Supernatural Smackdown: The Winchester Dynamic Duo vs Other Shows

[Wayward Son]

1 minute ago, catrox14 said:

  Hide contents

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.

But that’s the difference between us. I don’t think they are heroes especially from s8 on. The show can call them heroes all they like and have people talk about how they “save the world”, but that doesn’t change the fact that 9/10 times they only save the world after being the ones to wreck it in the first place. The wreckage often a result of their reckless and ruthless behaviour and choice to damn the world to hell for the sake of the other. That’s not heroic that’s glorified mess cleaning up at best. 

1 hour ago, Aeryn13 said:

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:

  Reveal hidden contents

 

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.   

Yeah, I imagine id find the flash a rather frustrating watch in that case :s

[catrox14]

3 minutes ago, Wayward Son said:

But that’s the difference between us. I don’t think they are heroes especially from s8 on. The show can call them heroes all they like and have people talk about how they “save the world”, but that doesn’t change the fact that 9/10 times they only save the world after being the ones to wreck it in the first place. The wreckage often a result of their reckless and ruthless behaviour and choice to damn the world to hell for the sake of the other. That’s not heroic that’s glorified mess cleaning up at best. 

Well I agree they make messes and they also still save people everyday from monsters etc so to me that still makes them heroes/anti-heroes. for me.

That's the dilemma of this show. Do their good deeds of saving regular people from monsters weigh more than the big messes of which TBF they didn't know they were entirely making. Like the Darkness. Neither knew about that until it was basically too late.

Apocalypse 1.0 they didnt know they were being manipulated into that. Dean thought he was only sacrificing himself for Sam. He didn't know how it would end up.

The trials is about the only one I can see being questionable and even then they DIDN'T HAVE to close the gates of Hell at that moment. It could have been done again. IMO

Edited December 10, 2017 by catrox14

[ahrtee]

I've never understood people who "hate watch" a show.  Writing and directing may change, depending on who's in charge, so if there's hope that things will get better I'll usually try to hold on, but for me the characters are the most important part of a show.   If I don't like the main characters (or at least find them interesting, even if unlikable) I see no point in continuing to watch.  I've given up on shows before, and will do so in the future if it feels necessary.  Right now I still like the Winchesters, despite their flaws and issues, so I'll keep watching.  But that's just me.  

[10kfever]

IMO, which is all any of us can claim, I think Supernatural is the best of its kind on television. Thirteen seasons and still going strong, and it just keeps getting better. The show's bar for "average" is incredibly high, and the number of above-average episodes is impressive as well. The low number of below-average episodes (and I know we all have our opinions of what ranks down there) over a span of nearly 300 episodes is equally impressive. Episodes balance the horror, humor, drama, and brotherly relationship better than anything I've seen.

I  know I'm late to this discussion, but I've only recently discovered forums of this quality. I'm busily catching up on what everybody is saying, so I'll probably have more direct responses later. It's good to be here!

[10kfever]

Hmmm, having read many of your comments, I have to call myself "dumber than a brick" (from my other fave character-driven series, Simon and Simon). So many initials, so many shows I haven't watched, and so much psychological insight that my mind boggles. I'll watch bad shows for good characters (Z Nation, my current guilty pleasure), and ignore good shows with characters I don't like (i.e. Goren(?)). Shows that are plot driven tend to be time-fillers for me; I can easily choose to watch or not.

 I also feel trying to compare shows like Supernatural and Criminal Minds is sort of an apples-and-oranges thing. I can laugh, feel scared, or cry with the former, but when the latter, which I see as real life scenarios, gets too gruesome, I have to stop watching. Give me all the demons or zombie gore you can throw at me, but when someone is tortured, dismembered, and buried in a shallow grave, I get majorly squicked (am I showing my age there?).

I like procedural shows with good character, like NCIS or Major Crimes, but procedurals that focus too heavily on plot will lose my attention quickly. Yes, I'm shallow; I just want to be entertained within the rather narrow window of my requirements.

Thus, you won't see any deep insights in my posts, but that doesn't mean I won't admire and comment on yours, although I might prefer fewer initials...you're talking about some shows I might actually enjoy watching, if I knew what the heck they were.?

[auntvi]

3 hours ago, 10kfever said:

 I also feel trying to compare shows like Supernatural and Criminal Minds is sort of an apples-and-oranges thing. I can laugh, feel scared, or cry with the former, but when the latter, which I see as real life scenarios, gets too gruesome, I have to stop watching. Give me all the demons or zombie gore you can throw at me, but when someone is tortured, dismembered, and buried in a shallow grave, I get majorly squicked (am I showing my age there?).

I completely agree about Criminal Minds. I really liked a few of the characters, but the gore quotient was just too high. And it seemed like it was often a pretty woman in danger. Supernatural is enough horror & gore for me - the only creature I can't take is zombies - must be the eating brains thing.

[FlickChick]

5 hours ago, 10kfever said:

Hmmm, having read many of your comments, I have to call myself "dumber than a brick" (from my other fave character-driven series, Simon and Simon). So many initials, so many shows I haven't watched, and so much psychological insight that my mind boggles. I'll watch bad shows for good characters (Z Nation, my current guilty pleasure), and ignore good shows with characters I don't like (i.e. Goren(?)). Shows that are plot driven tend to be time-fillers for me; I can easily choose to watch or not.

 I also feel trying to compare shows like Supernatural and Criminal Minds is sort of an apples-and-oranges thing. I can laugh, feel scared, or cry with the former, but when the latter, which I see as real life scenarios, gets too gruesome, I have to stop watching. Give me all the demons or zombie gore you can throw at me, but when someone is tortured, dismembered, and buried in a shallow grave, I get majorly squicked (am I showing my age there?).

I like procedural shows with good character, like NCIS or Major Crimes, but procedurals that focus too heavily on plot will lose my attention quickly. Yes, I'm shallow; I just want to be entertained within the rather narrow window of my requirements.

Thus, you won't see any deep insights in my posts, but that doesn't mean I won't admire and comment on yours, although I might prefer fewer initials...you're talking about some shows I might actually enjoy watching, if I knew what the heck they were.?

Welcome aboard! I don't find many people who watched and loved my other favorite show, Simon & Simon. I need real characters too, not just plot (solving a case, murder, etc) to be invested in a show. Watching Supernatural from the beginning has been quite the ride as I watched both Sam and Dean develop into very real human beings - flaws and all. It's why I'm still watching. :)

[AwesomO4000]

On 12/13/2017 at 0:40 PM, 10kfever said:

 I also feel trying to compare shows like Supernatural and Criminal Minds is sort of an apples-and-oranges thing. I can laugh, feel scared, or cry with the former, but when the latter, which I see as real life scenarios, gets too gruesome, I have to stop watching. Give me all the demons or zombie gore you can throw at me, but when someone is tortured, dismembered, and buried in a shallow grave, I get majorly squicked (am I showing my age there?).

I like procedural shows with good character, like NCIS or Major Crimes, but procedurals that focus too heavily on plot will lose my attention quickly. Yes, I'm shallow; I just want to be entertained within the rather narrow window of my requirements.

Welcome @10kfever! I agree with you here. I tried Criminal Minds and couldn't do it for all of the same reasons you explained...*** Weirdly I feel that way about a lot of the CBS crime shows. I enjoy Major Crimes also when I watch it, but my favorite character driven shows like that were Crossing Jordan - I found the characters so interesting... actually Jordan herself had a bit of a Dean-like history - and Homicide: Life on the Streets. That one has great characters - Andre Braugher as Frank Pembleton was amazing, and it was the first show with the curmudgeony Munch - but that one is intense (like Hill Street Blues ramped up to 11) so not for the faint of heart. But I cross over into the other spectrum - i.e. comedy - where I enjoy Psych for silly character driven fun.

I look forward to any insights you have... and don't worry if they aren't "deep" - though you never know... I might find them so - I do enough of that already. Sometimes it's nice to see a different, lighter perspective. Sometimes I take this show too seriously. Really... it's an issue. ; )

As for initials - I try my best to limit my use... and if you have any questions on what some are (often they are episode titles), just Personal Message me, and I'll do my best to try to interpret. (Can't guarantee anything, though - I'm not what you'd call young and in the know.)

 

*** I saw one episode once about a guy trying to turn people into live puppets for some crazy reason, and the show spent several minutes lovingly filming the machine and process he used to pull his victims' limbs out of joint as they screamed... and I was like "what psycho writes this show?" I watched the episode until the end to see if there was any good reason he was doing this - the reason was bizarre - and if there was any followup as to what happened to the still living victims (I don't remember there being any, but I could be wrong... I was over it by the episode's end). I didn't watch an episode again until a couple of nights ago... and I still wasn't impressed.

[SueB]

Welcome @10kfever -- nice to have a new 'face! My current shows: This Is Us, Star Trek:Discovery, iZombie, Game of Thrones, and Sherlock.  My second-tier shows (if I can get to them): Designated Survivor, Wheeler Dealer (although I may not watch anymore without Ed China), and Football.

[Pondlass1]

I wish I could get into US procedurals or sitcoms.  There's hardly anything on network TV that holds my interest as it's all so predictable.  I'm mostly on YouTube or History & National Geographic Channels or BBC Canada.

I have trouble with Spn title initials too  (I also puzzled over YMMV  for a while until I googled it).

Welcome.  Hope you'll participate.  We need fresh input here.

[10kfever]

Thanks for all the warm welcomes! I guess I just like buddy shows like Simon and Simon, Supernatural, The Professionals (so dated now but still fun), and others of the ilk with closely knit characters tackling weird or dangerous challenges. I love Murdoch Mysteries for the great characters and humor. Does anyone remember QED? It was a really whacky show, but Sam Waterston was amazing. Even the cozy mysteries like Midsomer Murders, which has been around for eons, manages to inject enough subtle humor into the characters to keep me happy. Just don't linger too long on the "guest" characters.

I'm glad I never saw that episode of Criminal Minds with the puppet maker. Must have been during my long hiatus from the show. And I agree there's nothing really new in police procedurals. Sometimes, I'm amazed and impressed by some plot twist, but usually I know whodunit early on. I never got into the Superhero shows, mostly I guess because comics weren't part of my childhood. I tried to read the first issue of The Walking Dead recently, but confess I just can't engage with it. I enjoy most of the show, but dislike the main character, and I've learned I'm not the only one. The core group that got me into the show is either dead or dying, and most of the new characters don't captivate me very much.

Sorry to be so off topic, but it seems to be okay okay here. Right now I'm going though the Supernatural Trivia Pursuits cards to test my acumen. I'm not doing as well as I thought I would. All the place names don't seem to stay in my memory. I'm doing pretty well with the who-did-what-to-whom questions.

And I'm watching the repeats on TNT every morning. That has to count for something!?

[Jeddah]

2 hours ago, SueB said:

Welcome @10kfever -- nice to have a new 'face! My current shows: This Is Us, Star Trek:Discovery, iZombie, Game of Thrones, and Sherlock.  My second-tier shows (if I can get to them): Designated Survivor, Wheeler Dealer (although I may not watch anymore without Ed China), and Football.

@SueB I always think “Hey, it’s the Supernatural crew!” when I see you and @Katy M on the This Is Us board.

My other shows are Riverdale, This Is Us, and Brooklyn Nine Nine. I’ll probably watch The 100 and The Originals when they come back. Of course, Supernatural is my favorite.

Edited December 15, 2017 by Jeddah

[Wayward Son]

24 minutes ago, Res said:

I'm sorry but I'm a little confused. Are you calling SPN sexist because of their casting of the leads? If so, does that mean that Charmed was sexist as well since the main leads were all white females? And Buffy whose main powered characters were also white females, was that sexist? Because neither show was very nice to their male counterparts all the time and a lot of boyfriends, etc. were killed, etc.

Actually, while both Buffy and Charmed were heavily female orientated and interested in exploring the story of women they both included men within the main cast. Nicholas Brendan who played Xander Harris had a starring role for all seven seasons, Anthony Stewart Head who played Giles had a starring role for five seasons before he became a regular for the remaining two, David Borenaz who played Angel was a starring character for seasons two and three before departing for his own spin off, Seth Green was a starring character for seasons three and four while James Marsters was a regular from series seven on. One of them (Xander) was a core character from the start and remained so for the shows entire run and another (Giles) also played a key role for most of the show. This in spite of the fact Buffy was female centric. Likewise Charmed had several males on its roster throughout the years. Dorian Gregory who played Daryl was a starring character from seasons 1-7, Brian Krause who played Leo was a starring character for all eight seasons and Drew Fuller was a starring character of season six. Both shows were able to successfully incorporate male characters without losing their 'female focus.' While yes some of them starred as the main characters love interest both shows had at least one character (Xander and Giles in the case of Buffy and Daryl in the case of Charmed) who were not there to just serve as the other half of a pairing with a female lead. 

 

Supernatural on the other hand has been on the air a lot longer than both and has apparently been unable to produce a female regular without losing their 'male focus'. I also strongly side eye the decision to promote Mark Pellegrino over Samantha Smith who was in a lot more episodes than Mark last season and a similar number to him this season so far. I didn't watch Hercules or Xena so I'm not going to comment on those shows. 

Edited January 16, 2018 by Wayward Son

[catrox14]

14 minutes ago, Wayward Son said:

Actually, while both Buffy and Charmed were heavily female orientated and interested in exploring the story of women they both included men within the main cast. Nicholas Brendan who played Xander Harris had a starring role for all seven seasons, Anthony Stewart Head who played Giles had a starring role for five seasons before he became a regular for the remaining two, David Borenaz who played Angel was a starring character for seasons two and three before departing for his own spin off, Seth Green was a starring character for seasons three and four while James Marsters was a regular from series seven on. One of them (Xander) was a core character from the start and remained so for the shows entire run and another (Giles) also played a key role for most of the show. This in spite of the fact Buffy was female centric. Likewise Charmed had several males on its roster throughout the years. Dorian Gregory who played Daryl was a starring character from seasons 1-7, Brian Krause who played Leo was a starring character for all eight seasons and Drew Fuller was a starring character of season six. Both shows were able to successfully incorporate male characters without losing their 'female focus.' While yes some of them starred as the main characters love interest both shows had at least one character (Xander and Giles in the case of Buffy and Daryl in the case of Charmed) who were not there to just serve as the other half of a pairing with a female lead. 

 

Supernatural on the other hand has been on the air a lot longer than both and has apparently been unable to produce a female regular without losing their 'male focus'. I also strongly side eye the decision to promote Mark Pellegrino over Samantha Smith who was in a lot more episodes than Mark last season and a similar number to him this season so far. I didn't watch Hercules or Xena so I'm not going to comment on those shows. 

I really think there is SO MUCH more to all of this than you are considering. It always seemed to me that both Buffy and Angel were the leads of their shows but both were essentially more  ensemble pieces from the jump. SPN and XFiles were two handers. They didn't have big casts from the jump on either show. And four shows have white lead characters.

Series regular status depends on the stories being told.

Samantha not being a series regular in and of itself is not a marker of sexism. It's a sign that Dabb has a hard on for Pellegrino who is a popular and sought after actor and I suspect to secure him they had to give him series regular. IMO Alexander also got a series regular to secure him as well. And neither are leads in this show, (although this past two seasons maybe they are LOL but I digress). Misha is series regular because the show isn't stupid and knows to keep Castiel.

When they brought in replacements for Mulder and Scully they brought in two other white actors, male and female to take up some of the space of David and Gillian reducing their own time in the show.

I really do think it's too hard to compare ensemble-ish shows with two handers like SPN and XFILES for any kind of sexist bias in casting.

Now, if you want to talk about how female characters are used in SPN and how they are killed off in ways that don't benefit the characterization, like the stupidity of Charlie's death, that's a different conversation. But the whole point to all this is what was discussed in the WS thread for the promo and nothing Jared said IMO was about potential past sexism in the show itself. JHMO.

[ILoveReading]

I don't get Dabb's obsession with Lucifer (just die already) but I can understand why Samantha Smith might not have been made a regular.    The return of Mary went over like a lead balloon and and the character wasn't embraced.*

That's the problem with Dabb and Berens and their ideal of "kickass woman" He's too eager to make them "kick ass" he forgets to writer them as relatable people first. 

*Not meaning to state this as fact or speak for everyone or even a majority.  Just a majority of the sites I frequented.

[DittyDotDot]

1 hour ago, Wayward Son said:

Actually, while both Buffy and Charmed were heavily female orientated and interested in exploring the story of women they both included men within the main cast. Nicholas Brendan who played Xander Harris had a starring role for all seven seasons, Anthony Stewart Head who played Giles had a starring role for five seasons before he became a regular for the remaining two, David Borenaz who played Angel was a starring character for seasons two and three before departing for his own spin off, Seth Green was a starring character for seasons three and four while James Marsters was a regular from series seven on. One of them (Xander) was a core character from the start and remained so for the shows entire run and another (Giles) also played a key role for most of the show. This in spite of the fact Buffy was female centric. Likewise Charmed had several males on its roster throughout the years. Dorian Gregory who played Daryl was a starring character from seasons 1-7, Brian Krause who played Leo was a starring character for all eight seasons and Drew Fuller was a starring character of season six. Both shows were able to successfully incorporate male characters without losing their 'female focus.' While yes some of them starred as the main characters love interest both shows had at least one character (Xander and Giles in the case of Buffy and Daryl in the case of Charmed) who were not there to just serve as the other half of a pairing with a female lead. 

 

Supernatural on the other hand has been on the air a lot longer than both and has apparently been unable to produce a female regular without losing their 'male focus'. I also strongly side eye the decision to promote Mark Pellegrino over Samantha Smith who was in a lot more episodes than Mark last season and a similar number to him this season so far. I didn't watch Hercules or Xena so I'm not going to comment on those shows. 

I'd argue that Supernatural has tried, time and time again, to add female characters. But the fans revolt, tear out their hair and render their garments when one is introduced. The only one that's really managed to survive unscathed is Jodi/Kim Rhodes and that was a slow burn with her character over many seasons. Sometimes it's through no fault of the show that some of these characters were left behind, though. Actresses weren't always available when they needed them to be so they punted and moved on. Kripke said it best in an early season commentary: something to the effect of, "We would love to have more female characters on the show, they're fun to write and such, but you fans--I love you--but you are very hard on female cast members."

As to Pellegrino over Smith, I don't know that it was one or the other, so they went with the man. It very well could be they offered Samantha recurring status, as well, and she turned them down. Jim Beaver was rumored to have turned them down because he didn't want to be tied down too much. We really don't know the reason there, so I hesitate to label it a misogynist act when I don't know all the facts.

[Res]

57 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said:

I'd argue that Supernatural has tried, time and time again, to add female characters. But the fans revolt, tear out their hair and render their garments when one is introduced. The only one that's really managed to survive unscathed is Jodi/Kim Rhodes and that was a slow burn with her character over many seasons. Sometimes it's through no fault of the show that some of these characters were left behind, though. Actresses weren't always available when they needed them to be so they punted and moved on. Kripke said it best in an early season commentary: something to the effect of, "We would love to have more female characters on the show, they're fun to write and such, but you fans--I love you--but you are very hard on female cast members."

As to Pellegrino over Smith, I don't know that it was one or the other, so they went with the man. It very well could be they offered Samantha recurring status, as well, and she turned them down. Jim Beaver was rumored to have turned them down because he didn't want to be tied down too much. We really don't know the reason there, so I hesitate to label it a misogynist act when I don't know all the facts.

So did people not like Ellen or is she not with Jodi because she's dead.

I also agree that several fans are not comfortable with some females near "their" male leads. IMO it depended on the female character as to whether I liked her or not. How she was written, what her purpose was, how the actress acted (if she actually acted), etc. I think they did great with several of them, especially in the MOTW early seasons. Some appeared to be very much their own characters and very relatable. In fact, the trend of randomly killing characters off for shock value seemed to main become a predictable thing under Carver, I think, then Dabb continued it into extreme redundancy this last season's finale. Of course, in some ways being killed off is a blessing considering how badly they have messed up some of the returning characters and not coming back from the dead is actually allowing some to retain their dignity. 

Just out of curiosity who would you have liked to had for a female lead on SPN? (Or should that question be taken to a different thread?)

[catrox14]

2 hours ago, DittyDotDot said:

I'd argue that Supernatural has tried, time and time again, to add female characters. But the fans revolt, tear out their hair and render their garments when one is introduced.

 

I see much more rending of garments and tearing of hair over s8 than anything else in fandom for a variety of reasons the least of which was Amelia IMO but she was also never going to be around long term either. I think Donna, who has ship potential, was well received. Lisa seemed to be well liked if the SL IMO was not that great.  Amara was contentious and was also liked by a lot of fans, and some shipped her with Dean.

Eileen was a big hit and I saw very little dissent in fandom wrt to her being Sam's potential LI and saw a lot of encouragement towards a Samleen pairing. I see calls for Sister Jo and Dean. I'm not in favor of that as I ship him with Castiel and Donna LOL.

I have only been in this fandom for 4 years really so I can't speak to whatever went on 8 years ago. but I think since I've been watching there are a lot of female characters that were much better rec'd than others. I think it only was a huge problem back in s2 from all I've read because of Jo and Bela and how they were handled by the writers.

I just don't see that a female lead is necessary in this set up because they are two leads already who happen to be brothers. I mean I just don't get why that's being held against the show when that was how it was set up from the beginning and it has no real reason for moving away from that model other than to give j2 more time off. None of which is a sexism or misogyny thing, like at all.

I mean it's like if suddenly Wynonna Earp brought in a male lead to join the sisters as a 3rd lead for the fuck of it. But to be fair I've not watched one moment of Wynonna Earp so maybe I'm wrong and it would be just fine, since her sister has a gf and she has her partner who is supposed to be like Doc Holliday. That's basically what I know of that show. LOL

I just think it's weird thing to be mad at the show for having the same two leads that started the show being the same two leads that should end the show.

Edited January 17, 2018 by catrox14

[DittyDotDot]

2 hours ago, Res said:

So did people not like Ellen or is she not with Jodi because she's dead.

Well, I'm sure there were some who didn't like her, but my understanding was the actress wasn't always available when they needed her and this was back before they started trying to nail down their actors more in advance. So, they generally had to punt and eventually just moved on.

2 hours ago, Res said:

I also agree that several fans are not comfortable with some females near "their" male leads. IMO it depended on the female character as to whether I liked her or not.

I wasn't suggesting it was about having females near their men as much as I think there's a double standard when it comes to women in this fandom. The boys can do no wrong, but women are judged much more harshly, IMO. Look at Samantha Smith, people hate her because her character was mean to Sam and Dean. Well, that was the job she was tasked with doing--and, IMO, she did it superbly. It's not Samantha's fault that the writers chose to go in that direction but she gets so much hatred when she speaks about her character's motivations.

Edited January 17, 2018 by DittyDotDot

[catrox14]

8 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said:

, IMO. Look at Samantha Smith, people hate her because her character was mean to Sam and Dean. Well, that was the job she was tasked with doing--and, IMO, she did it superbly. It's not Samantha's fault that the writers chose to go in that direction but she gets so much hatred when she speaks about her character's motivations.

So what if Sam Smith is criticized for her comments? The boys and J2  have their comments as characters, their behaviors are dissected and parsed to the nth degree.  I see a crap ton of Dean, Sam and Castiel hate and thinly veiled acrimony towards the actors as well. Sorry, but I see no double standard with Samantha than any other actor. And I don't see any sexism in the criticism either.

[DittyDotDot]

9 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

So what if Sam Smith is criticized for her comments? The boys and J2  have their comments as characters, their behaviors are dissected and parsed to the nth degree.  I see a crap ton of Dean, Sam and Castiel hate and thinly veiled acrimony towards the actors as well. Sorry, but I see no double standard with Samantha than any other actor. And I don't see any sexism in the criticism either.

I don't think there's anything wrong with anyone criticizing Samantha's comments at all, but you can't tell me that if Mary had been written differently there would be the same outrage at the actress herself. They're not criticizing her comments as much as directing their anger about the writing onto the actress who has no control over the writing. All she can do is try to find a way to get inside Mary's head and try to understand why she acts the way she does.

IMO, the sexism isn't from the show itself, but from fandom. The show keeps trying to broaden the POV, but fans don't want it. I'm fine with that myself. I could care less if they add more female characters, I only care if they're interesting, male or female. The reality is, life isn't fair and I don't have any interest in watching a show that tries to tell me otherwise--that's a very boring show, if you ask me--but I'm not going to pretend there isn't a double standard either.

[Bobcatkitten]

Jo and Ellen were great characters that should have stuck around. And Charlie is the obvious one. She was fun and brought a different side to the show and the boys. Why they killed her made no sense to me. 

[Pondlass1]

Sam had to repeat the words written for her, it's true.  But did she have to wear that ice cold expression whenever in the vicinity of her sons? And then the elevation to Wow, super hunter extraordinaire!!!???

I don't know what it is with this show these days.  In the beginning hunting was depicted as lonely, dangerous, requiring an extensive knowledge and fear of the supernatural.  But as new characters were introduced hunting is suddenly nothing at all.  In fact anyone can do it.  I could probably do it.

[catrox14]

18 minutes ago, Pondlass1 said:

Sam had to repeat the words written for her, it's true.  But did she have to wear that ice cold expression whenever in the vicinity of her sons? And then the elevation to Wow, super hunter extraordinaire!!!???

I don't know what it is with this show these days.  In the beginning hunting was depicted as lonely, dangerous, requiring an extensive knowledge and fear of the supernatural.  But as new characters were introduced hunting is suddenly nothing at all.  In fact anyone can do it.  I could probably do it.

Yeah, that part really bothers me. Hunting was a depressing, dirty, deadly, dangerous job that if anyone really knew what they did they might have them committed or imprisoned for all the fraud committed to do the job. They drank Hunter's Helper because they couldn't go to therapy because they couldn't tell a therapist why they were the way they were, but now we have shapeshifter grief counselors.  Jody being involved in hunting was low key because she could have risked her own job and career via hunting. But now she goes to war with Sam, murders 10 people, blows up a big old faciility and not a WORD is spoken about it.

Edited January 17, 2018 by catrox14

[DittyDotDot]

13 minutes ago, Pondlass1 said:

I don't know what it is with this show these days.  In the beginning hunting was depicted as lonely, dangerous, requiring an extensive knowledge and fear of the supernatural.  But as new characters were introduced hunting is suddenly nothing at all.  In fact anyone can do it.  I could probably do it.

I don't know, I think that's the way hunting was for Sam and Dean in the beginning because John kept them so isolated from everyone else. But, with the introduction of the Roadhouse in S2, it became clear that hunting wasn't a lonely existence for everyone. And, I'd say most the hunters we've met even as far back as S1 started off as regular folks who didn't know anything about the life, but they learned and developed their skills as they went along. So, yeah, I think you and anyone else could probably do it. 

[Pondlass1]

1 minute ago, DittyDotDot said:

So, yeah, I think you and anyone else could probably do it. 

I'd have to hit the gym and then get me some skinny jeans  .....plus I prefer wine over beer.  But yeah - I've watched this show for 13 years.  I could probably do it too.

[Bobcatkitten]

1 hour ago, Pondlass1 said:

I'd have to hit the gym and then get me some skinny jeans  .....plus I prefer wine over beer.  But yeah - I've watched this show for 13 years.  I could probably do it too.

If wine is allowed then I'm in. I have only shot a gun once in my life but I was damn good (seriously). I hate blood though. 

[ahrtee]

1 hour ago, DittyDotDot said:

And, I'd say most the hunters we've met even as far back as S1 started off as regular folks who didn't know anything about the life, but they learned and developed their skills as they went along. So, yeah, I think you and anyone else could probably do it. 

That's assuming you weren't eaten your first time out and had the time to "develop your skills" as you went along.  And hopefully you had someone to teach you instead of trying to figure it out yourself ("hmmm....something with a mouthful of giant teeth is coming at me.  I have a knife and a gun, but I'm not a very good shot.  What should I do now?")  

[AwesomO4000]

2 hours ago, ahrtee said:

That's assuming you weren't eaten your first time out and had the time to "develop your skills" as you went along. 

Apparently on some shows, that's not even enough. You can have a ton of experience, but the writers/ showrunners decide one day, "ehn we'll take this character out via making a mistake a newbee would make." RIP Carl Grimes. (A bitter soon-to-be former Walking Dead fan here.)

So I agree it sometimes seems like characters on SPN get into hunting too easily, but I guess I'll take that over the The Walking Dead, Carl situation. Of all of the times Carl should have died when he was younger and made stupid mistakes, they take him out after he has hundreds and hundreds of zombie kills under his belt - sometimes many zombies at a time - via a pair of zombies he should have been able to kill in his sleep, and that he previously wouldn't have even tried to kill since they were minding their own business... I guess it's similar to conveniently stupid Charlie, except if Charlie had been a major character who had been on the show for 8 years.

So I guess my point here is that as annoying as the "instant hunter - just add appropriate App" can be, it doesn't bother me nearly as much as when supposedly seasoned characters get killed making really stupid mistakes they shouldn't make... like Charlie sneaking off on her own when she had previously been chased - and almost killed - by the Steins and knew how dangerous they were, and so should never have normally taken that chance. So I guess I'd rather the writers err on the side of live rather than die if I had to choose.

2 hours ago, ahrtee said:

("hmmm....something with a mouthful of giant teeth is coming at me.  I have a knife and a gun, but I'm not a very good shot.  What should I do now?")  

Hee. Run? Running is a legitimate strategy, right? Except in my case - since my running days are over. ; )

If I was going to be a hunter, I think I'd have to find a similar, but modified strategy to what I came up with as my strategy to survive the zombie apocalypse: human hamster ball.*** Though admittedly that strategy would work much better in the zombie apocalypse, I think.

*** The question in that thread was (paraphrase) "What would you choose as your ideal weapon to survive the zombie apocalypse?"

[gonzosgirrl]

9 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

<snip>

*** The question in that thread was (paraphrase) "What would you choose as your ideal weapon to survive the zombie apocalypse?"

Stairs. :)

[AwesomO4000]

1 minute ago, gonzosgirrl said:

Stairs. :)

Hee.

... but sometimes the zombies can get up stairs eventually. Also in Walking Dead verse, sadly, other people can get you almost as often as the zombies can.***

Granted stairs would be a problem with a human hamster ball... so I would have to avoid those during trips in the hamster ball.

*** Although I did have another plan - in the "survival strategy" thread - where I would live at the top of a highrise with one of those roof gardens... even better if there was some solar power... But the stairs would have to be majorly blocked off and/or locked via heavy metal doors to exclude other people getting up there.

[DittyDotDot]

8 hours ago, ahrtee said:

That's assuming you weren't eaten your first time out and had the time to "develop your skills" as you went along.  And hopefully you had someone to teach you instead of trying to figure it out yourself ("hmmm....something with a mouthful of giant teeth is coming at me.  I have a knife and a gun, but I'm not a very good shot.  What should I do now?")  

Sure, but not everyone dies on their first hunt. John Winchester was out there alone, so was Gordon until he got into the community more. Some die, some don't; even the most seasoned hunters on the planet have died many times over while spindly Garth managed to survive on his own.

5 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:

So I guess my point here is that as annoying as the "instant hunter - just add appropriate App" can be, it doesn't bother me nearly as much as when supposedly seasoned characters get killed making really stupid mistakes they shouldn't make...

Well, there's that, also none of these characters are insta-hunter, IMO.

• Jodi was a sheriff long before Sam and Dean came along which means she already had the weapons and tactical training. And, she's had the benefit of Sam and Dean helping her with the "whack-a-do" for years; not to mention her keeping her own ear to the ground and hunting with Asa and his contacts without them. 
• Ditto on Donna already being a cop and having tactical and weapons training and having her eyes opened by two of the best hunters on the planet probably helps her along too.
• Alex spent her childhood being bait for her vampire family which means she has some knowledge of the Supernatural and plenty of skills that help her think on her feet and solve problems just like Sam and Dean do. For her to have survived that environment all those years, she must have some survival skills of some sort.
• Claire may be a whiny princess sometimes and grate on my nerves--and her golden locks make her look like she can't handle herself--but she spent most of her teenage years fending for herself on the streets. And, she's spent the better part of the last year hunting by herself and surviving. She's known about angels and demons and the supernatural since she was what 10/12 years old? I may not care for the character, myself, but I wouldn't say that the girl doesn't have some survival skills of some sort.
• Patience and Kaia are really the only greenhorns of the group with regards to the hunting life, but both of them already have plenty of skills that can work in their benefit for hunting. They took great pains to set up Patience as being very athletic and book smart, so, while she has some catching up to do--and I'm sure there will be catching up for her to do--I don't see it as insurmountable given the character they already presented us with. And, Kaia clearly is smart and a problem solver too. Plus, she's spent most of her life "walking" into The Bad Place and survived. Which means, she must have some pretty good survival and/or fighting skills considering those scars she has.

So, yeah, I don't have a problem with these women becoming hunters. I personally haven't gotten the vibe they're going to be experts off the bat, but will probably make mistakes and learn from them like Sam and Dean did in the early seasons. In a way, it's kinda like when Jo started hunting. She had enough knowledge to be dangerous, but really had no clue what it was all about until she started doing it. That's what I expect to see from the younger girls.

Edited January 18, 2018 by DittyDotDot

[ahrtee]

2 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said:

Sure, but not everyone dies on their first hunt. John Winchester was out there alone, so was Gordon until he got into the community more. Some die, some don't; even the most seasoned hunters on the planet have died many times over while spindly Garth managed to survive on his own.

Taking to All Seasons, because it's all about SPN and not other shows.  

[AwesomO4000]

2 hours ago, DittyDotDot said:

Well, there's that, also none of these characters are insta-hunter, IMO.

I agree with your points above.

I'm sorry that I didn't make myself more clear. I was more referring to Charlie, because I think she was the one referring to some sort of "App" about how to go about hunting? ...though I admit I may have remembered that wrong... I'm a bit more deficient on the details of the Carver years. I think that I remember that all of a sudden Charlie was hunting and talking about it like it wasn't that big of a deal, and that's more of what I was referencing.

At the same time, Charlie's death wasn't hunting related, but from something that she was fairly familiar with - going on the lam and hiding from people looking for her - so much like Carl Grimes, there had to be some uncharacteristic stupid in there in order for her to die the way that she did.

[catrox14]

Tonight's episode of the XFiles really reminded me of SPN as it dealt with the idea of evil, are ghosts real or not, and still want an SPN/XFiles xover

[AwesomO4000]

47 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

Tonight's episode of the XFiles really reminded me of SPN as it dealt with the idea of evil, are ghosts real or not, and still want an SPN/XFiles xover

Oh man, was X-Files on? My TV Guide said "to be announced" so I watched L&O: SVU. I'll have to catch it on On Demand tomorrow.

[catrox14]

1 minute ago, AwesomO4000 said:

Oh man, was X-Files on? My TV Guide said "to be announced" so I watched L&O: SVU. I'll have to catch it on On Demand tomorrow.

Yeah, it's on 8pm Wednesdays.

[Bobcatkitten]

I have no problem buying Jody, Donna, Alex and Claire as hunters. They have history and I can buy that they have honed skills offscreen that we haven't seen.

But if they make Clark and Patience into insta-bad asses that will turn me off. 

[gonzosgirrl]

2 hours ago, scribe95 said:

I have no problem buying Jody, Donna, Alex and Claire as hunters. They have history and I can buy that they have honed skills offscreen that we haven't seen.

But if they make Clark and Patience into insta-bad asses that will turn me off. 

As recently as 12x16, Claire was acting like a pouty, teenage brat, stomping off in a huff and walking around with headphones on at full volume, knowing there are werewolf attacks happening. But yeah, she's a badass hunter that will lead the charge to save Dean and Sam.

[Bobcatkitten]

Oops I realized it's Kaia, not Clark. 

[RulerofallIsurvey]

On 1/17/2018 at 10:59 AM, Pondlass1 said:

 .....plus I prefer wine over beer. 

On 1/17/2018 at 0:34 PM, scribe95 said:

If wine is allowed then I'm in.

Jody drinks wine, so I think you're good to go!

[Myrelle]

Hubs and I just finished watching the first season of Stranger Things tonight. Now this would have been the type of spin-off from Supernatural that I would have loved. Almost all of the main characters were well-written and it was very well-acted by all, too. I couldn't help feeling like this should have been the SPN spin-off the entire time that I was watching it and even though none of these characters/actors had ever even been on the show.

Awesome little show. I can't wait for S2.

[DeeDee79]

On ‎1‎/‎17‎/‎2018 at 11:41 PM, catrox14 said:

Tonight's episode of the XFiles really reminded me of SPN as it dealt with the idea of evil, are ghosts real or not, and still want an SPN/XFiles xover

Yes please!

[DittyDotDot]

45 minutes ago, bozodegama said:

I don’t watch a lot of other tv shows.  Which shows do you guys watch that are better written than Supernatural.  The only other shows that i thought compete with Supernatural for writing are Deadwood, GOT and Stargate sg1. But. Like i said, i don’t watch a lot of tv shows

I think all shows have their highs and lows and falls into writing traps and tropes from time to time, so better written is very hard to define and comes down to preferences more than anything. Overall, considering Supernatural's limitations in budget and characters to work with, I think the writing is actually pretty damn good and if you factor in it's longevity too, there's really few that compare aptly.

Personally, I found the writing of Deadwood to be terrible, although the acting was generally above par. Games of Thones, although they fall into lots of writing traps and tend to recycle, overall, I think it's been consistently better written. But, both of these shows have huge budgets and casts compared to Supernatural and also a lot fewer episodes per season, so it's really hard to compare the writing--or anything else--as apples to apples. 

I'd say Stargate and Supernatural are generally on par, though. They both are long-running shows with comparative budgets and episode orders and I think they both had their hits and misses. And, I'd say both shows tried to transition from a more episodic show to a more serial format with varying degrees of success. I think Stargate wrote the big ideas better, but Supernatural has done the character bits generally better.

31 minutes ago, Wayward Son said:

In regards to better written shows I would say there are many I could name that are easily better than what we’ve got from season 8 on. Some of those shows would be Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Angel, X Files, Marvel’s Jessica Jones, The Good Place and Game of Thrones. Some of them admittedly are very new and could decline yet (TGP is only on S2 and only one season of JJ has been released). In the case of Buffy, Angel and the X Files while they had their low periods IMO they’ve never fallen as low as SPN did for me during seasons 8-9. However, I personally would consider s1-5 to be fantastically written television and would only confidentially out Buffy above those seasons. 

I thought the first season of Jessica Jones was horribly written. I liked the noir atmosphere of the show and found the acting to be pretty good, but the constant catch and release and stupidity was just terrible writing, IMO. I'd put Supernatural--even in it's current state--leagues above Jessica Jones, myself.

[ParadoxLost]

I've been watching The Magicians lately which is Sera Gamble's current show.

I've got to say that lately I've been looking at it as "damn, so that's where the Supernatural meta, humor, and  pop culture references went."

Ah hell,  for our viewing pleasure,  both shows doing Taylor Swift's Shake It Off.  But Magicians was in episode.

Edited January 23, 2018 by ParadoxLost

[Bobcatkitten]

It's an older show but Justified had amazingly written characters. So good. 

[Wayward Son]

12 hours ago, ParadoxLost said:

I've been watching The Magicians lately which is Sera Gamble's current show.

I've got to say that lately I've been looking at it as "damn, so that's where the Supernatural meta, humor, and  pop culture references went."

Ah hell,  for our viewing pleasure,  both shows doing Taylor Swift's Shake It Off.  But Magicians was in episode.

 

 

The Magicians has been on my list of shows to try for a while now. Glad to hear it sounds like a good show! Let’s hope I too enjoy it when I get around to it :)

[catrox14]

I have tried to watch Timeless and The Magicians and Shadowhunters and all I do is just think this has already been done by SPN and done better (which I imagine some X Files viewers thing about SPN which has never pretended to not be in that vein given Kim Manners attachment and they actually referenced X Files explicitly so they weren't hiding it. And some see some Buffy and Angel moments in SPN, even though I never really have. It's only ever seemed similar to the X Files to me.  

I watch Timeless and I think, Eric Kripke, I see your low rent Poor Man's Dean Winchester there. I watched maybe 3 eps of Timeless, and specifically tuned in for Misha's turn as Eliot Ness only for him to be killed off in minutes LOL.

Now I think Eric Kripke is trying to do an homage to SPN but it comes off more ripping off his own show than homages but maybe he can't make actual direct references to SPN for legal reasons. That said his Poor Man's Dean Winchester just irritates me cause there ain't no one like Dean Winchester IMO and I'm sure there are many here who think the opposite and you are welcome to think that. I'm not gonna debate it LOL

The Magicians is just meh and Shadowhunters IMO has pretty terrible acting except for the guy that plays Magnus.  I don't get the fuss over Matthew Daddario (sorry to you Alec  fans out there. I don't much like Alec).

[auntvi]

19 hours ago, ParadoxLost said:

I've been watching The Magicians lately which is Sera Gamble's current show.

I've got to say that lately I've been looking at it as "damn, so that's where the Supernatural meta, humor, and  pop culture references went."

Also, The Magicians is R-rated so you get sex and lots of "fucks".

I second the recommendation of Justified. I loved that show, and maybe ready to start a rewatch..........

[catrox14]

9 hours ago, scribe95 said:

It's an older show but Justified had amazingly written characters. So good. 

Justified has some of the best dialogue I have ever heard. Fantastic. I always Jensen to get dialogue like that.  Man... so good