Supernatural Smackdown: The Winchester Dynamic Duo vs Other Shows

[DittyDotDot]

13 minutes ago, Aeryn13 said:

After the Tooms episode, I was afraid of sitting down on the toilet of all things. That was hard to get over.      

That and every time I use an escalator I can't help but wonder what could be living under it now.

17 minutes ago, Aeryn13 said:

That is something, for all Kripke intended to do a "horror show", SPN never really was.

Yeah, I always say that Supernatural is gory and sometimes messed up, but I can't say I have really ever been terrified by it.

21 minutes ago, Aeryn13 said:

Meanwhile X-Files really creeped me out several times. Even the more gory "Home" (which, stuff like that is not really my thing, couldn`t sit through Wrong Turn) had creepy moments with the mother under the floorboards. Eek.  

Home, freaked me the hell out the first time I watched it. Gave new meaning to what might be lurking under the bed.

[Demented Daisy]

29 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

If you want see a case study in the reduction of, and subsequent terrible departure, one of two extremely popular co-leads and half of the duo that made the show work, look no further than Sleepy Hollow. Maybe I'm suffering PSHSD, but I don't like what is happening with Dean.

 

I tend to think apples and oranges here.  From everything I've read, Nicole Beharie wanted to leave the show.  Plus, it was only in its third season when she made that decision.  Sleepy Hollow was also, IMO, more of an ensemble from the early days than SPN has been.

I think that would be an apt comparison if Dean had died, gone to Hell, and never came back.  But forcing Jensen out now, after over a decade with Sam and Dean, would put the nail in SPN's coffin -- everyone involved with the show has to know that.

Edited May 4, 2017 by Demented Daisy

[catrox14]

4 minutes ago, Demented Daisy said:

I tend to think apples and oranges here.  From everything I've read, Nicole Beharie wanted to leave the show.  Plus, it was only in its third season when she made that decision.  Sleepy Hollow was also, IMO, more of an ensemble from the early days than SPN has been.

I think that would be an apt comparison if Dean had died, gone to Hell, and never came back.  But forcing Jensen out now, after over a decade with Sam and Dean, would put the nail in SPN's coffin -- everyone involved with the show has to know that.

I'm not saying that is what IS happening with Dean. The question arose as to why a show would dismantle a powerful duo that was key to the success of a show. SH came to mind as one such example. It doesn't matter how long the show aired the dynamic between ICHABBIE was key for much if not most  of the SH audience.

And everything I've read leaves it much less clear as to whether Nicole wanted out before they shifted her role to essentially non co lead by end of s2 OR if she asked out after they reduced her significance to the story. I will eagerly read that BTS story.

I   disagree that it was an ensemble piece from the jump. It  was Abbie and Ichabod as the TWO designated witnesses and they had to save the world together. It was in the lore from the jump. They were working together like Mulder & Scully. It was the relationship between Ichabod & Abbie that drove the show with side helping of good supporting characters like Andy, Jenny, Headless Headless,  and the Orlando Jones character, who they inexplicably wrote out in a rather questionable manner as well. It

 That said, regardless of whether Nicole asked out or she was forced out because of how the story shifted to Ichabod and the Crane Family Drama the manner of Abbie's exit was disgraceful to the character IMO.

[Aeryn13]

Quote

But forcing Jensen out now, after over a decade with Sam and Dean, would put the nail in SPN's coffin -- everyone involved with the show has to know that.

I disagree. If they take the last few episodes as a template - and that would be a very fair assessment IMO because that`s the show we would get - I totally see them thinking it will work. 

If say that had been Smallville, obviously, they couldn`t have done the show without Clark because his character was the basis for the entire show. That is not true for SPN. 

With Sleepy Hollow, yes Nicole Beharie wanted to leave. Why that was - rumour has it she was unhappy with the decline of her character in Season 2 but noone ever came out and gave anything concrete - is still a question mark. 

[Demented Daisy]

5 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

I   disagree that it was an ensemble piece from the jump. It  was Abbie and Ichabod as the TWO designated witnesses and they had to save the world together. It was in the lore from the jump. They were working together like Mulder & Scully. It was the relationship between Ichabod & Abbie that drove the show with side helping of good supporting characters like Andy, Jenny, Headless Headless,  and the Orlando Jones character, who they inexplicably wrote out in a rather questionable manner as well.

Didn't say that -- I said it was more of an ensemble than SPN was.  And your list of characters in the show from the beginning backs up my point.  S1 of SPN had Sam and Dean, until Bobby and John showed up in the last few.

[catrox14]

15 minutes ago, Demented Daisy said:

Didn't say that -- I said it was more of an ensemble than SPN was.  And your list of characters in the show from the beginning backs up my point.  S1 of SPN had Sam and Dean, until Bobby and John showed up in the last few.

Those are supporting characters, not ensemble characters. Ensemble characters are in service of the collective story not to the main characters (i.e. the West Wing, ER, or Battlestar Galactica 2003). 

In the case of SH, Jenny, Andy, Frank, and Headless were supporting characters there to serve and support Ichabod and Abbie's story as the Two Witnesses fighting to stop the Apocalypse. That was the premise from the jump.

Bobby, John, Ellen, Jo, Ruby, Bela, Cas, Crowley were all added as supporting characters there to serve the story of Sam. Dean IMO was also a supporting main character for Sam initially and his role expanded to essentially co-lead. 

[Demented Daisy]

Yeah, we're totally going to have to agree to disagree.

[rue721]

42 minutes ago, Lady Calypso said:

So, what I took from Doom World is that it really is a What If Sam and Dean Were Never Born world.

Probably so, but I have to say, I'm SO intrigued by the idea of seeing an AU Sam and Dean!

That said, I was one of those tiresome people who also straight up LOVED the AU on Smallville, and especially loved the chance to see a version of Clark raised by Lionel. Answered so many questions about the characters, especially about Clark. I mean jeez, I even loved all the clones.

Anyway, I guess I'm hoping for SPN to do the same sort of thing -- but a version of Sam and Dean raised by Mary.

Unlikely to happen because of the hassle involved in a single actor playing multiple characters on a show...but I'd love it. ;)

[nightwing877]

On 2017-5-1 at 8:45 AM, DittyDotDot said:

That and every time I use an escalator I can't help but wonder what could be living under it now.

Yeah, I always say that Supernatural is gory and sometimes messed up, but I can't say I have really ever been terrified by it.

Home, freaked me the hell out the first time I watched it. Gave new meaning to what might be lurking under the bed.

Yeah that episode was the scariest of X-Files. Although I never watched the show when it was first on air in the 90s, was far too young and it scared me. I saw it around the time the second film came out. Home was probably the most scariest they did, it was pretty intense. Don't think Supernatural has gotten that scary, even the early season's never did a story like that that was freaky, sure its gory, but never scary to the point I get terrified. 

