The Morning Star
-
Posts
59 -
Joined
Content Type
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Discussion
Posts posted by The Morning Star
-
-
2 minutes ago, MysteryGuest said:
But Cas is only as smart as the writers allow him to be. They choose to keep having Cas make one bad mistake after another. He has no free will.
Having Crowley interfere with Rowena's spell to put Lucifer back in the Cage honestly made no sense. Crowley would have been the first one to want Lucifer locked away for good. He'd been humiliated by him and was made to look weak in front of the rest of the demons. As long as Lucifer was around, some of them would never respect Crowley again. Getting rid of Lucifer once and for all would have been his first priority, IMO. And it could have worked with their BMOL plot, too, because it should have really made both Sam and Dean think twice about what the BMOL could offer with their fancy machines. It would have made more sense for them to get sucked in for a bit.
The show has made one thing clear so far, the angel kind were made to follow orders, they are lost and inefficient when exposed to free will.
Cas is no exception to that and I don't like it but it is what it is.
As for Crowley, he didn't make the decision to keep Lucifer in his possession with his brain, he was deeply humiliated and wanted a revenge which is understandable considering he was half cured and regained some of his lost humanity
-
1 hour ago, DittyDotDot said:
Honestly, I think that ship sailed when they Lucifer out of the cage in the first place.
Well I'd argue it was Cas who made the decision and nobody has ever accused him of being bright.
-
1
-
-
10 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:
That doesn't mean they can't throw him back in the cage if necessary. Neutralize was one of the options I gave.
Yes, Rowena is dead, but that doesn't mean angels somewhere can't bring her back to life - they brought Adam back to life and he'd been given a hunter's funeral and his ashes left in the woods, so if Sam and Dean could convince angels to bring Rowena back if need be, she can be brought back. As I said, the only invulnerable beings at the moment that can't be killed - because Death is dead - or neutralized that we know of are Chuck and Amara. There are ways for everything else. It may not be easy - that's why there would be conflict - but it can be done.
Another option... where are the other Horsemens' rings? Dean theoretically should have them somewhere, and since time travel is an option via angel... they could travel back in time and "borrow" Death's ring from Recent Past Dean and make the key to the cage again. Getting Lucifer to fall back in might not be easy - and someone might have to push him - but not impossible.
If they have the rings, that would render the entire race of the last season to entrap Lucifer meaningless.
Ressurecting Rowena is a possibility although we don't know if the broken winged Angels are able to ressurect anyone now.
I'm telling you, after all these season defeating Lucifer has been a little away from impossible, first time Dean got beaten to death, Sam had to commit suicide and Bobby and Cas were killed.
The second time, not only it took a rift in space time created by a Nephilim, Crowley had to commit suicide, Cas was killed and Mary got stuck in an alternate universe with Lucifer.
There's too much investment in this character now, the show can't have Lucifer easily defeated without making everybody look like huge buffoons.
-
2
-
-
A point that I'd like to add is that while Lucifer has not often been shown to look "scary" in recent seasons, his actions and how vulnerable he makes the heroes look is sufficiently terrifying for me personally.
I like strong bad guys or "heels" in pro wrestling as it will always mean more when they are finally defeated, that's why I'm looking forward to the final war between Team Free Will and Lucifer as his final defeat and demise will be a focal point in the show, it will have a huge pay off.
-
1 hour ago, AwesomO4000 said:
Lucifer has at least some vulnerabilities even if they are often temporary. He was locked in the cage for a long time. Sam and Dean locked him in again, and he would have been locked in a third time if not for Crowley. Crowley also managed to find a way to bind Lucifer for a while, and Lucifer pretty much only got out because of the work of a demon who helped him escape.
The only being in SPNverse who seems to be invulnerable is Chuck/God and maybe now that she's free, Amara, and that's likely only because Death is dead - otherwise Death said he would reap God also. And speaking of Death, even he could be bound and even killed. If Dean can kill Death, I can't see why they can't kill or at least neutralize Lucifer.
Death handed Dean his own weapon, Unless they get their hands on an Archangel Blade somehow it has been proven for 12 seasons that they cannot kill Lucifer on their own.
As for Death, he was always the odd one for me, I never thought he fit in the mythology.
-
2
-
-
13 minutes ago, catrox14 said:
Sorry, I'm not really following you here. Are you suggesting that Jared's screw up was not really a screw up but intentional?Are you saying if they killed off Cas they changed their minds after the feedback?
IMO, TPTB know exactly how Cas/Misha are perceived in fandom by his fans, his detractors, and his flat out vile haters. I don't think they miscalculated anything. Dabb wrote what he wanted to write.
Misha can have an idea of something now and that might change later 1 episode into the season. I've been saying that maybe Cas survives the finale but then dies by mid season. Or he knows and he simply is forbidden to say because he'll get fired. That's a real concern. I'm pretty sure that's why Jensen framed the scene he presented at Comic Con they way he did instead of saying 'Oh well yeah Dean gets captured and cured here' .
Here is Misha's panel. Take a listen and hen decide for yourselves whether or not Misha is really suggesting there is no AU!Cas. Misha asked "Where did those rumors come from? Who is leaking this information? Because, leaks as far as I'm concerned are the primary problem" (Clearly making a bit of political commentary). But Misha also states later "I wouldn't put too much stock in the rumors or Twitter either". Yet Misha uses Twitter all the time to communicate serious things to his followers. So....who knows what he really means. My impression is that it doesn't mean flat out there will be no AU Castiel at all. YMMV
NSFW for language.
Anyway, like I said before, I talked myself into Real!Cas being alive in the AU or Sproutifer saving him. Butt I'm not convinced of that anymore. Cas' was killed by angel blade which seems to work by destroying an angel's grace. It seems to me even if Sproutifer saves him, how can he be our Real!Cas if his grace is gone? I don't see how Sproutifer can restore his blue grace, but will end up being Sproutifer's gold grace that heals him. I think Cas might have already been altered because when he healed Dean, the wound on Dean's face went gold which I thought was strange.
I'm really not trying to be a Negative Nancy here but I legit do not see how Cas can be OUR Cas with his grace without Ghuck or Amara healing him to his seraphim status.
Exactly!
Our Cas is blue eyed Seraphim Cas just as our Dean is like our Dean and our Sam is our Sam.
Nephilim altered urine golden Cas is not our Cas.
-
5 minutes ago, Aeryn13 said:
I am looking at the series as a whole. And I did make the distinction between the earlier Seasons and now when I said it was an entertaining guilty pleasure show for me back then. Sweet and loveable but not high brow. Which is not knocking it. I don`t like pretentious.
But heck, I loathe the Season 5 Finale more than any episode of TV I have ever seen.`It destroyed a lot of goodwill from Season 4 and 5 for me, simply because the conclusion is terrible, it is the impression you are left with from a particular story.
Sure, I can. It is my opinion and I can have it.
When I really loved the show, it might have placed in my personal top ten but not in shows I considered best-of-all-time, there is a difference for me.
And I disagree that the CW means bad quality in general. They have several shows superior in quality to SPN even now. Which, granted, isn`t hard.
Back when SPN started on the WB, I can`t remember much which shows they still had running back then. Buffy wasn`t on anymore, I know that much but it was a far better show in terms of writing.
We just disagree then, just remember liking or not liking something doesn't mean that thing is good or bad.
Opinions are subjective, Facts aren't, they're objective.
So while you can like Game Of Thrones, no one can claim the show would've been as big as it is today if It had the budget of SPN and lacked the sexual/violent antics that it has today. Period.
As for my TV show viewing experience, I've seen a lot of them and I say what I say with certainty, Supernatural has some top notch lead characters and the drama of the first 5 seasons ranks very high and unique in terms of acting and story and mythology.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Aeryn13 said:
Bringing this over from the public appearance thread in terms of discussing Game of Thrones:
I think it is legitimately a lot more than what you see in it so no pretense involved on my part. There are guilty pleasure shows like that but this ain`t one of them for me.
Supernatural on the other hand was a kind of guilty pleasure show in the earlier Seasons. I liked it for being goofy and charming, never for being well-written. There were times I couldn`t stand Game of Thrones - like a Season of extended torture of Theon, a character I didn`t even care for - but the calibre of writing on GOT was IMO always several levels above SPN.
Having actors in it who elevate your material to some degree helped SPN pretend for a time but it`s not like Peter Dinklage isn`t awesome for example. And he gets better material to start with.
You need to look at Supernatural pre swan song and after swan song, differentiate and then compare.
Pre Swan song, I'd argue the canon and story of Supernatural was among the best and maybe even the best I had seen until then, perfect family drama, good acting and wonderful characters, one of the highlights of season 4 and 5 for me was this show's incredible ability to make the most out of the least.
Just look at the angle effects for one
How simple yet beautiful was that?
And then you have the brilliant support characters that the show had, characters like Gabriel, Zachariah and ect.
Pre Swan song, Supernatural is a top 5 in my ultimate best shows of all time and that's a huge achievement for a show on CW of all places because let's face it, CW doesn't mean good quality.
After Swan Song, although flashes of brilliance did indeed occur within this show, I can arguably say that only reason I watch Supernatural today is because of Dean, Cas and Sam because although the quality of writing has significantly decreased, man, these characters are great!
And this is coming from someone who's seen everything from Lost and 24 to Mentalist and The Walking Dead and Fringe, rarely have I seen so many grade A main characters in a show.
Mentalist had Patrick Jane, Fringe had Walter Bishop and ect but Supernatural has Dean Winchester, Sam Winchester and Castiel!
You cannot compare what Kripke did and these characters have done on CW with what They've done with GOT on HBO with all that money in good faith and call GOT which is a glorified Porn/Violence hybrid a better overal show.
Sure after Swan Song the writing quality of it maybe superior to SPN but that and the massive budget and the "attractive" Porn/Violence cocktail it has are the only things that GOT has on SPN.
I find it silly to assume GOT would've been viewed as much as it is now if all the Sex and Nudity and violence were taken out of it.
17 minutes ago, Icarus said:Well I feel in good company with the belief that GOT is a classic piece of television and way above Supernatural in real terms (my opinion only!), Margaret Attwood is a fan and totally hooked and wrote a piece in The Guardian about it including this paragraph “I’ve been reading the 1970s Maurice Druon series of historical novels, Les Rois Maudits – The Accursed Kings – that trace the Capetian monarchs of France in the 13th and 14th centuries. Burnings at the stake, adulteries, castrations, stranglings, poisoned candies, baby murder, and hot pokers up the rear, just for starters; plus daring escapes from such strongholds as the Tower of London, intrigues, necromancy, money-lenders pulling the strings, religious leaders ditto, and more. What a treat to discover that this series strongly influenced George RR Martin; but, on second thought, how unsurprising. Because these, too, were real people, every murderous one.”
I absolutely love Supernatural, it is the only show in all my rather long years that I have been obsessed with, I have all the DVDs, several of the books and read loads of fanfics all the time but I could not ever say that the writing has been evenly good, there are some outstanding episodes but they are in general swamped by the average to bad ones IMO of course. This does not stop me from buying into the Winchesters totally and utterly.
I firmly stand my ground that GOT is what a hormoned up 16 year old would've dreamt of and way inferior as a television show than perhaps most of what I've seen on TV.
-
23 minutes ago, Jakes said:
Some good tweets from people at the SPN Phoenix Con:
--What will Mark miss most about SPN? "The people, nice place to go to work"
--Mark: Don't be mad or sad. They live on in reruns." A little mad to get his line cut but "that's just my bitchy moany phase."
--The only thing I'm upset is I got screwed out of saying even when I lose, I win. You can tell where.
--Mark Sheppard on leaving Supernatural: I watch the show for the Winchesters and it evolves. My character ran its arc.
--Mark compliments the boys. "They're like me, committed to telling the best story possible."
--Mark also re-tweeted a photo-op with him and Misha with a fan...showing all is good between the 2
--Ruth said no spoilers but "we'll see what happens" on her coming back to the show
--Are J2M as close off screen as off? Misha's genuine answer: Yes they are friends and that's why he thinks the show works so well
--J2M are life long friends
--Misha Collins wanted to be a series regular and make life long friendships with cast mates. Both came to pass
--Some excellent Trump shade and I think Misha just shot down the rumors of AU!Cas
--Misha re: AU Cas , don't put too much stock on rumors you hear online
So...some good stuff. My takeaways:
--On Mark...he's fine with his cast mates, a little salty over not getting his line he wrote and okay with the timing of his leaving the show--it was running its course with Crowley
--On Ruth...I just have and still get the vibe Rowena will be back
--On Misha...love his friendship with the J's. And what I REALLY LOVE is I think Misha clearly hinted without out and out saying it is that we get REAL CAS back and NOT AU Cas
I hope it's our own real Seraphim Cas not some mutated Nephilim creation.
-
11 minutes ago, Icarus said:
Hmmm Game of Thrones is based on a series of books which are extremely well written and the show follows the main themes of what is written in the books. It is much easier to write sex and violence in a book than show it on the screen so sorry but I strongly disagree that it is written for 16 year olds as said above it is a fantasy world and is a very violent one. I enjoyed the books myself but after the first series gave up on the tv series as I also found it difficult to watch rather than read.
I did not say it was written for 16 years olds, I said the show is the fantasy of hormoned up 16 year old boys, whether or not you like the said fantasy who am I to say you should or shouldn't like something.
It's just that because it entertains you for whatever reason, doesn't make it a well written piece of political philosophy.
Let's just not pretend it is something more than what it actually is.
-
28 minutes ago, Aeryn13 said:
If said boy also dreams about complex political maneuvering, then I`d agree. And the sex and violence serve to establish the world the characters live in as violent and somewhat decadent. Sure, some of it may be gratuitous but not the entirety. And I`m not even a big fan of it but the writing is miles better than it is on SPN.
So IMO if that is the yardstick, IMO Jensen is currently on something that only resembles a show.
I'd argue the opposite.
The children in charge of this show maybe too incompetent today but we complain that these writers kill characters to "shock" us in the finale every now and yet, that's GOT on a normal day.
I'm sorry but introducing busses full of characters only to kill them and replace them with another buss full of characters in 2 episodes is no "good writing".
I'm also unable to see the complex political maneuvering that you speak of, All I've seen so far has been molten gold/silver, behadings, lots of blood and sex.
-
2
-
-
15 hours ago, catrox14 said:
Sounds like you're confusing HBO and Skinemax (Cinemax).
HBO has always featured nudity and sexual content as part of their prestige programming but IMO it's not overly gratuitous in most cases, iMO. It really comes down to the intent of the sexuality and nudity as to whether it's gratuitous or not. My main gripe is that the men on GoT are not nude as often as the women and that makes it seem more imbalanced and gratuitous.
I don't know where the idea that Jensen is against nudity and sexuality in film nor TV is coming from. I've only ever seen him openly complain about one film and that was Devour, which he said ended up being quite different during filming than what he signed on to do. I don't know if he was referring to the sex scene or that there was some incestuous overtones to the film. He had no problem with his sex scenes with Anna and the Amazon. I've never heard him remark that he regretted doing 'Blonde'.
Jensen has mentioned before that he loves Game of Thrones and he said that David Nutter told him if he wants on the show he will make it happen. Unfortunately, Nutter doesn't seem to be attached to GoT anymore, but he is working on Shameless on Showtime. Jensen joked about Game of Thrones being the show where a bunch of naked guys are fighting each other which I'm pretty sure he confused with Spartacus, either intentionally or as a joke.
Let's talk GOT for example, these are some of the scenes I remember from the show:
Emila Clarke getting penetrated from behind by Jason Momoa .
Some dude I can't remember teaching two girls how to lick and drool over each other.
A couple of dudes having sex.
Somebody getting a blowjob and ect ect.
Shows like Game Of Thrones are the fantasy of a hormoned up 16 years old Boy, tons of sex, nudity and violence and all of them for the sake of Nudity and sex and violence as opposed to serving a purpose in telling story.
What I've seen and heard from Ackles so far suggests he has a set of standards and rules, perhaps an appearance in a show like GOT would give it a mere minute of something that resembles a show.
-
23 minutes ago, Aeryn13 said:
I still couldn`t see things like Game of Thrones or Rome or True Blood. Raunchy doesn`t always have to mean super-crappy like Fifty Shades but IMO those things are not up his alley. For example I like James Purefoy but staring at his full frontal for a good five minutes on Rome was kinda awkward. And it wasn`t even a sexualized scene. He just stood there nude without a care in the world. Not in Jensen`s comfort zone, I think.
I don`t think actors on HBO shows "whore themselves out" for example. I have no problem with either, actors who decline such roles and actors who embrace them.
I didn't know HBO made shows.....
Most of what I've seen resembles softcore and at times hardcore Pornography.
I have a general problem with today's TV and Movie environment, you can't have male and female characters interact anymore without some sort of "Romantic" (Sexual angle) unless they are blood And even that is slowly becoming another "outdated" limitation that we need to get rid of.
A few years ago at least you were content that two same sex human beings were able to interact with no sexual Angle and now today, because everything is an election and everybody must feel included even two dudes or gals cannot inhibit the same space without a hint of sexual Angle or irrational fans forcing their illogical shipping down everyone's throats.
So yeah, I truly believe today "whoring" out on Televesion has become a virtue and being prude has become a negative attribute for losers.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Pondlass1 said:
Off topic but I really enjoyed BLL too. Great writing. Great acting. Hope it returns.
I do agree, tho, that I get the impression that (although not a prude in any sense) Jensen's not keen on sex and romance roles.
Kinda OT but I never understood why in today's society being prude is considered a negative trait.
One of the main reasons I like Jensen Ackles is that he's a guy with standards and in today's overly sexualized movie/TV show environment it's breath of fresh air knowing there is still good looking guys like Ackles who wouldn't like to whore themselves out on tv whenever they could because it's "cool" and the new social standard.
-
2
-
-
That's just over sensitive on Sheppard's part imo specially when their social media guy misspelled Pellegrino's name as well.
I'm gonna go on a limb and guess contrary to what everybody might think, whatever happened between Sheppard and the Writers/Producers recently was the last straw as opposed to it being the actual and only reason for his departure.
And given their history, I can see both Ackles and Collins having reacted in a different manner if the issue was black and white.
I think, while Sheppard like any other actor can understandably be pissed with the way his character is handled, here he may have projected a rather excessive view of his sense of self-worth towards the show which may have ruffled the feathers of the children who are writing this show over in L.A and in return they dumped his character to perhaps send of message of "shove it" to Sheppard.
Which is a shame if true.
-
1
-
-
Gabriel.
Nuff said.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, DittyDotDot said:
Okay, I skimmed back but couldn't find it to quote...about the finale being meta: I've been thinking about what I said yesterday about them possibly not going back to the alternate universe and Mary and Luci are locked over there and we won't see them again? Perhaps the meta Dabb was referring to was he was saying they were both changing the show away from what it was originally by also going back to what it was originally?
What I mean is, maybe they locked Mary and Luci in the other universe while also killing Cass and Crowley as a way to say we're done with Mary and John Winchester, we're done with Lucifer and God's plan, we're done with Heaven and Hell. This is the "birth" of something new while also being the old hunting things and saving people?
I'm not even sure if I'm making sense now. ;)
If Lady Toni Bevell and that vegetarian black gay witch are Dabb's idea of a new era, I rather have Kirpike's recycled draft.
Besides, Heaven and Hell need to be in the background now but you can't get rid of them.
-
Supernatural works it's best when it's centered on the brothers and the focus of the show is the struggle of the brothers with something rather than the focus on that thing standalone.
I think it's a part of the reason why the show seems weaker these days, back in the olden days you had the story of Sam and Dean and their biggest threats guest starring , these days, the theat itself gets equal and sometimes even more screen time than the brothers.
Which could've been fine if the show could've done better than a bunch of teenagers and some hallway as "Heaven" and "angels".
If you can't pull it off then don't bother, let it stay a mystery, let our imaginations go wild.
I vividly remember how when Cas was shown to possess Jimmy, he was probably standing under a spotlight and yet that simple spotlight scene some how is worth more than this worthless blue floating thingy that they have now for angles that ironically takes more of a time to put together.
-
3
-
-
1 minute ago, catrox14 said:
I've always wondered, was Sam evil when he was born making him more susceptible to the effects of the demon blood? Did Azazel and Lucifer really want Sam because he was not necessarily born good? I dunno. I don't think that was the case but it seems like something the show would want to come back around to in the end because either way, whether Sam was born evil , born good and tainted by demon blood or he was untainted by the demon blood until he chose to use it with Ruby, he still overcame all of that to become the Savior of the World even if he was the savior to fix what he broke. I can see them going with Round 2.0 of Sam really saving the world but he didn't break it first...meaning maybe he saves the AU.
I always thought the use of demon blood was to strengthen Sam's body for Lucifer more than anything.
Sam wasn't evil and he wasn't born evil. may have hoped the blood would change his nature but little did they know that while you can amplify or suppress someone's nature, you can never change it.
They effectively used Sam's devastated mind after Dean died and manipulated him to do what they wanted to without him realizing it...and let's face it, Sam's only recently behaving like an adult so I'd call him a stupid, arrogant child not evil.
So yeah, they might have chosen him not because he was evil but because his nature made him vulnerable against evil.
-
7 minutes ago, SueB said:
Interesting discussion. I would point out that the entire series has emphasized nuture (Sam is good) over nature (Sam is tainted by demon blood).
Actually I think it has proven the opposite, Sam is still a good person despite being tainted by demon blood after he was born.
While many others may have failed he didn't...outside may have an influence in what's visible about someone but at the end of the day, what's inside takes the cake.
-
1 hour ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:
I don't know why he'd necessarily be a master strategist? Because his father is Lucifer? Well, that guy's not exactly a master strategist either imo (Let's see: Dad had Michael throw him in the cage because he got out of hand, Sam threw him back in the cage, Sam and Dean and Roweena would have had him back in the cage again except for Crowley's interference...Dude gets outplayed a lot) so where would Jack get it from? ;)
But seriously - Lucifer also didn't start out evil. I thought, according to SPN, it was the Mark of Cain which turned him full evil by amplifying his already bad traits. But still - he didn't start out that way. And the other nephilim we saw whom Cas killed with Boogertron wasn't automatically evil. She was working as a waitress for Pete's sake (instead of using whatever 'powers' she probably had for her own benefit) and just wanted to be left alone.
Then again, that smirk on Jack's face when Sam walked in the room: it didn't look good.
No you didn't read what I said carefully, I said the Nephilim will be a villain, Evil? I don't know.
I firmly speculate that Jack has been very aware of his surroundings for the majority of time:
-He saw a possible future.
-He manipulated Cas to use him as his very own puppet.
-Killed Dagon to escape his dad as he felt the threat.
-Opened a rift in space time to entrap his father getting Cas killed in the process.
-Despite showing possessive of the ability to resurrect humans, did not resurrect his own mother.
Now I find it silly to assume the boy is gonna "learn" anything from Sam or Dean or Cas (if he can and chooses to rebuild him).
Even if he truely means to create a universe without pain and suffering which is disputed at best, doing so is impossible without undermining the freedom of will or attempting a large scale purge of possible undesirables, neither of which are stuff either of the brother son would put up with.
So evil or not evil, this creature cannot be on the same side as Sam and Dean unless he is to be depowered or contained or killed.
1 hour ago, DittyDotDot said:Heh, like I said in the episode thread, Lucifer is the biggest dumbass of all time! He loses even when he wins. ;)
That would be hilarious!!
I'm still holding out hope the spawn is powerless. I know he was powerful as a fetus, but I still think it would be far funnier if he turned out to be a dud. ;)
His hubris and pride is his biggest failure, without them he's be virtually undefeatable.
-
12 minutes ago, catrox14 said:
Oh that's interesting. Hmm I hadn't thought about that
I'm guessing he'l end up being a master strategist/puppet master who despite meaning to purge the suffering from world chooses a path that contradicts the principle of free will and/or a Cain like purge of possible "undesirables".
Neither of which either brothers would put up with.
And that's the best case scenario for him IMO.
-
1
-
-
13 minutes ago, catrox14 said:
He managed to walk from Kelly's room to the nursery and I'm guessing he's the one that put Kelly into her dead repose.
I'm convinced he also caused the rift to entrap his father.
-
Nothing shown to us so far has implied anything but the fact that this "child" is well aware of his surroundings.
I just can't see him as anything but a villain, he's either evil like his father or just does stuff that puts him opposed to the boys.period.
Spoilers With Speculation
in Supernatural
Yeah that really did undermine the race in S4 for the seals, I like to think the race for the seals in S4 was a part of Chuck's original script, after all both sides were following it.
I wouldn't call it endorsement, with Chuck's presence they just went with it.