Jensen's way of dealing with it. He didn't say this was the ending he wanted for Dean; he said that in his opinion this is the reason the writers chose to do the story the way they did. Jensen sees acting as a story that he has to make sense of, we have seen him do this before, like with the way the writers depicted Dean's relationship with Mary. And Jensen never seemed the type to be concerned that Dean always be right about everything or always look perfect or always "win" in a situation -- he didn't want a whitewashed, two-dimensional Dean; he saw Dean as a man with both strengths and weaknesses and he wanted to tell his story. I think this is part of why Dean as a character seemed so real. Anyway, I think it would have been harder on Dean if he were the one to live on after Sam, but not because Dean was incapable of forming loving relationships with others -- because we saw him doing this many times throughout the show. I just think he would feel that he failed to do his essential primary duty of taking care of Sam. But Dean also always felt and said that he had a duty to save everyone from supernatural evil. As he said once, doing that job was where he found his "peace", and I don't think he would ever stop trying to do it. One of the parts I liked best about this recent panel is when Jensen was asked what Dean would do in heaven. He talked about Dean going for drives in Baby, drinking beer at Harvelle's Roadhouse, eating dinner at his parents' place, and so on -- but then added that Dean would then get bored and ask Jack to put him "back in the game" so he could be a hunter again! I have a feeling that Jensen feels similar to the way I do, that the ending which the show gave Dean was lame and boring and unworthy of the character. As if Dean would be satisfied and happy for all eternity, spending all his time just going for drives and standing around looking at pretty scenery with Sam! Good point!

Yes, the "Tell me what hurts" is what got to me as well. ❤️ Briana Buckmaster said the same thing on Twitter, and added, "I'm gonna start answering the phone with that." 😄

A couple of my favorite "HappyBirthday"s-- Chad Lindberg (Ash) tweeting with updates about how Harvelle's Roadhouse was jammed packed with a party for Dean: "Harvelle's Roadhouse Update: Dean is now standing on the pool table singing Bon Jovi's 'It's my Life' at the top of his lungs." LOL! https://twitter.com/ChadLindberg/status/1353449806849433600 https://twitter.com/ChadLindberg/status/135355089471804620 Felicia Day doing a little video as Charlie, wishing Dean happy birthday: https://twitter.com/NudelmanNitzan/status/1353496125232308225 (Sorry, I don't know how to put a tweet into a post!)

I'm looking forward to Jensen being on "The Boys"! I think he will be awesome! Does anyone know when they might start filming?

In these quotes from the interview, he wasn't talking about Sam's feelings or opinions. He was talking about what Dean wanted and felt, and what Dean's life meant to him. Not from Sam's point of view, but from his own point of view. Of course everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but I disagree that Jared's opinion in this case is somehow more "valid" than anyone else's.

Okay, I have not read this interview, but I can't understand calling Dean's death "a great success story". It still make me so sad to think of Dean losing his life when he had sacrificed so much and finally reached the point where he was free to decide what he wanted to do next. Even with everything he endured since he was a child, he still found a way to enjoy the simple pleasures in life. Like in the last episode, where we see him hugging his dog and going to the pie festival. Dean was always bursting with life! He was willing to die to save those little boys from the vampires, but that doesn't mean that his death was not an awful thing.

Of course he did! As you say, what a weird comment to make. And it's even more bizarre that he includes Ruby as someone Dean "wouldn't have wanted his little brother to marry" because she was "someone in the life". I agree, it does make it sound like Jared didn't even watch the show. Uh, maybe Dean wouldn't have wanted Sam to marry Ruby because she played him for a complete fool and used him to free Lucifer from the Cage. Not to mention the small fact that she was a demon who was animating a corpse! To me it just sounds like Jared wants to make the fact that Sam stopped hunting into an admirable and praiseworthy choice, something that he "did for Dean". Personally I don't have a problem with Sam deciding to stop hunting if that's what he wanted to do at that point. But I don't see anything particularly "noble" about him doing it, or think that it was something that Dean would have wanted him to do unless he wanted it for himself.

Sorry, I can't help you with that! 🙂 This is just what I read.

This fan quoted Jensen as saying "And that's very common, editors will trim up things to speed up a scene, to the point, they call it taking the air out of the scene. Taking the air out, and they'll kind of condense it and it'll be a concentrated version of that scene that was filmed." He said that's why he gave one of the crew members his phone to record the scene as they were filming. Because he wanted to remember the scene from Jensen's perspective, "and not Dean's perspective that's on the screen, because that will be a highly edited version with music and visual effects and special effects and all that stuff." It's always interesting to me to hear Jensen talking about acting!

Just to clarify, the fan who asked about this scene at her M&G with Jensen, and who then transcribed his answer, didn't include anything about Jensen saying that lines were cut. (She has since deleted the transcription from Twitter, but I had saved this part because I was going to comment on it.) He said that "some of Dean's reaction of what I played into Dean, they did not use." And added that "also some of the stuff Misha played into his side was cut." He then said that it is very common for editors to condense a scene in this way into a "concentrated version". The way he talks about stuff they "played into" their characters, that sounds like actor-speak for something that the actors themselves brought to the scene, artistic choices on their parts. So unless the actors were adding lines on their own initiative, that's probably not what he was referring to. More likely reaction shots that were not used?

The problem is that these fans have made it abundantly clear, for years now, that getting anything less than full blown Destiel in the end would be considered by them as a personal attack and betrayal and totally unacceptable. I would have been fine with Dean, as you describe, happily greeting Castiel with a hug in Heaven, and then going for a drive, but they wouldn't. They weren't interested in making their own head canon. If Dean saw Castiel in Heaven and didn't echo his declaration of love, there would have been a huge outpouring of hate directed toward Dean, not to mention personal insults and accusations flying at Jensen, just as we've already seen previously.