[Wayward Son]

I figured this was the best place to put this! An earlier post I made got me thinking on some of my favourite actors and then I got curious on everyone else's. 

 

So which actor or actressses do you lot consider the most accomplished on television? I'm talking about their acting abilities so they could be a horrible person, but they're still good at their job LOL. 

 

Top 2 

1. Tatiana Maslany (Orphan Black) 

2. Jensen Ackles (Supernatural)

 

For me these two are miles above everyone else! The pair of them don't just act, but they seem to quite literally become the character they are portraying! 

 

Top 5

3. Sarah Michelle Gellar (Buffy the Vampire Slayer) 

4. Lana Parrilla (Once Upon a Time)

5. Jared Padalecki (Supernatural)

 

Top 10 (in no particular order this time)

Kristen Bell (Veronica Mars)

Misha Collins (Supernatural) 

Alyson Hannigan (Buffy) 

Gillian Anderson (X Files) 

Peter Dinklage (Game of Thrones) 

[gonzosgirrl]

5 hours ago, Wayward Son said:

I figured this was the best place to put this! An earlier post I made got me thinking on some of my favourite actors and then I got curious on everyone else's. 

 

So which actor or actressses do you lot consider the most accomplished on television? I'm talking about their acting abilities so they could be a horrible person, but they're still good at their job LOL. 

 

Top 2 

1. Tatiana Maslany (Orphan Black) 

2. Jensen Ackles (Supernatural)

 

For me these two are miles above everyone else! The pair of them don't just act, but they seem to quite literally become the character they are portraying! 

 

Top 5

3. Sarah Michelle Gellar (Buffy the Vampire Slayer) 

4. Lana Parrilla (Once Upon a Time)

5. Jared Padalecki (Supernatural)

 

Top 10 (in no particular order this time)

Kristen Bell (Veronica Mars)

Misha Collins (Supernatural) 

Alyson Hannigan (Buffy) 

Gillian Anderson (X Files) 

Peter Dinklage (Game of Thrones) 

I don't/didn't watch some of these shows and don't agree with some of your list, but I concur 1 million percent with your top two. Tatiana is incredible and Jensen has a range that is both beautiful and underused on Supernatural. 

[Wayward Son]

33 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

I don't/didn't watch some of these shows and don't agree with some of your list, but I concur 1 million percent with your top two. Tatiana is incredible and Jensen has a range that is both beautiful and underused on Supernatural. 

Out of curiosity who on my list would you disagree with? Don't worry I'm not the type to easily take offence ;) . Also who would you class as your top 5 or top 10?

 

Also I should add the disclaimer that I haven't seen many shows, so I'm sure there are many talented actors and actresses out there whose work I haven't seen. I'm only speaking from my own experience :)

Edited June 10, 2017 by Wayward Son

[gonzosgirrl]

3 hours ago, Wayward Son said:

Out of curiosity who on my list would you disagree with? Don't worry I'm not the type to easily take offence ;) . Also who would you class as your top 5 or top 10?

 

Also I should add the disclaimer that I haven't seen many shows, so I'm sure there are many talented actors and actresses out there whose work I haven't seen. I'm only speaking from my own experience :)

LOL I'm not sure it's worth my skin to say. :) I've never seen Veronica Mars, Buffy or Game of Thrones.  

 

I'm on my phone right now but I will answer my top picks later. 

Edited June 11, 2017 by gonzosgirrl

[Aeryn13]

Bringing this over from the public appearance thread in terms of discussing Game of Thrones: 

Quote

It's just that because it entertains you for whatever reason, doesn't make it a well written piece of political philosophy.

Let's just not pretend it is something more than what it actually is.

I think it is legitimately a lot more than what you see in it so no pretense involved on my part. There are guilty pleasure shows like that but this ain`t one of them for me.

Supernatural on the other hand was a kind of guilty pleasure show in the earlier Seasons. I liked it for being goofy and charming, never for being well-written. There were times I couldn`t stand Game of Thrones - like a Season of extended torture of Theon, a character I didn`t even care for - but the calibre of writing on GOT was IMO always several levels above SPN.

Having actors in it who elevate your material to some degree helped SPN pretend for a time but it`s not like Peter Dinklage isn`t awesome for example. And he gets better material to start with.

[Icarus]

Well I feel in good company with the belief that GOT is a classic piece of television and way above Supernatural in real terms (my opinion only!), Margaret Attwood is a fan and totally hooked and wrote a piece in The Guardian about it including this paragraph “I’ve been reading the 1970s Maurice Druon series of historical novels, Les Rois Maudits – The Accursed Kings – that trace the Capetian monarchs of France in the 13th and 14th centuries. Burnings at the stake, adulteries, castrations, stranglings, poisoned candies, baby murder, and hot pokers up the rear, just for starters; plus daring escapes from such strongholds as the Tower of London, intrigues, necromancy, money-lenders pulling the strings, religious leaders ditto, and more. What a treat to discover that this series strongly influenced George RR Martin; but, on second thought, how unsurprising. Because these, too, were real people, every murderous one.”

I absolutely love Supernatural, it is the only show in all my rather long years that I have been obsessed with, I have all the DVDs, several of the books and read loads of fanfics all the time but I could not ever say that the writing has been evenly good, there are some outstanding episodes but they are in general swamped by the average to bad ones IMO of course. This does not stop me from buying into the Winchesters totally and utterly.

[The Morning Star]

1 minute ago, Aeryn13 said:

Bringing this over from the public appearance thread in terms of discussing Game of Thrones: 

I think it is legitimately a lot more than what you see in it so no pretense involved on my part. There are guilty pleasure shows like that but this ain`t one of them for me.

Supernatural on the other hand was a kind of guilty pleasure show in the earlier Seasons. I liked it for being goofy and charming, never for being well-written. There were times I couldn`t stand Game of Thrones - like a Season of extended torture of Theon, a character I didn`t even care for - but the calibre of writing on GOT was IMO always several levels above SPN.

Having actors in it who elevate your material to some degree helped SPN pretend for a time but it`s not like Peter Dinklage isn`t awesome for example. And he gets better material to start with.

You need to look at Supernatural pre swan song and after swan song, differentiate and then compare.

Pre Swan song, I'd argue the canon and story of Supernatural was among the best and maybe even the best I had seen until then, perfect family drama, good acting and wonderful characters, one of the highlights of season 4 and 5 for me was this show's incredible ability to make the most out of the least.

Just look at the angle effects for one

How simple yet beautiful was that?

And then you have the brilliant support characters that the show had, characters like Gabriel, Zachariah and ect.

Pre Swan song, Supernatural is a top 5 in my ultimate best shows of all time and that's a huge achievement for a show on CW of all places because let's face it, CW doesn't mean good quality.

After Swan Song, although flashes of brilliance did indeed occur within this show, I can arguably say that only reason I watch Supernatural today is because of Dean, Cas and Sam because although the quality of writing has significantly decreased, man, these characters are great!

