Spoilers With Speculation

[catrox14]

20 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said:

I mean, Bloodlines wasn't their first attempt at a spinoff, ya know?

What was the first attempt? I thought Bloodlines was the only real try before Wayward Sisters.

Just as an aside..Wayward Sisters doesn't have the same ring to it as Wayward Daughters, IMO.

[DittyDotDot]

13 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

What was the first attempt? I thought Bloodlines was the only real try before Wayward Sisters.

Ghostfacers. They tried to do a spinoff with it in S4--started it as a web series and hoping it would go on from there and get picked up for a real spinoff. 

15 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

Just as an aside..Wayward Sisters doesn't have the same ring to it as Wayward Daughters, IMO.

I know. Maybe it'll get changed, though? Bloodlines started off as something different, as I recall, but can't remember what that was now.

[Bessie]

Where did wayward daughters come from? I never really understood that name. 

[DittyDotDot]

6 minutes ago, Bessie said:

Where did wayward daughters come from? I never really understood that name. 

It's a play off "Carry On My Wayward Son". It all got started when they had Claire and Alex go live with Jodi. People started saying Jodi could run a home for wayward daughters.

[Bessie]

Thanks, TripleD!

[catrox14]

40 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said:

I kinda think it's doomed before it begins, but am also curious what their criteria for going forward would be as well. Maybe it will all depend on whether they have an actual story to tell or not? If they're just doing to do it, well, then... .

I think this has more legs now because it  lines up with the moves the CW has made in the past year or so to have more female centered and female lead shows like Supergirl, Jane the Virgin, Crazy Ex Girlfriend, iZombie, Reign,  Frequency. They cancelled Reign and Frequency but I think they still want more female centric shows. I realize Kim Rhodes is thanking all the Wayward Daughters supporters but honestly, I think if it weren't for the network wanting more female lead and female centered shows, it wouldn't see the light of day as a planned backdoor pilot. This has the added advantage of having the Supernatural pedigree with a beloved character in Jody leading the way. 

29 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said:

Ghostfacers. They tried to do a spinoff with it in S4--started it as a web series and hoping it would go on from there and get picked up for a real spinoff. 

Ohhhh I didn't realize it had been a web series.  Interesting! Thanks!

[gonzosgirrl]

10 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

I think this has more legs now because it  lines up with the moves the CW has made in the past year or so to have more female centered and female lead shows like Supergirl, Jane the Virgin, Crazy Ex Girlfriend, iZombie, Reign,  Frequency. They cancelled Reign and Frequency but I think they still want more female centric shows. I realize Kim Rhodes is thanking all the Wayward Daughters supporters but honestly, I think if it weren't for the network wanting more female lead and female centered shows, it wouldn't see the light of day as a planned backdoor pilot. This has the added advantage of having the Supernatural pedigree with a beloved character in Jody leading the way. 

Ohhhh I didn't realize it had been a web series.  Interesting! Thanks!

I agree with this, and I think we'll only see more, because Hollywood never met a trend it couldn't beat the life out of, and the success of Wonder Woman added gallons of fuel to that fire. I honestly hope they are able to find an audience for it, and it isn't a case of the producers listening to the social media echo chamber and believing the call is louder than it really is.

I wonder if they'll be able to work their (un)official motto, WaywardAF, into the promo somehow. *g*

ETA: given the show's penchant for meta, it would be funny to see one of the girls wearing the t-shirt and Donna getting all worked up over the fudging language.

Edited June 22, 2017 by gonzosgirrl

[DJG1122]

14 hours ago, MysteryGuest said:

 But in light of my disappointment with season 12, and now knowing that this little pilot has been on the back burner, it does at least seem possible to me that their focus was on the shiny new toy (as Pondlass1 said), and not on the show that I'm interested in watching.

It will also annoy me if Wayward Daughters/Sisters/Whichever gets all of the great little monster-of-the-week episodes that I've been clamoring for SPN to get back to, and we're stuck with the Lucifer chronicles as we limp along to the finish line. 

This. Exactly.