Personally I don't think that Sam ever really used the name Dean in speaking to or referring to his son; the name was just a way of honoring Dean. In my personal canon, Dean II had a nickname that he always went by instead. That's how it was in my family, when a person was named after an older relative, in order to prevent confusion. In this case, even though the original Dean was no longer around, I do not see Sam thinking of or speaking to someone new by the name Dean, as if he were a replacement for his brother. Even though we only saw him for a moment as an adult, I didn't have a problem with Sam's son. I thought the actor was a nice-looking young man, and he even sort of vaguely resembled Sam. And I kind of like the idea of Sam sharing stories with him about his brother, and Dean II growing up wishing that he could have known his uncle. I don't understand however why Sam's son had to be literally the only person in the universe that Sam had any contact with after Dean died. I mean, I understand COVID restrictions, but not having crowd scenes didn't necessarily mean that Sam must exist in a world that consisted of only him and one other person for the rest of his life. But I don't know, maybe that was supposed to symbolically show how the rest of Sam's life felt for him after he lost Dean. It's almost like the only reason Sam's son was there, was so that he could hold Sam's hand as he was dying and tell him it was okay to go. I guess it wouldn't have worked if all Sam had was Miracle and he had to die holding his paw. 🙂

Well, the CW guy says that it would have to be "connected" to the Winchesters, not that it would have to "include" Winchesters. But if that was the idea, yeah, good luck in trying to get something like that to work without THE Dean Winchester. Obviously they still don't get what made the original show work.

Yes, you might be right about that! And I am okay with it -- I don't necessarily need for him to come out right away and confirm or affirm what MY feelings are about it. Or at least, I don't feel that I have the right to demand that he immediately do this. In a way, I think it is kind of respectful of the fandom for him not to say anything right away. It's like he is giving us our space to work through our reactions without having him direct the response.

It is at about 23 minutes in. Thanks again! Like I said, it helps me right now to hear him saying this. 😟

Thank you so much, pinkchicken! I could not find it and I was starting to think I had dreamed it!

Can anyone help me find something Jensen said about the show ending, I don't know if it was an interview or at a convention or what. But the question was about Dean being gone, and Jensen said something like, "Dean isn't gone. I've got him right here." I really feel like I want to hear him saying that now!

It is hard for me to think about this because there are different layers that I have trouble keeping separated. One layer is what Dean felt about his fate. I think that because he had been hunting and putting his life at risk on a daily basis almost his entire life, he had always expected that this would be his end, and although he didn't want to die, he accepted that his time had come. Which is not the same thing as wanting it to happen; he did not want this to be "the day". For me this is separate from whether or not Dean felt he deserved to die like this. He was definitely damaged by the life he had led and the things that had happened to him, but I also think that we had seen him reject the idea that he was nothing more than a blunt instrument or a killer. Although I agree that he still really could have used some intensive therapy for his issues, I think he believed it when he ultimately told Chuck, "That's not who I am." On another layer is what the episode was saying. I don't know that the episode was necessarily saying that this was the bestest happiest ending ever for Dean; it was acknowledged that this was a sad thing. But Dabb, in the way that the episode was written, completely ignored how horribly and monstrously unfair and awful what happened to Dean was. (I feel like I need a stronger word than unfair.) And the episode did seem to be saying yes, this is sad, but hey, it is kind of lovely and poetic, isn't it? And then there is one more layer, which is the viewers. And I do think that there is a subset of fans (not anyone here) who absolutely are saying "isn`t that the bestest happy ending ever for him, yay". Not necessarily because they think Dean is better off dead or he is too broken to live, but because of what Aeryn and Tessa mentioned, the romanticizing of the idea that it is so beautiful to see Dean die and go to Heaven and wait there for his brother to come join him, because that is Dean's perfect destiny.

I don't think he was "happy" about it. More like resigned to the idea that this would be his end. Like he said to Veritas, "It's the gig.....You're covered in blood until you're covered in your own blood. Half the time, you're about to die." That's what it was like being a hunter. I don't know that he felt he deserved to end like this. On the one hand, I don't think he ever got over what happened when he was in Hell. On the other hand, he didn't seem shocked to find himself in Heaven after he died.

Yes, thank you @Lemuria! I especially appreciate your look at the fight in the barn. I had not looked at it closely, and what you say makes sense. I did not even think of this but you're right. If he couldn't do it in the barn, Sam could have said something then. Remember at the beginning of Season 13, when Sam and Dean and Jack are standing at the funeral pyre of Castiel and Kelly? When Sam asks Jack if he wants to say something, and Jack asks what he should say, Sam says, "Thank you. You say thank you. And you say you're sorry.....You say goodbye." Something needed to be said. That's what I had always wanted too. Dabb seemed to be operating under the delusion that the show and its characters belonged only to him. He was wrong. In Jared's virtual Creation panel yesterday, he seemed pretty clear about the fact that Sam did not hunt after Dean's death. He said that the understanding for all of them, all the family and friends that they fought alongside, was that afterwards, whoever survived would live as normal a life as possible. He thinks that if Dean somehow returned after 20 years and Sam was hunting, that Dean would be pissed, and that Sam wanted to live his life in a way that would honor Dean. Someone asked if Sam told his son about hunting, and Jared said yes, that he told him about hunting and about his Uncle Dean, and that's why his son wanted to get the tattoo. Works for me! After all, Jack did indicate that he was going to be hands-off, and people might need saving! I also was thinking what if Sam's son was in danger and needed their help. I actually like the idea of him getting an opportunity to know his Uncle Dean. Because Dean would have been an awesome uncle, no doubt about it!