And this is coming from someone who's seen everything from Lost and 24 to Mentalist and The Walking Dead and Fringe, rarely have I seen so many grade A main characters in a show.

Mentalist had Patrick Jane, Fringe had Walter Bishop and ect but Supernatural has Dean Winchester, Sam Winchester and Castiel!

You cannot compare what Kripke did and these characters have done on CW with what They've done with GOT on HBO with all that money in good faith and call GOT which is a glorified Porn/Violence hybrid a better overal show.

Sure after Swan Song the writing quality of it maybe superior to SPN but that and the massive budget and the "attractive" Porn/Violence cocktail it has are the only things that GOT has on SPN.

I find it silly to assume GOT would've been viewed as much as it is now if all the Sex and Nudity and violence were taken out of it.

17 minutes ago, Icarus said:

Well I feel in good company with the belief that GOT is a classic piece of television and way above Supernatural in real terms (my opinion only!), Margaret Attwood is a fan and totally hooked and wrote a piece in The Guardian about it including this paragraph “I’ve been reading the 1970s Maurice Druon series of historical novels, Les Rois Maudits – The Accursed Kings – that trace the Capetian monarchs of France in the 13th and 14th centuries. Burnings at the stake, adulteries, castrations, stranglings, poisoned candies, baby murder, and hot pokers up the rear, just for starters; plus daring escapes from such strongholds as the Tower of London, intrigues, necromancy, money-lenders pulling the strings, religious leaders ditto, and more. What a treat to discover that this series strongly influenced George RR Martin; but, on second thought, how unsurprising. Because these, too, were real people, every murderous one.”

I absolutely love Supernatural, it is the only show in all my rather long years that I have been obsessed with, I have all the DVDs, several of the books and read loads of fanfics all the time but I could not ever say that the writing has been evenly good, there are some outstanding episodes but they are in general swamped by the average to bad ones IMO of course. This does not stop me from buying into the Winchesters totally and utterly.

I firmly stand my ground that GOT is what a hormoned up 16 year old would've dreamt of and way inferior as a television show than perhaps most of what I've seen on TV.

[DittyDotDot]

I think it's hard to really compare Supernatural with Game of Thrones, they're both just such different beasts, Game of Thones is a huge production that's filmed in several different countries with a huge ensemble cast... it's like trying to compare apples and oranges, IMO.  

That said, in terms of writing, yeah, I'd say Game of Thrones is far superior. But, again, it's like comparing apples to oranges since Game of Thrones is based a series of books that gives the show a template to start with. 

In terms of creativity, though, I'd say Supernatural wins out. Game of Thrones has no real restrictions on the writing. They have a huge budget and can afford to shoot almost anything they write and they don't have any network restrictions on what they write. Supernatural generally has to be more inventive in order to produce their show in comparison. 

Edited June 11, 2017 by DittyDotDot

[ahrtee]

I guess this is none of my business, because I've never watched GoT so I can't comment on the philosophy or writing, but in general,  if you're trying to fit your story into a set/limited amount of time or space, you don't want to waste it with too many details that don't advance the story or develop the characters.  (Full disclosure:  I'm not a fan of graphic sex, violence or gore on screen at all, so I guess you can call me the "prude" bandied about earlier.  Though  I don't mind seeing bits and pieces or even reading it, because I can visualize it my own way and skip whatever I don't want to think about.  I think my problem is that, as Alistair said, "reality is too concrete" once it's filmed, and doesn't leave enough to the imagination.)  

But here, it seems to me that, more than apples to oranges, you're trying to compare a big-budget, well-written soap opera of sorts (where the story cuts around between characters and can take months to develop) vs. a typical TV drama where you're trying to fit the entire plot into 41 minutes or less.  That makes for tighter writing (sometimes to the point of cutting too much!) but also, as DDD said above, more creativity, because you can't waste 10 or 20 minutes of the time showing something in extreme and graphic detail that doesn't advance the story, so you have to develop a kind of shorthand to get the all the nuances of plot and character across in the shortest time possible.  

SPN is different from many episodic TV shows in that it does have more time to develop the season-long story arcs, and the characters have been allowed to grow and change; but if you stopped an episode even for 5 minutes to show something in greater detail, something else would be missing out, and I can guarantee that at least half the fans would be complaining that something/someone was short-changed.   How many fans complained that the few minutes they used showing Dean riding that mechanical bull could have been better used somewhere else to explain or develop the main story?  (Or maybe the amount of time they spent showing Magda's "victims" self-flagellating could have been better used to show where Dean was during those missing six or seven minutes?)  

ETA:  I guess my point is that you don't *need* explicit sex or gore to tell a good story (also, adding it won't make a bad story better, though it might get a bigger audience.)  

Edited June 11, 2017 by ahrtee

[Pondlass1]

I'd LOVE to see Jensen and Tatiana in something together.   Tatiana brilliantly portrays all those characters in the same show... it's just BRILLIANT  how she does it.  And she's so humble and laid back in interviews. 

I'd love to see them together.  It would work well, and I know they'd get along brilliantly.

[Pondlass1]

On 5/19/2017 at 11:38 PM, nightwing877 said:

Home was probably the most scariest they did, it was pretty intense

Sorry Off Topic. HOME. This episode of X-files was just on TV yesterday afternoon.  I've never ever watched X-files before.  It was creepy to the extreme.  When they're creeping through the dark house of the inbreeders - honestly my hairs stood up all over the place.  This used to happen in earlier episodes of Supernatural... now not so much. Suspense and tension has kind of gone out the window.

Also - to those that have never watch Buffy.  I say do it.  Get past the outfits, clunky computers and no cell phones.  You could also start in season 2.  But it's good, especially in terms of character relationships and development that draws you right in, which is an area where I feel Supernatural is lacking (lately).

[DittyDotDot]

7 minutes ago, Pondlass1 said:

Sorry Off Topic. HOME. This episode of X-files was just on TV yesterday afternoon.  I've never ever watched X-files before.  It was creepy to the extreme.  When they're creeping through the dark house of the inbreeders - honestly my hairs stood up all over the place.  This used to happen in earlier episodes of Supernatural... now not so much. Suspense and tension has kind of gone out the window.

That episode puts new meaning to there being something under the bed... .

8 minutes ago, Pondlass1 said:

Also - to those that have never watch Buffy.  I say do it.  Get past the outfits, clunky computers and no cell phones.  You could also start in season 2.  But it's good, especially in terms of character relationships and development that draws you right in, which is an area where I feel Supernatural is lacking (lately).

Eh, I don't have a problem with the outfits, clunky computers and such, I just didn't care for the tone of the show and can never get passed the first couple episodes. I kinda despise the whole "too cool for school" attitude, myself.

[Aeryn13]

Quote

You need to look at Supernatural pre swan song and after swan song, differentiate and then compare.

I am looking at the series as a whole. And I did make the distinction between the earlier Seasons and now when I said it was an entertaining guilty pleasure show for me back then. Sweet and loveable but not high brow. Which is not knocking it. I don`t like pretentious.

But heck, I loathe the Season 5 Finale more than any episode of TV I have ever seen.`It destroyed a lot of goodwill from Season 4 (and to a lesser extent Season 5 because a lot of that was crappy from the start) for me, simply because the conclusion is terrible, it is the impression you are left with from a particular story.

Quote

I'd argue the canon and story of Supernatural was among the best and maybe even the best I had seen until then, perfect family drama, good acting and wonderful characters

I think this is where we really differ. Canon and plot in the first 5 Seasons? So-so, some good ideas and in Season 4 as close to reaching its potential as it could be but never brilliant. Family drama? Oh boy, did they manage to spread a message about family that wholeheartedly turns me off during Season 5. Characters? Eh, Jensen elevated the writing for Dean. Cas was a well-used character early on. That is about as complimentary as I can get.

Did they have some side characters I liked along the way? Sure. But also some I hated. Or had no feeling either way. Nothing brilliant in any case.  

 

Quote

You cannot compare what Kripke did and these characters have done on CW with what They've done with GOT on HBO with all that money in good faith and call GOT which is a glorified Porn/Violence hybrid a better overal show.

Sure, I can. It is my opinion and I can have it. 

Quote

Pre Swan song, Supernatural is a top 5 in my ultimate best shows of all time and that's a huge achievement for a show on CW of all places because let's face it, CW doesn't mean good quality.

When I really loved the show, it might have placed in my personal top ten but not in shows I considered best-of-all-time, there is a difference for me.

And I disagree that the CW means bad quality in general. They have several shows superior in quality to SPN even now. Which, granted, isn`t hard these days.

Back when SPN started on the WB, I can`t remember much which shows they still had running back then. Buffy wasn`t on anymore, I know that much but it was a far better show in terms of writing.   

Quote

ETA:  I guess my point is that you don't *need* explicit sex or gore to tell a good story (also, adding it won't make a bad story better, though it might get a bigger audience.)  

I agree that SPN doesn`t need to have explicit nudity and violence. What for really? There would be no purpose. 

On the other hand GOT portrays a kind of fictional medieval world and it is supposed to set it up as harsh and violent. Something like the Red Wedding (a mass slaughter of characters at a wedding) might be overly violent and strike as gratuitous but it is a plot point. It reverberates throughout later events BECAUSE it was so brutal. That`s why it makes it have a purpose in my eyes.

Edited June 11, 2017 by Aeryn13

[Pondlass1]

5 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said:

I just didn't care for the tone of the show

It's hard to explain.  It's really the ups & downs of a reluctant vampire slayer and her motley crew of friends.    Good, bad and ugly episodes for sure but you get tangled up with these characters - especially when Spike comes on the scene.  The characters are well written IMO

[Pondlass1]

3 minutes ago, Aeryn13 said:

I loathe the Season 5 Finale

When I binged the series - I was totally spellbound by Swan Song.  I thought it was amazing.

Then I found IMDb message boards.  It's funny, after reading all the critical comments there and then re-watching the episode a few times I wondered how I ever liked it so much in the first place.  ... And that green plastic toy ... ugh.  I mean, really!!! - how would that jolt Lucifer/Sam's intent on bashing in Dean's face?  I'm sure Dean never played toy soldiers with Sam ever!  No Sam played with those toys alone.  They probably cleaned guns  and sharpened knives in that back seat as dad drove them from one no-tell motel to the next.

**Maybe I'd be more content if I didn't visit message boards? ?

[The Morning Star]

5 minutes ago, Aeryn13 said:

I am looking at the series as a whole. And I did make the distinction between the earlier Seasons and now when I said it was an entertaining guilty pleasure show for me back then. Sweet and loveable but not high brow. Which is not knocking it. I don`t like pretentious.

But heck, I loathe the Season 5 Finale more than any episode of TV I have ever seen.`It destroyed a lot of goodwill from Season 4 and 5 for me, simply because the conclusion is terrible, it is the impression you are left with from a particular story.

Sure, I can. It is my opinion and I can have it. 

When I really loved the show, it might have placed in my personal top ten but not in shows I considered best-of-all-time, there is a difference for me.

And I disagree that the CW means bad quality in general. They have several shows superior in quality to SPN even now. Which, granted, isn`t hard.

Back when SPN started on the WB, I can`t remember much which shows they still had running back then. Buffy wasn`t on anymore, I know that much but it was a far better show in terms of writing.   

We just disagree then, just remember liking or not liking something doesn't mean that thing is good or bad.

Opinions are subjective, Facts aren't, they're objective.

So while you can like Game Of Thrones, no one can claim the show would've been as big as it is today if It had the budget of SPN and lacked the sexual/violent antics that it has today. Period.

As for my TV show viewing experience, I've seen a lot of them and I say what I say with certainty, Supernatural has some top notch lead characters and the drama of the first 5 seasons ranks very high and unique in terms of acting and story and mythology.

[DittyDotDot]

13 minutes ago, Pondlass1 said:

It's hard to explain.  It's really the ups & downs of a reluctant vampire slayer and her motley crew of friends.    Good, bad and ugly episodes for sure but you get tangled up with these characters - especially when Spike comes on the scene.  The characters are well written IMO

I'm really glad it's a show that worked for you, I'm probably going to continue to avoid it, though. Sorry!

5 minutes ago, Pondlass1 said:

When I binged the series - I was totally spellbound by Swan Song.  I thought it was amazing.

Then I found IMDb message boards.  It's funny, after reading all the critical comments there and then re-watching the episode a few times I wondered how I ever liked it so much in the first place.  ... And that green plastic toy ... ugh.  I mean, really!!! - how would that jolt Lucifer/Sam's intent on bashing in Dean's face?  I'm sure Dean never played toy soldiers with Sam ever!  No Sam played with those toys alone.  They probably cleaned guns  and sharpened knives in that back seat as dad drove them from one no-tell motel to the next.

**Maybe I'd be more content if I didn't visit message boards? ?

I don't know, I still like Swan Song enough even though the internet keeps trying to convince me I shouldn't. I still feel pretty much as I did when I first watched it. Even though I thought the plan was stupid and they went a little far with the nostalgia factor, if that had been the last of Supernatural I'd have been satisfied. ::shrugs::

[Aeryn13]

Quote

So while you can like Game Of Thrones, no one can claim the show would've been as big as it is today if It had the budget of SPN and lacked the sexual/violent antics that it has today. Period.

I never claimed that. I said I find it much better written. Of course, the budget makes a difference. And the violence/nudity makes it a different animal as well. One if a network show, one is cable, there is bound to be some difference on account of that.

And to be clear, GOT doesn`t remotely make my list of personal favourite shows. Shows I consider to be good but don`t draw me in that deeply? Might get a lower ranking there.  

 

Quote

As for my TV show viewing experience, I've seen a lot of them and I say what I say with certainty, Supernatural has some top notch lead characters and the drama of the first 5 seasons ranks very high and unique in terms of acting and story and mythology.

I`ve seen lots and lots of TV shows myself, some good, some bad, very few brilliant. Which is why I`ve come to the conclusions I have about SPN.

This is completely subjective. Noone can claim for a fact that the show has brilliant or garbage  characters or plots.

Quote

 I still feel pretty much as I did when I first watched it. 

I can totally get this. Well, not liking his particular episode :)  but the concept in general. I rarely change my mind about TV characters but IMO never an episode. Either I liked it or I didn`t from first watching. And if I really, utterly hate an ep, that will be the only watching because I`m not that much of a masochist.   

Edited June 11, 2017 by Aeryn13

[auntvi]

13 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said:

I don't know, I still like Swan Song enough even though the internet keeps trying to convince me I shouldn't.

I thought it was great when I first saw it, and I still consider it one of the best episodes of the series. I love the nostalgia and the green army man, it all works for me.

[Pondlass1]

2 minutes ago, auntvi said:

I don't know, I still like Swan Song enough even though the internet keeps trying to convince me I shouldn't.

I know right?  I've got to stop allowing others to sway me.  I shed tears (still do) when Dean says he's there for Sam, if Sam's in there somewhere he'll know Dean is there for him.  And the song as Dean pulls into Stull Cemetry.  Great stuff we don't see anymore.

But, yeah, the internet hates Swan Song.

[rue721]

38 minutes ago, Pondlass1 said:

especially when Spike comes on the scene

Oh man, I loved early days Spike. How he had it so bad for Dru was enough to endear him to me pretty much forever.

That said, Buffy was just hugely influential on me as a person. I was so obsessed with that show in high school!

I love and admired Buffy Summers so much, and wanted to be just like her.

The show doesn't really hold up, IMO -- but at the same time, I'm really happy that I got the chance to see it at the point in my life when I did. It meant a lot to me, and IMO was a very good influence on me.

32 minutes ago, Pondlass1 said:

When I binged the series - I was totally spellbound by Swan Song.  I thought it was amazing.

Then I found IMDb message boards.  It's funny, after reading all the critical comments there and then re-watching the episode a few times I wondered how I ever liked it so much in the first place.  ... And that green plastic toy ... ugh.  I mean, really!!! - how would that jolt Lucifer/Sam's intent on bashing in Dean's face?  I'm sure Dean never played toy soldiers with Sam ever!  No Sam played with those toys alone.  They probably cleaned guns  and sharpened knives in that back seat as dad drove them from one no-tell motel to the next.

**Maybe I'd be more content if I didn't visit message boards? ?

That's funny! I initially didn't like Swan Song much, mostly because all the stuff with Baby and being saved by memories or whatever was simultaneously too abstract and too sentimental for me.

Usually, I end up liking -- or at least appreciating -- episodes a lot more after discussing them, though. (That's definitely true for most of S5 of this show!). My initial reaction to watching something is usually more jaded and distant, and then after I digest and debate and think about episodes/scenes/characters/etc, I understand them better and get more out of them.

I also enjoy the discussion itself, and watching an episode that we have discussed and joked about so much brings to mind happy memories of the discussion of it, too! There are certain moments in the series that now, if I rewatch, will immediately bring to mind some joke that somebody made about them, and I laugh and enjoy watching the scene much more than I did the first time because of it.

If I didn't discuss SPN online, I probably wouldn't even watch it anymore! Not that it's so terrible, but I love how active the fans are and how much meaning people can extract from any scene or any character, and that's where a lot of my enjoyment of the show comes for me nowadays.

[catrox14]

28 minutes ago, Pondlass1 said:

But, yeah, the internet hates Swan Song.

Eh, I think it's a 50/50 prospect on the hatred/love for swan song. I didn't post about SPN back then because I didn't start watching the show until 2013, but going back and reading the old TWoP forum, I think it was more evenly split.

In the media, reviews sure seem to always place it in the top 10 if not top 5 and even best episode of the show ever. 

But like all art, the value is in the eye of the beerholder.

[AwesomO4000]

2 hours ago, Pondlass1 said:

I'm sure Dean never played toy soldiers with Sam ever!  

Well, this might help you? When I saw the green army man as it was being introduced in that montage thing, I immediately thought of Dean's green army men ice-breaker with Lucas in "Dead in the Water." Dean tells Lucas how he used to love those things [the army men] and proceeds to play with them, but it is obvious that for Lucas, the green army men represent something else beyond being toys. They are almost a hope for protection... and they had a symbolic meaning in that episode I think... the way Lucas placed the army men as almost a "perimeter" around his drawings for example, and other strategic places throughout the episode.

So from that, I could make the sort of leap that Dean gave Sam that army man (as one of a few), and maybe for Sam - who like Lucas seemed to be a little more in his own head - the army man came to have more meaning than just a toy, especially if Dean gave the army man to him. Because John getting young Sam army men... I can't see that as much of a priority, but if Dean had them when he was little, I could see him passing them on to Sam later on, and I could see Sam connecting the army man with Dean in his head that way - especially with the previous symbolism the green army men had played in that past episode.

Sure it's filling in details and making assumptions on my part, but it did help that the only previous connection to green army men in the show's past (that I remember) was in reference to Dean, and that I can entirely imagine Dean passing on his beloved army men to Sam if he felt Sam needed them more than he did.

[MysteryGuest]

I absolutely can see the boys playing with their army men n the back of the Impala.  There was a bit of a flashback during that scene showing just that, wasn't there?  They spent a lot of time in that car when they were children, on the road with their father, and even though Dean had to grow up too soon, I still think that at the age of 6, 7 or 8, he would have played with Sam.  I never had a problem with that scene, and didn't find it farfetched that the image of that army man was enough to trigger some memory in Sam to help him break free of Lucifer's hold.  

[AwesomO4000]

16 hours ago, DittyDotDot said:

That said, in terms of writing, yeah, I'd say Game of Thrones is far superior. But, again, it's like comparing apples to oranges since Game of Thrones is based a series of books that gives the show a template to start with. 

I've been thinking on this discussion, and I've decided that I'm a bit weird when it comes to my television. And one thing I'll admit: great writing doesn't always do it for me. For example, I know that The Sopranos is supposed to be a brilliantly written show, and I know this is an over-simplification, but a show about a mob bigwig whining to his therapist? The thought alone bores me. I couldn't imagine watching an entire series about it. I wouldn't care how brilliant the writing was. Mad Men falls into the same category for me. I like interesting characters, but they generally have to be characters that I relate to or sympathize with in some way. Or failing that, I need to find them intriguing and want to know more. So character is important to me. And though my list of favorite characters is diverse, I do ted to have a "type."

Another thing I'm a sucker for is certain themes. The "be careful what you wish for" theme and its variations is one of my favorites, but there are other more nebulous type themes I also enjoy. Though sometimes I don't realize exactly what it is until I see it, I know it when I do see it. Another is ambiance. I definitely have a vibe that I enjoy, and I prefer certain types of humor much more than others. I won't say that my type of humor is necessarily sophisticated and sometimes it tends toward dark and unusual... for example I'm much more likely to find South Park or Rescue Me amusing than I am Modern Family or The Big Bang Theory (fair warning - I don't find either of those shows funny at all... I tried to, but nope.) But at the same time, I've adored quite a few traditional type comedies, including ones that many might find questionable, like Perfect Strangers or Family Matters (which, interestingly, the second was a spin off of the first) or "Boy Meets World." My favorite comedies, though, would be - in no particular order - Friends, Taxi,* and Seinfeld... and South Park and Mystery Science Theater 3000. I'll stick with those 5.

I don't tend to "obsess" over comedies though... and SPN and Buffy were probably my biggest obsessions... and again characters and themes were the thing for me. I had a few shows earlier than that, but my love for them was more nebulous.

Okay, that was more rambling than I tintended. I guess my point was supposed to be that for me, great writing doesn't necessarily mean memorable or enjoyable television. Apparently I'm not that deep and/or would rather find my own "depth" in characters, themes, and subject matter that I find enjoyable and/or engage me than watch great writing about things that don't interest me. I think.

Though truth be told though, I find quite a few episodes of this show to be very well written, so perhaps my taste level is questionable. ; )

* I thought both Danny Devito and Judd Hirsch were brilliant in that show.

[DittyDotDot]

4 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:

Okay, that was more rambling than I tintended. I guess my point was supposed to be that for me, great writing doesn't necessarily mean memorable or enjoyable television. Apparently I'm not that deep and/or would rather find my own "depth" in characters, themes, and subject matter that I find enjoyable and/or engage me than watch great writing about things that don't interest me. I think.

Though truth be told though, I find quite a few episodes of this show to be very well written, so perhaps my taste level is questionable. ; )

Oh, good writing doesn't necessarily make a good show. It certainly doesn't hurt, but sometimes it doesn't matter how well-written a show is, it just isn't your cup of tea. See the Buffy discussion up thread.

So, when I say Game of Thrones is well-written, it doesn't mean it's a good show, but, IMO, it is consistently well-plotted, has lots of interesting characters and has a universe I can buy into. That's not to say that Supernatural isn't or hasn't been all those things, but I do think Game of Thrones is more consistent in its writing than Supernatural is and probably ever was. But, Supernatural has been absolutely brilliant at times and I'd put many of their individual episodes above Game of Thrones. 

However, like I said, it's like comparing apples and oranges. Game of Thrones only produces 10 episodes per season to Superantural's 23. It's easy for them to have that consistency because they have the time to work out all the kinks in comparison. That's why I also said that Supernatural wins out on creativity by miles for me. And, quite frankly, creativity is far more important to me in the long run.

Honestly, I like Game of Thrones well enough, but IMO it's gotten too big for it's own britches and has started buying into it's own press more often than not. So, I'm curious how it will end for a couple characters, but I'm not invested in the show like I am with Supernatural. I've never once had the urge to visit the Game of Thrones boards or really talk about the show. Not even invested enough to read the books, if I'm honest. ::shrugs::

Anyway, all I'm saying is writing isn't everything. The thing that drew me into Game of Thrones more than anything was how amazing it looked. At the time, it was really like nothing else I'd seen on TV--I'm not talking about the sex or violence, but that they shot in multiple different countries to make all the different regions of their universe come to life--but TV has changed over the years and I'd say it looks like almost every other show these days. That's part of what drew me to Mad Men at first, too, but that show also got too big for it's britches, IMO. 

That's one other thing that I love about Supernatural over Game of Thrones or Mad Men, they just keep working rather than getting wrapped up in their own hype. I guess I just like a good work ethic wrapped up in a bit of cleverness? I'm actually pretty easy, I guess? ;)

Edited June 12, 2017 by DittyDotDot

[JanetWaldo]

20 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said:

However, like I said, it's like comparing apples and oranges. Game of Thrones only produces 10 episodes per season to Superantural's 23. It's easy for them to have that consistency because they have the time to work out all the kinks in comparison. That's why I also said that Supernatural wins out on creativity by miles for me. And, quite frankly, creativity is far more important to me in the long run.

Game of Thrones also gets a full 60 minutes per episode with which to work.  Supernatural, like most other network shows, only gets around 40 minutes.  That extra 20 minutes makes a big difference in terms of plotting and character development moments.   And just for the record, I like GOT, but I agree it's not fair to compare it to Supernatural.  I also think that I think quite a  few Supernatural episodes easily stand up against GOT.

5 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:

For example, I know that The Sopranos is supposed to be a brilliantly written show, and I know this is an over-simplification, but a show about a mob bigwig whining to his therapist? The thought alone bores me.

For me it's Breaking Bad.  Never watched it.  Never will.  It's supposed to be a very well written show.  I don't care. 

[DittyDotDot]

14 minutes ago, JanetWaldo said:

For me it's Breaking Bad.  Never watched it.  Never will.  It's supposed to be a very well written show.  I don't care. 

I'm still on the fence for Breaking Bad, but I echo @AwesomO4000 in that I've never once had the urge to watch The Sopranos. I usually say I'll try anything, though...so, maybe some day when I've run out of other things to watch? Which will be never because there is just too much to watch anymore! ;)

[Pondlass1]

A friend loaned me the Game of Thrones DVDs and I've seen up to season 3.  Honestly, I was confused most of the time.  But luckily the DVD came with an option where one could set it so that when a character came on screen a little box opened and told you who the character was and who he/she was related to.  It was just too full of people (with weird names) for my liking.  I enjoy simpler fare.  I really enjoyed Big Little Lies and Stranger Things...I'm loving The Handmaid's Tale, also enjoying Lucifer.

 

On another note - I don't know if this is the right thread... but anyway, kudos to all posters here.  Since IMDb message boards went down I've landed here.  It's a pleasant place, no venomous trolls, we all have our differing opinions and state them respectfully.  But I'd mostly like to compliment  everyone here on the extent of their knowledge about the show.  You guys blow me away sometimes!!

[JanetWaldo]

1 hour ago, DittyDotDot said:

I'm still on the fence for Breaking Bad,

Let's just say that it hits a little too close to home, so I have no need to watch it.  :)

47 minutes ago, Pondlass1 said:

A friend loaned me the Game of Thrones DVDs and I've seen up to season 3.  Honestly, I was confused most of the time.  But luckily the DVD came with an option where one could set it so that when a character came on screen a little box opened and told you who the character was and who he/she was related to.  It was just too full of people (with weird names) for my liking.

Lol.  I only watch with my daughter - so she can keep reminding me of plots/characters I've forgotten.  She can keep them all straight.  I barely can. 

I know we, or at least I, complain about Supernatural killing off too many characters, but I think Game of Thrones does the same thing.  At this point on Game of Thrones, I can't think of anyone I really want to 'root' for - not really even Jon Snow.  At least on Supernatural, I still have Dean and Sam, even when they're being jerks.  :) 

[DittyDotDot]

1 hour ago, Pondlass1 said:

A friend loaned me the Game of Thrones DVDs and I've seen up to season 3.  Honestly, I was confused most of the time.  But luckily the DVD came with an option where one could set it so that when a character came on screen a little box opened and told you who the character was and who he/she was related to.  It was just too full of people (with weird names) for my liking.  I enjoy simpler fare.

TBH, I can't keep all their names straight either. I immediately recognize the different characters when I see them, just most of them I don't know what their names are. One, there's just too many of them, and two, they are weird names. I usually make up my own names to remember them by. ;)

[gonzosgirrl]

On 6/10/2017 at 11:21 AM, Wayward Son said:

<snip>

So which actor or actressses do you lot consider the most accomplished on television? I'm talking about their acting abilities so they could be a horrible person, but they're still good at their job LOL. 

Top 2 

1. Tatiana Maslany (Orphan Black) 

2. Jensen Ackles (Supernatural)

For me these two are miles above everyone else! The pair of them don't just act, but they seem to quite literally become the character they are portraying.

 

On 6/10/2017 at 5:21 PM, Wayward Son said:

Out of curiosity who on my list would you disagree with? Don't worry I'm not the type to easily take offence ;) . Also who would you class as your top 5 or top 10?

Also I should add the disclaimer that I haven't seen many shows, so I'm sure there are many talented actors and actresses out there whose work I haven't seen. I'm only speaking from my own experience :)

Finally getting a chance to answer (if you're still interested *g*). For actors currently on TV I'd still agree with your picks. I know there are arguments against Jensen, but he gets my vote as much for the untapped potential I see for him, given better material, as for the absolute truth of the statement bolded above.  I was struck by his talent from the jump, but coming to know "Jensen" and just how different he really is from Dean gave me a whole other level of appreciation for his skills.

I'm going to round out the rest of the list with a little deviation of actors currently on tv/all time favs. Caveat: I have never seen the majority of the shows that are getting Emmy/GG love these days, so people like Jon Hamm and Bryan Cranston (to name a couple) don't make my list, even though I know they are stellar actors.

Current:

3. Allison Janney. CJ Craig (West Wing) Bonnie (Mom) Margaret (Masters of Sex). She can do anything.

4. Mandy Patinkin

5. Sterling K. Brown

6. Jim Parsons

7. Kevin Spacey

8. Kathy Bates

9. Keri Russell

10. Kyle Chandler

All time (in no order):

Alan Alda

Carroll O'Connor

Lucille Ball

Mary Tyler Moore

Ed Asner

Rob Lowe (yes he IS!)

Dennis Franz

Jimmy Smits

Sharon Gless

Edward James Olmos

Of course I reserve the right to modify as my brain kicks into gear. :)

[catrox14]

On 6/12/2017 at 8:19 AM, JanetWaldo said:

I know we, or at least I, complain about Supernatural killing off too many characters, but I think Game of Thrones does the same thing.  At this point on Game of Thrones, I can't think of anyone I really want to 'root' for - not really even Jon Snow.  At least on Supernatural, I still have Dean and Sam, even when they're being jerks.  :) 

For me all the deaths in GoT suit the medieval setting where to get to the top and gain power, killing is generally the way to do it along with vengeance.

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

Kevin's death moved Dean and Sam's plots forward.  He was a victim of Dean's "bad" decision to let Gadreel possess Sam to save Sam's life. I get why that happened even though it sucked.

Charlie didn't need to die to move Dean nor Sam's plot forward. Dean was going to slaughter the Stynes at some point anyway because they came after her and tried to kill him. Dean was going to kill Teen Styne no matter what because they went into Dean's home before they even knew that Dean had killed the rest of the Stynes.  Dean killed Teen Styne because he believed he was going to turn as bad as the rest of the Stynes and it was the Mark making him into the judge, jury and executioner.

[AwesomO4000]

29 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

Charlie didn't need to die to move Dean nor Sam's plot forward.

I agree, but - unpopular opinion coming up - I think the writers (or at least Carver) sacrificed Charlie as part of their/his Sam has to be wrong thing he seemed to have going in seasons 8-10 for whatever his big message was *. And Sam couldn't just be wrong but he had to be monumentally wrong. Charlie dying was also there, I think, for their whole Sam is as bad as or worse than Demon Dean / Mark of Cain Dean theme that they kept trying to push in season 10 (so Charlie, to them, somewhat = Kevin), and I think they/he thought that couldn't be the case unless there was a "sacrifice" to that effect. Apparently Sam raising Amara wasn't enough. They wanted Sam's bad decisions to have established/beloved character losing affects so we would get the "Sam is just as wrong" message. And (almost) up until that point in the season, silly me was thinking season 10 was letting Sam out of the gutter Carver dragged him into during season 8 and 9. I had kinda seen the writing on the wall though and Charlie's death was a big old red paint exclamation point that Sam was going down - again - by the finale.

I'm trying to think of another show I've watched that dragged one of their major characters through the mud to the extent that Carver dragged Sam through the mud - whether it was intentional or not, I realize, is another whole well-visited kettle of fish - and I'm coming up mostly blank. One contender might be Gilmore Girls. By the last seasons of that show, I thought that the narrative had trashed the characters - especially Rory - enough in my eyes that I actually stopped watching. GG literally went from a show that I was excited to see to a show I dreaded and just eventually close to hated... and I ended up watching for a little while for the character who used to be Rory's rival (Paris) and her boyfriend (played by Danny Strong - who I adored also as Jonathan on Buffy). And finally that wasn't even enough. I've still never seen the finale of the show or any of the last season that I recall.

So I guess Gilmore Girls qualifies, but I'm not coming up with any others off the top of my head.

* Kudos to whoever it was on this board who came up with the explanation that Carver's "3 year plan" was to basically show that although somewhat ugly and with consequences, family saving family even over the fate of the world is the right thing to do - mostly - but in doing that, he sacrificed Sam's character to do it. First to show why not risking all was "bad" while risking was "right" - season 8 and 9 - and then showing that even though it's the "right" thing to do, that there are consequences - raising Amara. I've come to agree that that is what Carver was wanting to show, and that he was willing to sacrifice Sam's characterization in order to do it. And Charlie was also part of that sacrifice.

[Wayward Son]

52 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

Kudos, to whoever it was on this board who came up with the explanation that Carver's "3 year plan" was to basically show that although somewhat ugly and with consequences, family saving family even over the fate of the world is the right thing to do - mostly - but in doing that, he sacrificed Sam's character to do it. First to show why not risking all was "bad" while risking was "right" - season 8 and 9 - and then showing that even though it's the "right" thing to do, that there are consequences - raising Amara. I've come to agree that that is what Carver was wanting to show, and that he was willing to sacrifice Sam's characterization in order to do it. And Charlie was also part of that sacrifice.

I think that may have been me! Or if not it's a pretty accurate summary of my thoughts on seasons 8-10 and why I dislike them as I utterly disagree with the message sent!

[Aeryn13]

I think if it was truly up to Carver, he would have broken the codepency apart for good. He seemed more than genuine pre-Season 8 of the great maturity of Sam`s choice and Amelia was supposed to be a true love and all. Unfortunately, he chose a shitty, unsympathetic plot to start it, the love story was terribly written and because the show had been build on the antithesis of his idea for 7 year, the blowback was significant. So he caved. I believe he kinda tried his idea again in different ways in Seasons 9 and 10 but ultimately always caved. Which, yeah, if you spent so many years trying to sell one thing on a show, it is nigh impossible to do the opposite later.  

Quote

I'm trying to think of another show I've watched that dragged one of their major characters through the mud to the extent that Carver dragged Sam through the mud

Don`t know if you watch the 100 but in Season 3 the storyline for a main character was:  he helps a xenophobic tyrant come to power and joins a mission to slaughter 300! people who meant them no harm on the possible off-chance that they could be a danger in the future. Oh, and the slaughtered happened during their sleep.

Why did this happen? The character, after starting off as somewhat of a jerk, had a nice redemption story in Seasons 1 and 2 and the showrunner thought he had kinda gotten too "good" of a character, hence the downturn in Season 3. Like, the showrunner admitted this in an interview.     

Now that I call intentional dragging through the mud. 

Normally it just happens because writers are inept and sometimes comically bad at predicting what reactions something will garner from fans.

Also two of the CW DC shows this year had the lead character either admitting that he had killed people in the past because he liked it (Arrow) or have his future version be the literal Big Bad of the Season (Flash). For the most part, I didn`t mind the storylines though some of the writing was wonky. But at least both had a purpose beyond "hey, too many people like that character, how can we change that?"       

[AwesomO4000]

6 minutes ago, Aeryn13 said:

But at least both had a purpose beyond "hey, too many people like that character, how can we change that?"       

Heh, yeah. I can't imagine fans of that particular character would like that particular explanation...

But then again, I remember that quite a few Buffy fans complained that Spike in later seasons became too wishy-washy and lamented the loss of "evil Spike."  Even his redemption arc of getting a soul was called boring/wimpy/ruining the character. A few didn't even like his origin story ("Fool For Love), because they thought it made him seem less badass. My argument at the time was that having a straight evil Spike for the entire run of the show wasn't - in my opinion - sustainable, because there are only so many times that Buffy not killing him (or Spike not killing Buffy) could happen before it became ridiculous that one or the other didn't come to pass, but nope. Those fans still insisted non-entirely evil Spike was ruining the character, so I imagine those fans would have been entirely ecstatic if Spike had had an evil turn again in say season 7 - or even season 5 (well Spike was still "evil" then, but apparently not evil enough). Me not so much.

I thought Spike's characterization at the start of his Angel: the Series stint might've been a little bit of a nod to those fans, and I was glad when the writers toned that crap down, myself. (But that might just be me.)

There didn't happen to be any fans lamenting that they missed that character in The 100 being jerky (as in maybe he was "funnier" back then?) or that he'd gone "soft" / boring were there? Because yeah, just ruining a character for the hell of it or because he's too popular / likable and you want to knock him down a peg or two seems a bit counterproductive, especially if you bothered to create a redemption arc for him in the first place. Eh, but what do I know?

31 minutes ago, Aeryn13 said:

Don`t know if you watch the 100

No, though I considered it... Now with the description you gave, I'm kinda glad that I didn't. ; ) Supernatural is the only CW show I watch, and I started watching that because it was on after the aforementioned Gilmore Girls - which I started watching only because my Nana's maiden name was Gilmore. I can't remember watching any other WB / CW shows besides those and Buffy / Angel (and I started watching Buffy because my sister got me into it).

My television tastes are a little strange and somewhat diverse, but I'll stop now before I go on and on as I am want to do when the discussion is television shows and characters.

[DittyDotDot]

1 hour ago, AwesomO4000 said:

No, though I considered it... Now with the description you gave, I'm kinda glad that I didn't.

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

[Aeryn13]

Quote

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 thought it improved immensely actually. Now I don`t necessarily think teenage characters are bad in and of themselves, sure you get certain themes and there is a certain level of immaturity involved but as long as they grow and show potential, it`s all good to me. So the 100 opened with Lord of the Flies with teenagers and I thought they were all imbeciles. But then something happened, the characters became nuanced and hardship made them grow up. 

The second Season was stellar in my eyes.  

Quote

There didn't happen to be any fans lamenting that they missed that character in The 100 being jerky (as in maybe he was "funnier" back then?) or that he'd gone "soft" / boring were there?

No, most people were quite happy with his redemption arc and becoming more than just a jerk. So yeah, the Season 3 thing wasn`t exactly embraced.

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.  

Quote

But then again, I remember that quite a few Buffy fans complained that Spike in later seasons became too wishy-washy and lamented the loss of "evil Spike."

I remember that. It is the same now for the Originals after spinning off from Vampire Diaries. They are no longer badass and evil enough. Well, they were the Big Bads/antagonists in one show and now the protagonists of their own. Things needed to change for the writing.

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.       

Edited June 14, 2017 by Aeryn13

[DittyDotDot]

4 hours ago, Aeryn13 said:

I thought it improved immensely actually. Now I don`t necessarily think teenage characters are bad in and of themselves, sure you get certain themes and there is a certain level of immaturity involved but as long as they grow and show potential, it`s all good to me.

Sorry, I was just being silly. I don't have a problem with teenagers on TV as a rule, I just didn't care for the show. Too much CW melodrama and all. I can only take so much of that sort of thing, and I apparently can't stop watching Supernatural, so something had to give. ;)

[Aeryn13]

Quote

Too much CW melodrama and all.

Heh, I think the show is actually a really odd duck for the CW. Young protagonists notwithstanding the vibe and tone of the show is quite different than the other CW shows. (Yes, I watch way too many of them. :)  More suited for cable actually than network in my eyes. Not so much in terms of sex or violence but very dark themes. 

And I`m an unabashed fan of the shorter Season model. Sure, sometimes I`d like stuff explored in greater detail but on the other hand so much unnecessary fat gets trimmed.  It also does wonders for the pacing. 

IMO SPN would benefit from something like that. But buisness-wise, I understand why the studio/network prefers quantity with it.