[DittyDotDot]

12 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

I think this has more legs now because it  lines up with the moves the CW has made in the past year or so to have more female centered and female lead shows like Supergirl, Jane the Virgin, Crazy Ex Girlfriend, iZombie, Reign,  Frequency. They cancelled Reign and Frequency but I think they still want more female centric shows. I realize Kim Rhodes is thanking all the Wayward Daughters supporters but honestly, I think if it weren't for the network wanting more female lead and female centered shows, it wouldn't see the light of day as a planned backdoor pilot. This has the added advantage of having the Supernatural pedigree with a beloved character in Jody leading the way. 

Oh, certainly it lines up with female-centered mentality of the times, but I say it's doomed before it gets started only because they're doing it as a backdoor pilot again and I don't believe fandom will give it a chance. Which is the reason to do it as a backdoor pilot, to get the built in fandom to buy into the new show as well. 

TBH, if they hadn't tried Bloodlines as a backdoor pilot and instead debuted it as it's own show, I think they would've had more success with it. It may not have been a show I'd watch, but I don't think it was any worse than 90 percent of the pilots that get picked up for series and are successful that I don't have an interest in either. I think it would've appealed to many people who Supernatural doesn't appeal to. It's just that fandom decided, before it was even written or shot, that if it doesn't have Sam and Dean in it, they weren't going to watch it. 

I think the same will hold true for this. For as many people who like Jodi, there's just as many who don't, and there's just as many who only like Jodi when she's with Sam or Dean. And, there's plenty who don't like Claire or Alex or any of the teenage female characters they've introduced us to. So, I think they need to look outside Supernatural in order to get the show off the ground, but it doesn't look like that's what they're actually doing. So, I kinda think it's doomed unless they change strategies. 

29 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

Ohhhh I didn't realize it had been a web series.  Interesting! Thanks!

Yeah, they only did a few web episodes that were included on the DVDs. I think, together, it's basically a full-length episode. I haven't watched it in ages though, so I might be remembering wrong. I really think Kripke really really wanted this to take off and was disappointed when it didn't. 

Here's the full series:

[Aeryn13]

Quote

So, I think they need to look outside Supernatural in order to get the show off the ground, but it doesn't look like that's what they're actually doing. So, I kinda think it's doomed unless they change strategies. 

That`s the problem with SPN and spin-offs. The only reason you do a spin-off in the first place instead of a completely new show is in the hopes of bringing an established audience over to the new series. Be that via established character(s) or at least themes. But IMO SPN is such an odd duck of a show, especially at this late point in the show, that you can`t really create a viable spin-off from it and do that. Anything set in this verse will be scrutinized. 

I believe the network/studio look at this like the Arrow-verse with multiple spin-offs working for them and don`t understand why the DC source material infinitely lends itself more to that. It`s the same with some movies being a good launching ground for sequels and others...not so much. With SPN being kinda more like Titanic that way.

If the network wants a new supernaturally-themed show with monster hunters, I think they`d be better served trying to create an entirely new one. 

[Pondlass1]

16 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said:

TBH, if they hadn't tried Bloodlines as a backdoor pilot and instead debuted it as it's own show, I think they would've had more success with it.

I dunno.  I didn't think the main actor was very good.  I was on IMDb at the time and the consensus was - how come there's rival monster gangs in Chicago and S&D don't know??  Didn't make any sense.  

And why does everyone S&D run into immediately want to be a hunter?  I wouldn't.

The Wayward Show - a lot depends on the initial set up.  If it's Jody, Donna and maybe Mary training girls, worrying about girls, girls running off to hunt a dangerous thing on their own, girls falling in love with something that's actually a monster,  girls being rescued, etc - it'll be predictable beyond belief.  I really don't see any original foundation there for a  sustainable series.

S&D had a bellyfull of issues right from  the jump, plus awesome jump off the screen chemistry.  

It's sad to be looking down the barrel at the end of the series.  They could make episode 300 the final - how many episodes are left at the end of season 13? 

I don't know what I'm going to do after Supernatural.  I've posted about it, thought about it, wrote stories... it's consumed quite a bit of my time.  I'll have to take up knitting or find another show now. 

Hope Jensen finds something quick.  I don't like withdrawal. :(

[catrox14]

2 hours ago, DittyDotDot said:

. So, I think they need to look outside Supernatural in order to get the show off the ground, but it doesn't look like that's what they're actually doing. So, I kinda think it's doomed unless they change strategies. 

The CW and probably WB seem, to really want an actual Supernatural spinoff which I agree wasn't Bloodlines. Sam and Dean were the only two people in Bloodlines that had been in Supernatural which is not how spin offs work so I never understood what they were trying to do there.  I agree that it was just like any of the other cookie cutter pretty people monster angsty dramas.  Bloodlines should have just divorced itself from SPN altogether.  They could have gone with "from the producers of Supernatural. Meet a new family and a new family of monsters" without tying it to the Supernatural franchise as it's mother ship.

It think Wayward Sisters has a better chance of surviving because the network seems to want something with "Supernatural" franchise tag and it fills the female shows need they want so they may give it more of a chance.

I've always thought the Men of Letters seemed like the perfect way to get a spin off.  The boys are legacies like Henry, and John would have been.  It's been a part of the show for 4 years. The boys have lived in a Men of Letters bunker for 4 years, FFS. They use their books and their equipment. 

I really thought once they brought in the British Men of Letters and used the Aquarian Star as the title card for an entire season, that was the setup for the spinoff. They could run it as a summer series between season 13 and 14 and then it would slide into SPN's spot after SPN goes dark. They still could do that, I suppose. I'd give it shot depending on the actors. I mean they still could do it by having Dean and Sam rebuild the MoL and leave it to others.

It has enough pedigree with the Winchesters to be nostalgic but not super old school nostalgia and different enough to not have people like me be irritated with every "homage" that is really just a ripoff and rewrite of early seasons, like I thought happened through too much of s12.

The name is a little male biased but they could change the name from  "Men of Letters" to something like "Supernatural: Legacies of Letters, something a  little less gendered that still reflects the organization and what they do. But they do have Wayward Sisters...so maybe they could ironically use "Supernatural: The Men of Letters " with both men and women, like Delphine as agents. "The Men and Women of Letters" is too long and awkward. "People of Letters" would be...terrible LOL. "Agents of Letter"s or "The Letters Agents" would be better but it's too close to Agents of SHIELD LOL.

On the other hand, maybe s12 was just the long good bye to the Men of Letters and they plan on blowing up the bunker and putting the boys back on the road for the remainder of the series. Who knows but to me, the Men of Letters is the natural choice for spin off.

Who knows, maybe SPN will have two spinoffs, the Wayward Sisters  and Men of Letters: Legacies to reflect both aspects of the Winchesters and the whole thing gets rebranded as Supernatural: The Winchester Gospels or something.  That actually would be kind of cool.

HMMM.....

Edited June 22, 2017 by catrox14

[catrox14]

2 hours ago, gonzosgirrl said:

I wonder if they'll be able to work their (un)official motto, WaywardAF, into the promo somehow. *g*

ETA: given the show's penchant for meta, it would be funny to see one of the girls wearing the t-shirt and Donna getting all worked up over the fudging language.

LOL that would be amazing.

[catrox14]

1 hour ago, Aeryn13 said:

But IMO SPN is such an odd duck of a show, especially at this late point in the show, that you can`t really create a viable spin-off from it and do that. Anything set in this verse will be scrutinized. 

LOL I love that description. It's perfect.

On one hand I understand wanting to keep SPN in the limelight at the CW. It's been a beautiful workhorse for the CW and they know it.  I love Supernatural precisely because it is such an odd duck.  I get pissed about the stupid episodes like LOTUS but they take chances with things so it does find a way to sustain. I think the odd duck factor works because  J2/M2 could make silk purse out of shit  and are charming and nice to look at. So I swallow that shitsilk purse more than I should.

So when it comes to a spinoff I want the show to have a legacy but then I don't because I kind of don't want the odd duck to become to mainstream. Yet I totally want a Supernatural movie but would it have the charm of Supernatural. Would it end up like weird amalgamation of DC Verse and SPN that might be fantastic but also cookie cutter?

I guess what I really want is a really well written, tight, beautiful long goodbye that I'll never forget and will rip my heart out and that even if there are spinoffs I'll never love them more than OG SPN.

[auntvi]

1 hour ago, Pondlass1 said:

 I'll have to take up knitting or find another show now.

Actually, I love knitting while binge watching series. I feel like I'm accomplishing something while sitting on the couch for hours!  However, it doesn't work well with programs that are subtitled when I have to be constantly looking at the TV.

[DittyDotDot]

2 hours ago, Pondlass1 said:

I dunno.  I didn't think the main actor was very good.  I was on IMDb at the time and the consensus was - how come there's rival monster gangs in Chicago and S&D don't know??  Didn't make any sense.  

And why does everyone S&D run into immediately want to be a hunter?  I wouldn't.

That's why I say it could've been successful if they had debuted it as it's own show and not tried to tie it specifically to Supernatural. I think any offshoot of this show will need to be it's own beast that can stand on it's own two legs.

1 hour ago, catrox14 said:

It think Wayward Sisters has a better chance of surviving because the network seems to want something with "Supernatural" franchise tag and it fills the female shows need they want so they may give it more of a chance.

TBH, I think that's the exact problem with it surviving. They're banking on that Supernatural tag to sell the show instead of building the show on it's own merits.

Edited June 22, 2017 by DittyDotDot

[granderobino]

Love this whole idea. Besides the gals which have already been mentioned, I would like to see Chrissy (plucky daughter of dead hunter) can't remember how we left her, I think she was hunting with some other hunter-orphans or something...

And what would you all think of having them interact with Meg (Rachel Miner, please) similar to the way the boys grudgingly worked with Crowley. Again, can't remember what became of her character. Did Crowley kill her, or is she still hiding from him? With his character out of play, perhaps she could return?

At any rate,  I am prepared to watch the F#@! out of this

Though I am putting in my request here that the females not be reduced to fighting among each for the romantic attentions of the menfolk. Yuck

[gonzosgirrl]

33 minutes ago, granderobino said:

Love this whole idea. Besides the gals which have already been mentioned, I would like to see Chrissy (plucky daughter of dead hunter) can't remember how we left her, I think she was hunting with some other hunter-orphans or something...

And what would you all think of having them interact with Meg (Rachel Miner, please) similar to the way the boys grudgingly worked with Crowley. Again, can't remember what became of her character. Did Crowley kill her, or is she still hiding from him? With his character out of play, perhaps she could return?

At any rate,  I am prepared to watch the F#@! out of this

Though I am putting in my request here that the females not be reduced to fighting among each for the romantic attentions of the menfolk. Yuck

Crowley killed her in S7 finale, and unfortunately I don't think Rachel could physically handle the role any more.  Of all the female characters, her and Ellen are the two I'd most like to see back. I suppose with the AU, Ellen is at least possible.  I'd want her on the show though, not a spin-off.  

[MysteryGuest]

35 minutes ago, granderobino said:

And what would you all think of having them interact with Meg (Rachel Miner, please) similar to the way the boys grudgingly worked with Crowley.

Sadly, Meg was killed by Crowley, but it was at the request of Rachel Miner, as I believe she has MS.  I loved her version of Meg!

As I said before, I'm not sure I'm the audience for this show.  Watching a bunch of wise-cracking teenage girls be super hunters doesn't really appeal to me.  Maybe it won't be like that, and maybe Jody and Donna will actually play larger roles, but on the surface, it's doesn't seem like something I would enjoy.   

[gonzosgirrl]

Sort of OT but if you like Rachel Miner I videoed her complete panel in Vegas this year and she is amazing. Search my name on YouTube and VegasCon 2017. So inspiring. 

[granderobino]

Yeah, I guess I remember hearing that. Full disclosure, I, too, have MS. One of the reasons I was holding out hope was that I would love to see Rachel come back and prove that she's still able to kick ass. There are ways she could be accommodated, but I understand if she is private and uncomfortable at possibly being perceived as needing help.

Agree with you about not wanting too much emphasis on the teenagers. Its one of the reasons I was hoping for Chrissy, she seemed less prone to moodiness and sullen expressions than some of the other youngsters.

[catrox14]

Just now, granderobino said:

Agree with you about not wanting too much emphasis on the teenagers. Its one of the reasons I was hoping for Chrissy, she seemed less prone to moodiness and sullen expressions than some of the other youngsters.

I've been watching Madison on Arrow. Her acting is not...great. She's one note, so for me, that would not get me to watch. LOL But I understand others would feel differently :)

[AwesomO4000]

22 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

Crowley killed her in S7 finale,

Actually Crowley killed her near the end of season 8 ("Goodbye Stranger"). I wouldn't have picked that nit, but I don't want Meg's death on Gamble's watch. Gamble left Meg's fate ambiguous, so that she wasn't gone for good.  Carver (and Robbie Thompson) is  the one who killed her for good.

[catrox14]

Just now, AwesomO4000 said:

Actually Crowley killed her near the end of season 8 ("Goodbye Stranger"). I wouldn't have picked that nit, but I don't want Meg's death on Gamble's watch. Gamble left Meg's fate ambiguous, so that she wasn't gone for good.  Carver (and Robbie Thompson) is  the one who killed her for good.

Didn't Rachel ask to be written out and for Meg to be killed off so no one else would play her?

[Wayward Son]

5 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

Didn't Rachel ask to be written out and for Meg to be killed off so no one else would play her?

I'm not sure whether she requested Meg be killed off so others can't play her, but Rachel  had to leave acting due to struggles with her MS.

 

ETA: Sorry when I clicked to open the thread for some reason it skipped straight to your post and I missed @MysteryGuests post mentioning this! Sorry.

Edited June 23, 2017 by Wayward Son

[MysteryGuest]

It's funny, but I actually enjoyed both versions of Meg much more than either version of Ruby.  But I give Ruby 2 the edge over Ruby 1.  And what has this to do with spoilers and speculating...absolutely nothing!

33 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

Sort of OT but if you like Rachel Miner I videoed her complete panel in Vegas this year and she is amazing. Search my name on YouTube and VegasCon 2017. So inspiring. 

I think I'll seek that out.  Thanks!

On the spoiler front, is Lucifer dead yet???

[catrox14]

2 minutes ago, Wayward Son said:

I'm not sure whether she requested Meg be killed off so others can't play her, but Rachel  had to leave acting due to struggles with her MS.

 

ETA: Sorry when I clicked to open the thread for some reason it skipped straight to your post and I missed @MysteryGuests post mentioning this! Sorry.

That's why I think she asked Meg to be killed off since she couldn't continue with the role. It's actually kind of cool if they honored her request.

[CluelessDrifter]

1 hour ago, catrox14 said:

Didn't Rachel ask to be written out and for Meg to be killed off so no one else would play her?

It's much too late for me to go looking for a source.  Maybe I'll look into it tomorrow night, but I think she asked to be written off, and out of respect for Rachel, they killed Meg off rather than having someone else play her.

[catrox14]

2 minutes ago, CluelessDrifter said:

It's much too late for me to go looking for a source.  Maybe I'll look into it tomorrow night, but I think she asked to be written off, and out of respect for Rachel, they killed Meg off rather than having someone else play her.

Ahh. Okay. That makes sense to me. That's cool actually that they did it that way.

[gonzosgirrl]

1 hour ago, AwesomO4000 said:

Actually Crowley killed her near the end of season 8 ("Goodbye Stranger"). I wouldn't have picked that nit, but I don't want Meg's death on Gamble's watch. Gamble left Meg's fate ambiguous, so that she wasn't gone for good.  Carver (and Robbie Thompson) is  the one who killed her for good.

You're right of course, I don't know why I was confusing that scene with the S7 finale. Doh! But I didn't think her death was ambiguous - she lit up with the demon light.

[AwesomO4000]

41 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

But I didn't think her death was ambiguous - she lit up with the demon light.

Oh no, you're right. Her death in season 8 wasn't ambiguous. I meant that Sera Gamble left Meg's fate in season 7's finale ambiguous. We only knew that Crowley's demons were going to take her to Crowley, so even though we knew it wasn't good, we didn't know exactly what happened to her in the season 7 finale. It was in season 8 that she was killed for good.

[Pondlass1]

I loved both Megs.  We saw the first Meg when demons were actually something not swatted away like flies.  And Rachel's Meg had loads of snark and personality.  I loved the bit where things are perilous and they come across Meg and Dean says "first off... what's with the hair?"  It was so great.  So Dean!

They don't write like that anymore.  Love that they invite her to the conventions and she is such a fan favourite.

[Jonesy]

Boys and girls--production for season 13 begins this Monday...and so, it begins again.  I'm sending out positive vibes to all involved in making the show to make season 13 kick ass.  And PS--bring the real Cas back in a great way!  Thank you.

Edited June 25, 2017 by Jakes

[Pondlass1]

Season 12 wasn't received well.  I hope Andrew has pulled his writing team together  and at least brainstormed a general idea of where they're going for season 13.  I'm bracing myself for a lot less Sam and Dean.  I'm assuming the Wayward Women will be given a chunk of time.  I can live with this - if the writing is at least.... good.

A lot rests on this season.  Plummeting ratings and mounting criticism will mean we won't get episode 300.  

I wouldn't want to be in Andrew's shoes right now.

When do the boys report for work?

[ILoveReading]

1 minute ago, Pondlass1 said:

When do the boys report for work?

Filming beings July 12

[DittyDotDot]

Maybe we'll start getting some little tidbits before Comic Con...that would be nice.

42 minutes ago, Pondlass1 said:

Season 12 wasn't received well.

[...]

A lot rests on this season.  Plummeting ratings and mounting criticism will mean we won't get episode 300.  

Well, it wasn't received well around here, but I don't think that's true to the fandom as a whole. It seems to me quite a few people received S12 quite favorably.

I don't think ratings were plummeting.  Ratings were low across the entire network, Supernatural's ratings actually held better than most. And, I don't think criticism is mounting at all. Seems to be on par with every season since S5, IMO. 

Anyway, I'm pretty confident they have Jared and Jensen on contract through S14 already, so it seems to be a pretty much guarantee that we'll see a S14. Whether it's shortened or not, remains to be seen, but I think they'll make it to 300 episodes easy.

Edited June 25, 2017 by DittyDotDot

[Pondlass1]

6 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said:

It seems to me quite a few people received S12 quite favorably.

I was going by what I've read online... articles, etc.  Loads of complaints there.  If the PTB only read the 'squee' reviews then I'm even more afraid for season 13.  I want this show to go out on a high note.

Yikes...We were rooting for an 0.6 - that's bad (and sad).  I don't think many watch live anymore... and this applies to almost any network TV show.  

They never seem to know much at ComicCon, tho, plus they're directed not to say anything.  Will Mark P, Kim, Brianna and Samantha join J2 and Misha I wonder??

[DittyDotDot]

16 minutes ago, Pondlass1 said:

I was going by what I've read online... articles, etc.  Loads of complaints there.  If the PTB only read the 'squee' reviews then I'm even more afraid for season 13.  I want this show to go out on a high note.

The high note has long passed if you asked me. At this point I'd just like it to go out on it's own terms.

Anyway, there have been loads of complaints about the show even when Kripke was running it. It's just that social media has hit it's hey day right now so, IMO, it just seems like there's more now. I think the show as a whole is fairly polarizing--for every negative complaint, there's a positive one--and that's been pretty much the way it's been since the beginning.

I doubt TPTB read only the "squee" reviews, I'd imagine they just don't put too much stalk in any reviews, positive or negative. I wouldn't, if I was them. I'd worry more about the work itself than what people are saying about it. As my grandfather was fond of saying: opinions are like assholes, everyone's got one. I always like to add, too many opinions can be a bigger problem than no opinions at all.

16 minutes ago, Pondlass1 said:

Yikes...We were rooting for an 0.6 - that's bad (and sad).  I don't think many watch live anymore... and this applies to almost any network TV show.  

I don't believe anyone is rooting for a 0.6, but just realizing in this day and age and on the CW, a 0.6 aren't bad ratings necessarily. As a fan, I'd love to see Supernatural's ratings be what they used to be or better, but realistically, I know they never will be. TV watching has changed and, IMO, ratings are an antiquated system. I'd be interested to know the online viewing numbers more myself. 

Edited June 25, 2017 by DittyDotDot

[Casseiopeia]

15 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said:

The high note has long passed if you asked me. At this point I'd just like it to go out on it's own terms.

Anyway, there have been loads of complaints about the show even when Kripke was running it. It's just that social media has hit it's hey day right now so, IMO, it just seems like there's more now. I think the show as a whole is fairly polarizing--for every negative complaint, there's a positive one--and that's been pretty much the way it's been since the beginning.

I doubt TPTB read only the "squee" reviews, I'd imagine they just don't put too much stalk in any reviews, positive or negative. I wouldn't, if I was them. I'd worry more about the work itself than what people are saying about it. As my grandfather was fond of saying: opinions are like assholes, everyone's got one. I always like to add, too many opinions can be a bigger problem than no opinions at all.

I don't believe anyone is rooting for a 0.6, but just realizing in this day and age and on the CW, a 0.6 aren't bad ratings necessarily. As a fan, I'd love to see Supernatural's ratings be what they used to be or better, but realistically, I know they never will be. TV watching has changed and, IMO, ratings are an antiquated system. I'd be interested to know the online viewing numbers more myself. 

These are the ratings for all the CW shows for last season including the DVR ratings....

 

http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/dvr-ratings/the-cws-same-day-vs-dvr-ratings-for-the-full-2016-17-tv-season/

[DittyDotDot]

5 minutes ago, Casseiopeia said:

These are the ratings for all the CW shows for last season including the DVR ratings....

 

http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/dvr-ratings/the-cws-same-day-vs-dvr-ratings-for-the-full-2016-17-tv-season/

No, I mean cumulative online viewing over time. It's not something that can really be done, but I just think people don't watch TV like they used to and I'd be interested to see what are the most watched episodes on Netflix and such. I think the numbers would surprise us all, TBH.

[gonzosgirrl]

2 hours ago, Pondlass1 said:

I was going by what I've read online... articles, etc.  Loads of complaints there.  If the PTB only read the 'squee' reviews then I'm even more afraid for season 13.  I want this show to go out on a high note.

Yikes...We were rooting for an 0.6 - that's bad (and sad).  I don't think many watch live anymore... and this applies to almost any network TV show.  

They never seem to know much at ComicCon, tho, plus they're directed not to say anything.  Will Mark P, Kim, Brianna and Samantha join J2 and Misha I wonder??

I fully expect ComicCon and the majority of any PR for S13 to be the Mark P. and Kim R. show. (Wow, I just made myself really sad typing that.) I don't anticipate much Dean & Sam/Jensen & Jared attention going forward until the end is announced. I would be very happy to be proven wrong, but I'm not gonna hold my breath.

[Aeryn13]

While I believe Mark P. will receive a sizeable promo push and they will certainly try and market the spin-off, they do have to adress the Castiel situation in some way. And I could see some Samantha Smith/Mary promotion as well.

I would also expect something about Sam/Spawn or Sam/American Hunters as they set both of those things up in the two final episodes.        

[MysteryGuest]

I honestly have no idea what to expect for season 13.  They have a lot of balls in the air...Cas, Rowena (hopefully), the AU, Lucifer, Mary, Jack, the hunter community/AMOL (maybe), the new spinoff and Sam and Dean.  Throw in the Scooby Gang, and it sounds like kind of a mess.  

I fully intend to ride it out until the end, but I can't say I'm excited for the new season.  Last year I was full of hope that we were going to get that "back to basics" storytelling that they kept talking about, but it didn't happen.  This time I have no such hopes.  The new writers all have a full season under their belts, so maybe there will be some improvement there.  Who knows.

Another part of my lack of enthusiasm is the seeming lack of enthusiasm on the parts of Jensen and Jared.  Maybe that will change once they start filming, but it just feels different this year.  All good things come to an end, I guess.  

[catrox14]

This is an interesting tweet from Jim Michaels. What is that creature?

 

Interesting that they have the devil's trap with a 13 inside the pentagram.

[Bessie]

Okay. Are they planning to do something truly whack and that's why they're using that Hubbard quote?  That makes me a little nervous!

Edited June 26, 2017 by Bessie

[DittyDotDot]

1 hour ago, catrox14 said:

This is an interesting tweet from Jim Michaels. What is that creature?

I think it might represent the spawn. It looks devilish of a sort.

It would be fun if one or two new creatures that don't exist in our universe from the alternate universe came through the void, though.

33 minutes ago, Bessie said:

Okay. Are they planning to do something truly whack and that's why they're using that Hubbard quote?  That makes me a little nervous!

You mean the quote of the day? Isn't that an Aristotle quote? 

I'm sure they're planning something whack, but their quote of the day doesn't necessarily relate to the show itself. 

[Bessie]

4 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said:

You mean the quote of the day? Isn't that an Aristotle quote? 

Could be. Maybe Hubbard ripped off Aristotle. 

[DittyDotDot]

1 minute ago, