Supernatural Smackdown: The Winchester Dynamic Duo vs Other Shows

[JanetWaldo]

On 6/12/2017 at 11:24 AM, DittyDotDot said:

 I usually make up my own names to remember them by. ;)

LOL!  I like that idea.  I'm going to have to try it.  Plus, it will drive my daughter crazy! ;)

18 hours ago, catrox14 said:

For me, it's not the same in SPN. Some deaths were meaningful and had purpose but many did not.

Eh...Personally, I feel the same way about GOT, even with the medieval setting.  I guess I like my 'heroes' to have some kind of moral backbone and right now I can't think of anyone on GOT that fits.

14 hours ago, DittyDotDot said:

Well, I don't know if it ever improved, but I barely made it through the first season. All those teenagers running amok...YUCK!!! ;)

I'm with you on this one.  ;)  I didn't even make it through the first few episodes.  But weirdly, I really liked Pretty Little Liars, which was mostly all teenagers also.

[catrox14]

37 minutes ago, JanetWaldo said:

Eh...Personally, I feel the same way about GOT, even with the medieval setting.  I guess I like my 'heroes' to have some kind of moral backbone and right now I can't think of anyone on GOT that fits.

To me it's all relative as to what I define as a moral backbone in a particular fictional universe vs my own standards or the standards in the real world. In GoT, to me within that world, I would say Jon Snow, Arya, Ned Stark, and Tyrion Lannister are good people at heart who have done immoral acts but I can't say that I think they are immoral persons or lack a moral code in their world.

Take Breaking Bad for example. Walter White, a high school chemistry teacher, chose a quick, terrible route to making a lot of money to make sure his family was not in financial ruin because of his lung cancer diagnosis, treatment and likely death. My brother, who had been a high school biology teacher  was actually ANGRY that a premise existed in fiction that had a teacher do this. He literally said "A teacher would never do that" and felt it was an insult to the teaching profession so he refused to watch and all I could think was "Have you forgotten all the stories of teachers who have sexual relationships with their students IRL or teachers that are abusive to students? So, a teacher might make the choice WW did from the outset because, believe it or not, brother, teachers  are human and humans do both good and bad things."  I found it the strangest argument but that was his reasoning so there you go. I guess he just never wanted to admit that teachers are not always paragons of knowledge and virtue.

 

At the outset Jesse Pinkman was on the surface an immoral character because he was a meth head who also cooked and sold meth and   Walter was the moral character because he didn't do that. But IMO, as the series progressed Jesse turned out to be more or less the moral character in that duo and Walter was not. Probably the only truly good and moral person in Breaking Bad was Walt, Jr., baby Holly and maybe Steve. Hank was supposedly moral as a cop but eh...he did shady stuff too.   IMO, BB was a social commentary on the disgraceful lack of decent salaries for public school teachers, the state of health care in the U.S. and of course, in Walter's case, it was a story of one man's potential for "evil" to prove he was not a weak man, and to win in the end no matter what. It became a study IMO, of how far a person can go down a rabbit hole before it's too late for redemption.

I see the same things in SPN to a degree.

Do the Winchester boys have an ongoing moral code or does it change as the situation dictates?   Are they good people at heart who have committed immoral acts? Depending on one's morals and values IMO it's both yes and no.

Mary was a good person and she still made a deal with a demon who she knew was a demon. So does that mean she lacked a moral backbone? I'm not sure whether or not I would make a deal with the devil to save a loved one's life. I hope I never have to find out. But there are choices we make that are not as extreme as making a deal with a demon or the devil, like little white  told because of mistakes or bad choices, or the inability to face certain things, or even at times to protect someone else. Does that make one an immoral person who is not good at heart or a good person who makes some immoral choices?

With Dean and Sam, I think they are still heroes because they save lives and at the same time time they committed arguably many "immoral" acts along the way. So I guess the question for me, does the moral code determine whether someone is good or bad or heroic; that is do the occasional immoral acts erase the "goodness" of a person and are they beyond redemption?  IMO it depends on the context of that immoral act. So for me, I think SPN's content and characters falls right into that grey area of moral relativism within it's universe like GoT and Breaking Bad.

[Aeryn13]

I think SPN is somewhat build on good vs. evil though the Winchesters have long since stopped being total white hats. But at its core the show needs them to be heroes. CW`s Flash works in the same fashion. And Supergirl is the whitiest hat who ever white hatted.  

Some shows are built on - at best - antiheroes. Maybe there is a heroic character in the mix but they are often portrayed as a stick in the mud, especially if it`s just a side character. Or they become corrupted themselves later on. Those shows can work also if that has been the premise from the start because obviously the audience that finds it can deal with, shall we say, a lack of morality. An example of that would be GOT. Even noble at heart characters can`t stay that for too long. 

There is also mixtures where protagonists are both of the hero and antihero/villain-ous varity. In those, the antiheroes/villains usually are redeemed somewhat and the morality of others rubs off on them. CW`s Legends fits the bill nicely.

Shows centered on a truly evil character as the protagonist, hm, the only one I can think of is that old one with Gary Cole as the evil Sheriff. Which I liked, though it was short-lived.   

Every model can work for me as long as the show sells it to me straight right from the start. If there aren`t heroes to begin with and I know I will never wring out any real morality from the characters, then as long as they are otherwise vibrant, charming characters, I can still love to watch them. What doesn`t work is changing from one model to another mid-show.   

Edited June 14, 2017 by Aeryn13

[JanetWaldo]

34 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

To me it's all relative as to what I define as a moral backbone in a particular fictional universe vs my own standards or the standards in the real world

I might be wrong, and maybe I haven't been 'tested'...(but eh, on the other hand, yes, I think I already have) but I like to think that my morals aren't so 'relative'.  (And don't get me wrong - I'm not trying to say I'm better or worse than anyone else.  It's just the way I am and I'm happy with it.)

Granted, I've never watched Breaking Bad.  As I said, I never will.  But here's my take: my ex-husband became a meth-head. Until then he was a good father and husband, and I really think he initially started using drugs was because of the long hours he was working.  But that didn't make his decision right, just like whatever the main character's motivation for getting involved with meth; it wasn't a good reason.  Not for me.  And as I said, I never watched the show, so I don't know if it showed the fallout with his family as a result of his involvement with drugs, but let me tell you - the reality is NOTHING like anything you will ever see on television.  I don't ever need to watch it.  I've lived it.  There is no grey area as far as I'm concerned with Walter. 

45 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

It became a study IMO, of how far a person can go down a rabbit hole before it's too late for redemption.

I don't know what others consider redemption - and on the one hand it is not mine to give or withhold.  But some people think my ex has 'redeemed' himself.  I don't.  I know exactly what he has and hasn't done. 

I do not see the same thing in Supernatural. 

I apologize if this came off as rather rude.  It wasn't intentional, but unfortunately you happened to hit a real hot button for me, so I think it would be best if I bowed out of the conversation at this point. 

[catrox14]

10 minutes ago, JanetWaldo said:

And as I said, I never watched the show, so I don't know if it showed the fallout with his family as a result of his involvement with drugs, but let me tell you - the reality is NOTHING like anything you will ever see on television.

FWIW, I know someone who is a former meth user who thankfully found a way out of that life, who did watch Breaking Bad from beginning to end  and said it was so spot on that it was often difficult to watch. So from that aspect IMO Breaking Bad did not glorify nor underplay the awful consequences. I've read on many forums other than here that it was a pretty frighteningly accurate portrayal of the meth world WRT to both users, dealers and the impact on the families. It is a violent, psychodrama where there are hard core consequences for that life.  Not saying you should watch it, of course, I'm just saying by most accounts it's a realistic portrayal. And redemption is....well, questionable at best.

I was thinking about Dean's mentions of drugs. I think Dean definitely toked a bit back in the day. I don't know if he ever did anything else. I always thought it was a peculiar move to have Sam say he tried pot in college. Like I didn't quite see the rationale for that other than to make Sam flawed or more cool? It was strange. Dean we already suspected smoked some weed given his admiration of the psychic dude's giant bong. LOL

So for me the comparison with SPN and Breaking Bad is in the themes of morally relativistic grey areas of what one will do to save and protect their families before they lose themselves in the process.  

[mertensia]

 Sam and Dean have more in common with the crew from Leverage, or 80s detectives like The Equalizer; Cannell would have understood Sam and Dean.  Even Magnum had his greyness. "Ivan, did you see the sunrise?" comes to mind. 

[FlickChick]

I'm re-watching "Simon & Simon". I always enjoyed that show when it was on, and see some similarities to our brothers. Rick is 4+ years older than AJ; Rick is the street-smart one; AJ is the schooled one who follows the book and does research. The banter between them is entertaining. Obviously their business - detectives - is not similar, but both of them at one time or another have done things in the "grey" area. It was on for 8 years and like our show, the earlier years had more interesting storylines, before things got a little old. Kim Manners directed some episodes in the later years on that show as well. Their best writer was Michael Piller -you could always expect a better episode when he wrote it. Anyway, waxing nostalgic. LOL

[AwesomO4000]

12 hours ago, Aeryn13 said:

However, because I seem to have talked you out of a show I would genuinely recommend as a really good show:  the character I`m speaking of became my favourite in the second half of Season 1. And while they trashed him for no good reason in Season 3, I still think the show overall is really good. So since I`m like a dog with a bone with my faves, maybe that helps put it in perspective. :)

The show`s forté is exploring grey areas. All the characters are always forced to choose between one evil and another. That`s why the darkness itself in Season 3 never bothered me, it was the simplisticness of it. Never before or since has the show been that simplistic. 

SPN sometimes dips its toe in grey areas whereas 100 swims in the lake.

So please, if you don`t mind teenager characters and you like exploration of those themes, give it a try if you are interested. Binge-watching improves the show greatly.

I might have to give it a try at some point, though if your favorite character also becomes mine, I might be annoyed by the subsequent trashing - I'm still annoyed about Sam in seasons 8-10 - so i'll have to consider carefully. In general though, my favorite characters don't tend to be the ones the majority finds as their favorite, so I might be alright.

As for the gray areas, I do like that. As I said, it's one of the reasons I enjoyed the MOtW episodes - and even to an extent some of the arc stories (like season 6) were gray - during Gamble's stint as showrunner. The themes tended to be more gray without a clear opinion on which view was right or wrong or if either was truly right or wrong. I think my favorite in that regard was "Repo Man."

It sounds like I wouldn't like season 3 of The 100 as much. I don't like my "gray" muddied up with simplistic "we, the writers, clearly see this side as right" anvils.
 

Quote

If a character starts out as really evil but becomes beloved as such so the showrunners want to keep them around, they necessarily have to soften them up. Really evil doesn`t work longterm.

At least with Spike they had an in-character-template. He had always been a "fool for love". With Dru, he was really evil. When he fell for Buffy, he tried to be good. That even made sense for him, defining himself for the woman he loved. For Angel that would have been out-of-character nonsense but not for Spike.

IMO SPN ran into the evil-longivity problem with Crowley a few times. They tried to keep him kinda toeing the line of "mischievious evil" but a few times he spiked into unredeemable territory and then they tried to make him buddy-buddy again right after. 

I agree, for all of the reasons you said, and Spike would've been a good example. As I said above, if Spike had remained truly evil, after a while it would've been silly for them to have come up with reasons for why Spike wasn't dead. And Crowley is a good example, too. For me, SPN skirted the same issue with Meg. I was annoyed by the implication in "Goodbye Stranger" that Sam was somehow awful and/or should feel guilty for not seeing what happened to Meg after she got nabbed by Crowley - and it was even worse that they had Sam talking about his "feelings" with her - because yes, mutual "enemy" and all that, but still Meg took his body for a ride, murdering someone, tried to kill Dean, and who knows what else she forced him to do and later sicced hell hounds on them resulting in the death of Ellen and Jo, etc, so, no, I don't see a reason why Sam should've been concerned for Meg's welfare. Geesh, Show. Just how forgiving does Sam have to be?

I kinda regret actually that Sam didn't get to stab Crowley at least in someplace not vital before Crowley died, because after all the stuff Crowley did to Sam - killing Sarah already being pretty bad and helping turn Dean into a demon being even worse - Crowley pretty much deserved it, and I would've liked that closure/catharsis for Sam.

4 hours ago, Aeryn13 said:

Shows centered on a truly evil character as the protagonist, hm, the only one I can think of is that old one with Gary Cole as the evil Sheriff. Which I liked, though it was short-lived. 

I guess it depends on your definition of evil, but maybe Bates Motel and Hannibal? For Bates Motel, both Norma and Norman were what one might call "evil" even if mentally disabled / affected and complex evil (rather than the straight forward mustache-twirling variety of evil). For Hannibal, I guess it could be argued that Will was the protagonist, but I think an argument could be made that Hannibal was. I think it was a testament to the uniqueness of that show that, in the end, I entirely wanted Hannibal to lure Will over to the "dark side." That's not usually what's supposed to happen, so I found that entirely fascinating.

Interestingly, I really enjoyed both shows, so I'm not sure what that says about me. ; )

But I do have to say, it takes a special show for me to go that way. Evil winning doesn't always work for me. The movie Drag Me to Hell is a good example. I was entirely annoyed by the ending to that, especially since up until that point it was a somewhat entertaining movie.

And it's been a while, but does Twin Peaks qualify also? I'm trying to remember if the main guy turned out to be the bad guy or not.

I'll have to think about if there are any more that I remember.

Edited to add:
I didn't watch the show, but would Dexter also count? Dexter sounds evil, but not having watched the show, I couldn't say for sure.

Edited June 14, 2017 by AwesomO4000

[catrox14]

2 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

I kinda regret actually that Sam didn't get to stab Crowley at least in someplace not vital before Crowley died, because after all the stuff Crowley did to Sam - killing Sarah already being pretty bad and helping turn Dean into a demon being even worse - Crowley pretty much deserved it, and I would've liked that closure/catharsis for Sam

I figured once Sam didn't kill him in The Prisoner, he never would.

[AwesomO4000]

4 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

I figured once Sam didn't kill him in The Prisoner, he never would.

Ah, but it wasn't for lack of effort. I liked that Sam kept on trying.

And as I said, killing wouldn't have even had to happen. Just letting Sam get in a nice stab would've been cathartic.

[catrox14]

3 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

Ah, but it wasn't for lack of effort. I liked that Sam kept on trying.

And as I said, killing wouldn't have even had to happen. Just letting Sam get in a nice stab would've been cathartic.

I never understood why he didn't stab him when Crowley was weak from the Hexbag other than...plot contrivance.

I kept shouting at the TV,  "Sam, you can't lecture him to death! Just stab him right now!" 

[Aeryn13]

Quote

I might have to give it a try at some point, though if your favorite character also becomes mine, I might be annoyed by the subsequent trashing - I'm still annoyed about Sam in seasons 8-10 - so i'll have to consider carefully. In general though, my favorite characters don't tend to be the ones the majority finds as their favorite, so I might be alright.

If it helps, they started another redemption story in Season 4. :)  And well, he is a hard to like character at first because he started out leading the imbecile brigade. It`s just like with the show overall, the first few episodes are not... terribly good and don`t give an accurate represenation of it later on. 

What`s funny is there is a character who started out as even more of an asshole early on and remained so for the longest time and yet by Season 4 that character, while never quite losing his edge. has become one of the best on the show.  

 

Quote

As for the gray areas, I do like that. As I said, it's one of the reasons I enjoyed the MOtW episodes - and even to an extent some of the arc stories (like season 6) were gray - during Gamble's stint as showrunner. The themes tended to be more gray without a clear opinion on which view was right or wrong or if either was truly right or wrong. I think my favorite in that regard was "Repo Man."

It sounds like I wouldn't like season 3 of The 100 as much. I don't like my "gray" muddied up with simplistic "we, the writers, clearly see this side as right" anvils.

A line that gets repeated quite often is "maybe there are no good guys." Which is...not untrue. I mean the good guys try hard to be good and make the best choice available but because it is a survival tale they are often just presented with two evils and have to navigate what is the lesser of those. 

To be fair to Season 3, the storyline I speak of is just one - the show usually covers more than one at the same time - and it only spans half the Season so it is bearable.

Quote

As I said above, if Spike had remained truly evil, after a while it would've been silly for them to have come up with reasons for why Spike wasn't dead. 

They wrung a lot of screentime out of the "comedy relief" phase where he was still evil but chipped and therefore not as dangerous. But that clearly couldn`t go on forever. 

Quote

And Crowley is a good example, too. For me, SPN skirted the same issue with Meg. I was annoyed by the implication in "Goodbye Stranger" that Sam was somehow awful and/or should feel guilty for not seeing what happened to Meg after she got nabbed by Crowley

It was the "last impression" thing. No matter how evil she had been previously, she went out after being a really helpful ally so she ended up looking all poor and victimized. They needed to find a way to make it clear that her personal "redemption", if you can call it that, didn`t mean all was forgiven on the heroes side. But such writing takes finesse the show doesn`t have.

Quote

or Hannibal, I guess it could be argued that Will was the protagonist, but I think an argument could be made that Hannibal was.

I have a hard time deciding too. Ultimately, I think it was a very dark and creepy love story between the two so both?

[mertensia]

Well, there are grey morality shows, and people can act as white knights (Hannibal of the A-Team) within that morality. Sam and Dean mostly try to walk the white knight line, but sometimes they just can't. Not and win.  And, overall, grey morality shows tend to interest me more than simple black and white. Which is why I adore Magnum but not Blue Bloods.  

Hannibal (the recent show), however, is in that sui generis category.   

[Pondlass1]

You can see heads chopped off, blood and guts spurting everywhere, etc., but warrior Dean must say "I didn't poop for a week" on network TV.  It's friggin'  freaking nuts.

Why can you swear on cable but not on network?  Beeping is way more annoying (although funny in Ghostbusters).

Edited June 15, 2017 by Pondlass1

[catrox14]

18 minutes ago, Pondlass1 said:

You can see heads chopped off, blood and guts spurting everywhere, etc., but warrior Dean must say "I didn't poop for a week" on network TV.  It's friggin'  freaking nuts.

Why can you swear on cable but not on network?  Beeping is way more annoying (although funny in Ghostbusters).

That's one reason why I would welcome like 6 to 8 episodes on Netflix. They could swear. I've said before long ago, that one of the reasons the show,  and Dean more specifically, comes across as misogynistic is the overuse of "bitch".  I think they use "bitch" a lot because they can't say "asshole", "fuck" or any other thing guys like Dean would really say. They can say "dick" or "dickbag" because it's not talking about an actual penis. LOL. They can say "crap" because it's not talking about feces. Even though Dean says "bitch" almost exclusively to monsters and demons when he's using it pejoratively, I think it would make the use of "bitch" more meaningful and have a real impact that if it's being said, less frequently and for a specific purpose. 

[gonzosgirrl]

49 minutes ago, Pondlass1 said:

You can see heads chopped off, blood and guts spurting everywhere, etc., but warrior Dean must say "I didn't poop for a week" on network TV.  It's friggin'  freaking nuts.

Why can you swear on cable but not on network?  Beeping is way more annoying (although funny in Ghostbusters).

Anyone remember when Sipowitz called the female assistant D.A. a 'pissy little bitch' on NYPD Blue and everyone lost their minds? Seems pretty quaint now. I think we are a little more lax in Canada - I know I can watch Just For Laughs (Montreal comedy festival) and hear 'fuck' and 'asshole' uncensored. But yeah, the lines that are drawn for network tv are kind of ridiculous, with hardened criminals (or even hardened cops) never uttering a swear word. I don't need or want ever other word to be a cuss, but a well-placed 'fuck you' from Dean now and then would be awesome. *g*

[Aeryn13]

I don`t think anyone knows the real ins and outs of standards and practices.

But consider yourself lucky you don`t have the "you/you" problem, as in the personal "you" and the formal "you". In German dubbing it mostly always starts out with the formal you which is okay for people who have just met or don`t know each other that well but five years later and they are the best of friends, it`s still formal you. Not to mention (the will they/won`t they) couples. They usually switch to personal you right after sex. Like German Mulder and Scully and their offscreen baby. Aaargh.

Shows like SPN escaped that because with brothers, it is a given that they don`t address each other formally. Same for shows with teenagers/high schoolers as protagonists. 

Edited June 15, 2017 by Aeryn13

[catrox14]

1 hour ago, Aeryn13 said:

I don`t think anyone knows the real ins and outs of standards and practices.

Eric Kripke explained some of what they were allowed to say and not say, back at Paley Fest in 2011. He's the one who said why they can say "dick" or "bitch" but not "shit" or "fuck". But sure hang a woman upside down in her underwear and show her struggling to get away and then show her throat being slit and that is all fine for the network.

I think Kripke also said they often used to write and film other things they knew would never make it past the censors so they could keep other stuff that might otherwise get booted. 

[Pondlass1]

I find the comment "you son of a bitch" way more offensive than say fuck or shit. It's a derogatory slight at someone's mother. I'm from the UK and now living in Canada, both countries a lot more lax than the US in this regard. I think it's time for networks to loosen up. The beeping alone is way more annoying. Like we don't know what they're saying 

However I don't want f bombs all over the place. Cable goes overboard 

Oooooo A six episode Supernatural season on Netflix or whatever would be like the best thing since sliced bread 

[AwesomO4000]

1 hour ago, catrox14 said:

Eric Kripke explained some of what they were allowed to say and not say, back at Paley Fest in 2011. He's the one who said why they can say "dick" or "bitch" but not "shit" or "fuck". But sure hang a woman upside down in her underwear and show her struggling to get away and then show her throat being slit and that is all fine for the network.

I think Kripke also said they often used to write and film other things they knew would never make it past the censors so they could keep other stuff that might otherwise get booted.

I still don't know how they got Sam's what sounds to me like "Fuck you" through a sock in his mouth in "Season Seven, Time for a Wedding" by the censors, but I snorted out loud on that one. And it wasn't just me, because my hubby was typing on his computer, barely even paying attention and he looked up when he heard it and asked "did he just say 'fuck you?'" Of course they deflected with the totally Becky oblivious  "I love you, too" response.

Out of curiosity, I checked the transcript to see what it said, and it has Sam saying "Becky" muffled, but it doesn't sound like "Becky" to me - nor does Sam's expression say "Becky."

I prefer to hear it as "Fuck you."

2 hours ago, Pondlass1 said:

Oooooo A six episode Supernatural season on Netflix or whatever would be like the best thing since sliced bread 

I don't have netflix. : (   How about TNT?

[catrox14]

1 hour ago, AwesomO4000 said:

I don't have netflix. : (   How about TNT?

A TNT 10 pm show? I'm down for that too.

[FlickChick]

5 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

A TNT 10 pm show? I'm down for that too.

Any of the cable/streaming options would be good - BUT - only if they found some new writers who researched the characters, watched all the past episodes, and wrote compelling, tight and epic storylines with wonderful, spot-on characterizations. I don't want much, do I?? ;)

[mertensia]

Yeah that sounded exactly like "fuck you" to me as well, AwesomO4000.

[catrox14]

Watching Midnight Texas,

They show the angels wings and they look....ridiculous LOL.  I much prefer SPN never showing anything but the outline of their wings. I think the only show where angel wings looked cool was on Dominion. Also, my eye twitched when they had a half-demon, half-human character but he's not the Anti-Christ and the mention of the Veil and they want to seal the Veil forever to stop the Apocalpyse. I know these are themes but it's just making twitchy. Ack. I'm so defensive LOL.

I'm also totally distracted by Francois Arnaud not using a French accent. Also, the acting is....not very good.

Edited September 5, 2017 by catrox14

[Pondlass1]

I can't get into Midnight.  Having problems with Preacher and many other 'my type' series.

I don't know if it's me or what... I enjoy the horror type genre (not science fiction or action hero, tho) and usually seek out these types of series...but - gosh - there's so much 'over acting'. I guess because it's a supernatural genre the actor feels they must go over the top and be extra dramatic or - what's worse - extra nonchalant in the face of danger .  I don't seem able to get into this new stuff, it's all the same  - or maybe I'm getting old.

I think they've got it right with Lucifer, tho.  Nice mix of comedy and menace. 

I think Supernatural reruns will hold up better in years to come than some of these more recent offerings.  I  still prefer the blue collar, open road, face  monster without tights or weapons type of thing.  And of course... the Winchester brothers being drop dead gorgeous and sexy helps!

[DittyDotDot]

25 minutes ago, Pondlass1 said:

I can't get into Midnight.  Having problems with Preacher and many other 'my type' series.

I haven't watched Midnight Texas yet, but I too couldn't get into Preacher. I really wanted to love it because it's weird and far out there, but, in the end, I think it was just too...I don't know how else to describe it, but..."loud" I guess. 

[catrox14]

I couldn't get into Preacher either.  Lucifer is hit and mix for me. I like the actor playing Lucifer but the co-star is bleh, IMO. I love Tricia Helfer but I couldn't get into her role on Lucifer.

The only other supernatural like shows, I've enjoyed post Angel and SPN. was True Blood, because of Jason and Lafayette, (they totally should have hooked up)

And Grimm, which went so far off the rails in s3 that I barely made it to the end of the show.  I just stuck around because I liked everyone not named Juliette. LOL

I also really liked American Gods.

But I just compare them all to SPN and they mostly come up wanting save Angel. I didn't really like Buffy that much.

Edited September 5, 2017 by catrox14

[DittyDotDot]

11 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

I also really liked American Gods.

I've been holding off on watching American Gods. I enjoyed the book enough, although I didn't love it, but it's influence on Supernatural makes me worry the whole thing will mess with my head. ;)

[catrox14]

2 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said:

I've been holding off on watching American Gods. I enjoyed the book enough, although I didn't love it, but it's influence on Supernatural makes me worry the whole thing will mess with my head. ;)

Heh. It definitely messed with my head. I just reminded myself that American Gods came first and Kripke fully acknowledges that fact so I just think, OK. SPN was not lifting from Gaiman but doing an homage to American Gods. It helped me not shout BUT SPN DID IT BETTER. Like every two minutes. LOL

[DittyDotDot]

2 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

Heh. It definitely messed with my head. I just reminded myself that American Gods came first and Kripke fully acknowledges that fact so I just think, OK. SPN was not lifting from Gaiman but doing an homage to American Gods. It helped me not shout BUT SPN DID IT BETTER. Like every two minutes. LOL

Heh, in some ways, that's how I felt when I read the book.

Actually, my not loving the book comes more down to writing style than the story that was told. I loved the actual story and ideas, but couldn't really connect to Gaiman's writing style. I'm hoping, when I do finally get around to the show, that won't be an issue with the different mediums and such. 

[catrox14]

34 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said:

Heh, in some ways, that's how I felt when I read the book.

Actually, my not loving the book comes more down to writing style than the story that was told. I loved the actual story and ideas, but couldn't really connect to Gaiman's writing style. I'm hoping, when I do finally get around to the show, that won't be an issue with the different mediums and such. 

It's a Bryan Fuller show so if you've watched Hannibal  it's aesthetically the same. Beautiful imagery, long takes, rich color palette but dark none the less. Then vibrant colors like Pushing Daisies.

I liked it well enough, not as much as Hannibal though.

[DittyDotDot]

4 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

It's a Bryan Fuller show so if you've watched Hannibal  it's aesthetically the same. Beautiful imagery, long takes, rich color palette but dark none the less. Then vibrant colors like Pushing Daisies.

I liked it well enough, not as much as Hannibal though.

Oh yeah, I know it's a Bryan Fuller thing, which is why I think I'll probably enjoy the show more than the book. Although, I thought Fuller took Hannibal a little too far with the pretentious art film in the last season, I generally love his visual style. He's very detail-oriented and it shows.

Edited September 5, 2017 by DittyDotDot

[SueB]

We've had a long discussion on ambiguity regarding the location of the amulet.  From my perspective, the limited use of ambiguity on Supernatural is FAR superior than the approach they took on Smallville -- which had the POV of the main character and the motivation of the villain intentionally ambiguous.  It was IMO a nightmare.

Smallville ambiguity:
- With Smallville, we already knew the ending before the first episode aired: Clark WOULD be Superman someday.  He would not wind up with Lana Lang.  Lex WOULD be the villian of the story. And Clark would fall in love with Lois Lane.  Stretching out how Clark Kent became Superman was ... at best... problematic for 10 years.
- The producers (Gough & Miller) used ambiguity of Clark's POV regarding women to put gasoline on the fires of ship wars and keep fandom buzzing. IMO the producers adored the actress playing Lana (Kristen Kruek) so much that they really amp'd up her role and made her Clark's tragic love story.  If I was a Lois Lane fan, I'd be pissed.  OTOH, they went Lady Macbeth with Lana later on and if I was a Lana fan, I'd be pissed.  Finally there was Chloe.  The stand-in for Lois Lane until year 4 (EXCEPT romance) and then the plucky sidekick until the series ended.  And they TEASED Chloe fans about a possible Clark/Chloe relationship for YEARS.  You could watch an episode and point out a line "feeding" each of the shippers (Clana, Clois, Chlark) in multiple episodes.  It was TOXIC.  
-  Lex was simultaneously a mystery and an open book.  See, IMO, the series was just about as much how Lex became the villain of the story as it was how Clark became the hero.  Rosenbaum (actor playing Lex) was phenomenal at the character and the chemistry with Welling (Clark) was off the charts.  I'm not speaking about the unambiguous homoerotic undertones, I'm actually speaking of their moral debates.  They were usually very compelling.  BUT, as an audience member, they would toy with us.  They would show Lex to have a good side, and then a few episodes later, crush that again.  It was a VERRRRRY long tease.

Now look at Supernatural ambiguity:
- S1: More mystery (where is Dad) than ambiguity.
- S2: What's wrong with Sam? Result: He was a "special child" who would be put thru demonic hunger games to pick the leader of the demon army.
- S3: More mystery (How to save Dean) than ambiguity. 
- S4: One mystery how do they stop the Apocalypse and one quasi-ambiguity (what's wrong with Sam?) Results: Sam's drinking the demon blood 
- S5: One BIG mystery (how do they stop the Apocalypse) rather than ambiguity.  
- S6: What's wrong with Sam (again)? Results: Sam was soulless
- S7: More mystery (how to stop the Leviathans) than ambiguity.
- S8: Smaller ambiguity: is Benny good or bad?  Answer: good but may have done some bad things
- S9: Not much ambiguity there ... a LITTLE bit in the brother conflict but we kinda knew where they stood.
- S10: Straight mystery IMO.
- S11: What's up with the connection between Dean and Amara? Result: she represented her longing for Chuck's creations.. ish.
- S12: What's up with Mary? Result: she can't handle the guilt. 
We've never really had to question the good guy motives except for short bouts with Sam (demon blood & soulless).  We've always known their true love (saving people, hunting things, the family business). We've debated moral choices but we always believed Sam and Dean were the good guys.

Little universe ambiguities -- like why do some shapeshifters leave goop and others insta-change? Can be annoying but don't change the interpretation of the plot or character motives.

 

In short, I'm saying Supernatural handles ambiguity fairly well.  Smallville was ROOTED in ambiguity and it created some toxicity in show interpretation. Supernatural, IMO, wins.   

[catrox14]

1 hour ago, SueB said:

In short, I'm saying Supernatural handles ambiguity fairly well.  Smallville was ROOTED in ambiguity and it created some toxicity in show interpretation. Supernatural, IMO, wins.   

I never once thought Smallville was ambiguous at all, which is probably why I never saw anything toxic there.

Smallville had two end games:

Clark would always become Superman.

Clark would always end up with Lois.

IMO, they had to drag out both those end games to keep the show on the air year after year, which I saw as much more ship stalls than ambiguity and any real potential for actual canon end games with anyone else. Because comics.

Bringing in Lois, and Jason Teague to be Lana's love interest, in S4, set up both end games for S5 or S6, should they not make it past s6. But the continued past s6, so they really started amping up all the comic characters coming in to stall Superman,  and really pushed the ship stalling of CLois via

--enhanced no-homo CLex bromance  (with a side of Jasex which was MY SHIP. HOLY MOLY! Poor Jason Teague got a crazy mom and dead LOL) and breaking that up. 

--Platonic Chlark which was never going to be canon romance  nor end game. Chloe liking Clark didn't mean I expected them to end up together.

--Back and forth with Clana.

--Then finally in s9 and s10 they could move on CLois by giving us Chollie. 

I guess that's why I never got to upset with the show because I knew it was just a matter of time.

Edited September 7, 2017 by catrox14

[SueB]

3 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

I never once thought Smallville was ambiguous at all, which is probably why I never saw anything toxic there.

Smallville had two end games:

Clark would always become Superman.

Clark would always end up with Lois.

IMO, they had to drag out both those end games to keep the show on the air year after year, which I saw as much more ship stalls than ambiguity and any real potential for actual canon end games with anyone else. Because comics.

Bringing in Lois and Jason Teague to be Lana's love interest S4, set up both end games for S5 or S6, should they not make it past s6. But they carried on so they really started amping up all the comic characters coming in, and really pushed the ship stalling of CLois via

--enhanced no-homo CLex bromance with a side of Jasex (that was MY SHIP. HOLY MOLY Poor Jason Teague got a crazy mom and dead LOL) and breaking that up. 

--Platonic Chlark which was never going to be canon romance,

--Back and forth with Clana.

--Then finally in s9 and s10 they could move on CLois by giving us Chollie. 

I guess that's why I never got to upset with the show because I knew it was just a matter of time.

IA endgame was never in question. I'd also add, and Lex was always going to end up as the villain.  

But it was supposed to be about the journey versus the end-game (at least, that's part of the show premise as I understood it).  And I saw them IMO "toy" with viewers for the sake of buzz.  I was never a Clana fan but IMO they got the brunt of it.  OTOH, I think they damaged Clois a bit by giving so much treatment to Clana.  The show IMO encourage shipping and that was (again IMO) not a good thing given the end state was known.  There seemed to be some cognitive dissonance with some fans (not me) who somehow thought the end state would change.  That the show producers knew this and played into it was, IMO, misleading. More importantly, they kept the main characters' POV a secret.  I don't know how many times Clark just looked constipated staring out into the distance.  The main character's POV is important and it was more important than shipping IMO (and my biggest beef with the Clark-part of the ambiguity).  But I think they kept the ambiguity of his POV to keep up shipping wars -- REGARDLESS of pre-determined end state. I know I read at least one interview (way way back, many centuries ago) where they admitted that they felt the lively debate was good for ratings. 

As for Lex ambiguity - we got our payoff at the end of S7 (I think) and then did some WEIRD SHIT to extend Lex's story to S10.  I mean WEIRD SHIT to 'have their cake and eat it too'.  It was almost a "Bobby in the shower" thing for Lex. Bleech.    

Bottom line: it may have never been unambiguous for you because your expectations lined up with the known end-state and thus the bumps in the road were perhaps easier to ignore or less frustrating, but it was for ambiguous for many in fandom.  And the show-runners egged it on IMO. What little ambiguities we have in Supernatural (which is the point of this comment) are TINY.  I never feel like we are being 'stretched-out' in any way. 

[catrox14]

11 minutes ago, SueB said:

I don't know how many times Clark just looked constipated staring out into the distance.  T

See, I never thought Clark was constipated. I thought he was legit conflicted all the time about being with Lana because "She can't know my secret!".  For me his staring was him being an alien trying to figure out how to be human. So even if it was about the journey, the journey was always headed in one direction and I don't think the show, IMO, really intended for it to be otherwise.

 

Arrow on the other hand, is a real interesting case study on a show totally abandoning the comic canon romance of BC/GA in favor of GA/Felicity. There is a crap ton of possible ship baiting with Lauriver but not for this viewer. Oliver looks like he would rather eat a Khan worm and put a spork in his eye before he'd ever be with Laurel. And there is canon Olicity now and they recast a new Black Canary. IMO they will never have a canon BC/GA relationship in Arrow, other than maybe on another Earth, but boy the ship wars between Lauriver and Olicity fans are EPIC. But IMO, I saw Olicity being teased back in s1. And I was right! I was a happy happy camper and cried when they finally made it canon. 

But for me the only thing that is possible ambiguous in ship land is Destiel, but as I said I think it's subtext canon romantically.

That said, I also ship Dean/Donna so that also will never happen but it stands a better chance that canon textual Destiel. LOL

[Wayward Son]

I hope this is the right place to put this! 

 

I made a discovery on Netflix this morning, which has made me jealous for our show! Apparently Dynasty has been filmed in 4K, and as far as I know it’s the only CW show to receive such treatment. I’m assuming Netflix provided the CW with the extra cash since they’ve purchased all foreign rights to the show!

[Wayward Son]

7 minutes ago, shang yiet said:

The rest is a bit meh for me. And the Winchesters are not that good at hand to hand combat, are they? After all these years, I expect them to reach Buffy level in fighting and not be bashed up till they are on the floor.

I’d say the Winchester’s fighting style is closer to Faith’s (minus the super strength). The three of them are brawlers / street fighters, while Buffy spent years training and developed more of an martial arts based fighting style. 

[Pondlass1]

5 hours ago, Wayward Son said:

The three of them are brawlers / street fighters,

I agree.  They get punches in where they can and often the choreography is pretty darn good and the actors do a lot of the stunt fighting themselves.  I have no complaints in that department. 

Buffy was over the top in terms of vampires rising from their grave suddenly brilliant at kung fu.  Becoming a vampire on Buffy or Angel meant you got super abilities in martial arts too.  LOL

[mertensia]

On 9/5/2017 at 6:34 AM, Pondlass1 said:

I can't get into Midnight.  Having problems with Preacher and many other 'my type' series.

I don't know if it's me or what... I enjoy the horror type genre (not science fiction or action hero, tho) and usually seek out these types of series...but - gosh - there's so much 'over acting'. I guess because it's a supernatural genre the actor feels they must go over the top and be extra dramatic or - what's worse - extra nonchalant in the face of danger .  I don't seem able to get into this new stuff, it's all the same  - or maybe I'm getting old.

I think they've got it right with Lucifer, tho.  Nice mix of comedy and menace. 

I think Supernatural reruns will hold up better in years to come than some of these more recent offerings.  I  still prefer the blue collar, open road, face  monster without tights or weapons type of thing.  And of course... the Winchester brothers being drop dead gorgeous and sexy helps!

Have you tried The Exorcist? It's totally ignored (which astonishes me), and the best show on TV.

[Pondlass1]

20 minutes ago, mertensia said:

Have you tried The Exorcist?

No haven't watch that one.  I'll give it a try.

[mertensia]

The first episode or two is slow going. But once it really kicks in, wow! Also, they struck casting gold with Ben Daniels.

[Aeryn13]

Quote

I agree.  They get punches in where they can and often the choreography is pretty darn good and the actors do a lot of the stunt fighting themselves.  I have no complaints in that department. 

I do, actually. They do know some moves and techniques and yet that is only sometimes displayed in fight/stunt/action scenes. Often the fights just look like random fist swinging or kicking with no purpose or finesse behind it. It makes them look untrained. I get the street fighter aspect but there is still a big difference between someone who just wildly swings their first in bar brawls and someone who is trained in hand-to-hand combat.

I wish the show would display the fighting skills more and have the fights be more polished. Using household items and what they find themselves surrounded with in a fight is fine, that shows improvsitational skills, but the fights themselves vary a lot in terms of good choreography. Maybe that is due to the level of skill particular guest actors have - say the fight with the three demons in First Born or with Ketch in last Season`s penultimate episode or even with Cole looked good whereas others make me go: are you kidding me. 

Now I very much liked the martial arts style of Buffy, the show overall had great fight choreography but it wouldn`t fit SPN. At least not this late in the game. The brothers could have been introduced with having those skills and it would probably have worked but if they didn`t see a need to upgrade through several apocalypses, it would look super-odd now. 

Besides, for my martial arts fix with melee weapons etc, I watch Arrow and Legends of Tomorrow. Those are far more action-oriented shows than SPN will ever be. 

But currently. Gotham does a storyline of young Bruce Wayne becoming Batman. He is around 16ish and has started learning some fighting and self defense techniques for the past couple of months to the point where he can hold his own in a few small fights already. But to me the fight scenes look more or less like a lot of fight scenes on SPN, some positives examples notwithstanding.

Now for a teenager who is just starting out, this is fine. For trained professionals with more than a decade of field experience, not so much. 

[catrox14]

1 hour ago, Aeryn13 said:

Often the fights just look like random fist swinging or kicking with no purpose or finesse behind it. It makes them look untrained. I get the street fighter aspect but there is still a big difference between someone who just wildly swings their first in bar brawls and someone who is trained in hand-to-hand combat.

They are untrained fighters which is what IMO sets them apart in a good way from things like Arrow or Daredevil or even Buffy. To me, they can obviously box pretty well. But martial arts style fighting wouldn't really help them when they primarily go against demons, angels, werewolves, ghosts, vampires and other monsters who also don't fight them in a martial arts style, (except that one against Crowley in First Born but he was showing off and Crowley killed him anyway).

Sure maybe Sam or Dean could land a roundhouse kick but what else would martial arts style fighting gain them against monsters? 

For me, that whole fight in 12.1 was STUPID because Dean never drew his weapon LOL. Like they have guns for a reason. They USE THEM regularly.  But in the jail they had to fight with their fists because the Sheriff took their weapons when she arrested them. The boys didn't know angels were after Jack so they weren't prepared for that.

And don't get me wrong. I love Arrow! It's my second fave show, but IMO it's overly choreographed now and I personally don't find that nearly as fun as it was in early seasons. They are clearly using stunt doubles more in Arrow and that takes away from the 'authencity' of the fight scenes. Unlike in early Arrow when SA did almost all his own stunts and parkour and Caity Lotz did her own work for the most part.

Also, with the kind of fighting in SPN the actors do the fighting for most things which IMO makes for a better viewing experience. Like that brutal fight with Dean and the werepires in the Impala. That was AWESOME. And the fights between Dean and Sam, I FEEL the brutality and worry for them. 

I feel like the fights in Arrow, the Flash and the Marvel shows have no heart now. I don't feel that way about SPN fights even if they look sloppy because well they are street fighters and brawlers.

[Aeryn13]

Quote

They are untrained fighters

To be clear, I mean untrained in the sense of being a noob with no real fighting experience. Not that someone just can`t do martial arts or certain styles. And I don`t think the Winchester brothers are supposed to be "untrained" in the sense of no training whatsoever. John was a Marine, he did teach them something. We saw some blocking moves as early as the fight between shifter!Dean and Sam. That`s what I want to see more of. Unfortunately, I do not see it consistently during fight scenes and that might be due to the guest cast.

If someone isn`t very athletic or capable that way (but might be a good actor if it is a part that requires more than stunt work), you have to make do with quick cuts, camera angles, close-ups and "save us in editing", all the usual tricks to make fight scenes look more dynamic than they are. 

Jensen is clearly very athletic and co-ordinated, I especially like some of his fight scenes but a lot of the stunts are just meh to embarassing for me in how they are shot. 

Quote

And don't get me wrong. I love Arrow! It's my second fave show, but IMO it's overly choreographed now and I personally don't find that nearly as fun as it was in early seasons. They are clearly using stunt doubles more in Arrow and that takes away from the 'authencity' of the fight scenes. Unlike in early Arrow when SA did almost all his own stunts and parkour and Caity Lotz did her own work for the most part.

 Caity Lotz still does a sizeable amount of stunt work on Legends, maybe less now due to insurance reasons, she has been upgraded to basically lead character. But the actress has some incredible real life training so she can do that. Equally, Stephen is very athletic. I kinda agree on the Arrow fights, though I still vastly prefer them to SPN action scenes overall, just from a pure action standpoint. However the change for the worse on Arrow is IMO due to Bam Bam (James Bamford). The guy used to be a good stuntman/ stunt coordinator but in terms of handling the entire fighting choreography of such a show? Not in his wheelhouse.     

Quote

 I don't feel that way about SPN fights even if they look sloppy because well they are street fighters and brawlers.

Even if I`m really emotionally invested in a plot/characters/scene, it usually doesn`t make me forgive sloppy-looking choreography. I can root for a character to win and kick some ass and still if it looks lame, it will pull me right out of the scene. And if you just want to go for a viscerally brutal and primitive fighting style, that is okay, too, but that is not SPN either. Because that would be more like a cable show. 

So in the end, I don`t require heart in the fight scenes so much as they are predominatly an "eye" thing for me. If my "eye" is not pleased, I am not pleased. Pardon the pun. :)   

Edited October 16, 2017 by Aeryn13

[DittyDotDot]

10 minutes ago, Aeryn13 said:

And I don`t think the Winchester brothers are supposed to be "untrained" in the sense of no training whatsoever.

I think the Winchesters are trained, they're just trained in street fighting, not martial arts.

[Aeryn13]

Quote

I think the Winchesters are trained, they're just trained in street fighting, not martial arts.

I think so, too, I just meant to clarify my previous post that training for me can be all kinds of things, not just martial arts. My problem remains, though, that I often don`t see any training coming across in scenes, not street-fighting either. There should still be a difference between Joe Schmoe being in a bar brawl and punching and kicking wildly defend themselves - even tiny me would try that if I feared for my life, it just wouldn`t be effective and it would look silly and unpolished - or the Winchester brothers being in a brawl. The show lets me down a lot in making that distinction.

If I think to myself "have either of you been in a fight before?" during an action scene, then it makes me out of it. Because I know for the Winchester brothers the answer is "yes" (so I should see that) and the opposing party should probably know how to fight as well since they don`t really beat up random civilians.

Àgain, do not think it is the capability of the main cast but I am not that content with the stunt choreographer/team and the director as well as the shooting and editing in those scenes. I`d say about 20 % of stunt work/action scenes work for me on the show. And hey, I don`t even blame that on Dabb. I never thought it was a particular strong point of the show. Just back then it had other aspects that made up for it. 

Edited October 16, 2017 by Aeryn13

[Wayward Son]

1 hour ago, Aeryn13 said:

The Flash TV show kinda has exact the same problem, though, so the Winchesters aren`t completely alone. Not even on the CW.  :)  

I actually don’t watch the flash. Although it’s one of those shows on my “I want to watch this at some point” list.

 

Does The Flash acknowledge its leader less than stellar behaviour? Or does it try overly hard to sell him as a noble hero the way Supernatural does?

 

I actually have no issue with shows where the lead isn’t a hero. I loved NBCs Hannibal for instance and Hannibal Lector was an out and out villain. However, while they added complexity to the character the show still acknowledged how dark he was. What I find really grating is the disparity between the shows tell “these guys are heroes! Even the God with a capital G of this verse says so” and the show where so many of their actions are anything but. 

 

It really would be all too easy to rewrite the narrative of this show and present Sam and / or Dean as the villain of the piece. The hero (insert random new character here) trying to save the world from the guy who has gone mad in his grief and threatened to endanger the whole world, let it all burn,  in order to get their loved one back (Sam or Dean) 

Edited December 9, 2017 by Wayward Son

[Aeryn13]

Quote

Does The Flash acknowledge its leader less than stellar behaviour? Or does it try overly hard to sell him as a noble hero the way Supernatural does?

Actually, the latter. You can`t really get through an episode where someone will speechify that Barry is the kindest, nicest, most noble hero ever. And his team is often a circle of gigantic enablers. 

Thing is, Barry is a very nice guy. He is kind and sympathetic and really wants to help people. And his performer Grant Gustin certainly has this super-likeable vibe down pat. So yelling at him is kinda like kicking a puppy in a way.

Some general spoilers for Flash:

Spoiler

 

On the other hand, Barry - despite being warned that it might create a world-threatening vortex - does something for personal gain and lo and behold, it creates a world-threatening vortex. Sure, he tries to stop it and succeeds but a friend of his loses their life in the process. In turn that creates the Season 2 Bad Guy because he came through the breach after the vortex. 

After that Barry fucks up the timeline to erase his personal trauma - and changes the life of all of his friends in the process. Then he undoes it and a friend lost a brother and another friend now has evil powers, turning her half insane. And Barry is sad because the friend with the dead brother is mad for a few episodes. The viewing audience is mad the friend is mad at poor Barry. Another friend on another show gets their daughter erased (he has a son now but still) and still tells Barry that Barry is one of the best people he knows. 

Then the new villain is revealed and it is literally... also someone Barry created. It`s actually a riot who it is.

I just laughed my ass off when this Season they revealed how the freaks of the weaks were turned into freaks - by Barry coming out of the speedforce. Granted, the new bad guy orchestrated it but it was such a "come on, really?" moment for the show.   

 

Like, the bad guys on the show wreak havoc but if you get down to it, Barry is the more destructive force. It`s become somewhat of an insider joke in fandom. 

What bugs me the most is this "Barry is the superior moral hero because he `never kills" message. Like, a super-dangerous, super-evil villain points his no-killing policy out to him and Barry just lets him walk. Why bother trying to contain him? Villain even pretty much tells Barry he will wreak more havoc and kill more people. I guess you could liken it to the Winchesters and Crowley in later Seasons but even that was never in the context of right after a fight. When they had him dead to rights and could have finished it.

Now, I do consider the show still well worth the watch but the portrayal of heroism is certainly iffy. Consequences and being called out are not in ready supply. That`s usually something that happens on Arrow and Legends but not so much Flash.   

Edited December 10, 2017 by Aeryn13

[catrox14]

1 hour ago, Wayward Son said:

Does The Flash acknowledge its leader less than stellar behaviour? Or does it try overly hard to sell him as a noble hero the way Supernatural does?

Spoiler

Oh Barry gets away with EVERYTHING. Never a consequence really IMO

But for me the difference is that Sam and Dean IMO are not being sold as noble heroes at all. They never have been. God uses them and manipulates them. They are heroes. But nobility never comes up that I can remember.

Maybe fans think they are noble but I don't see the show ever doing that myself.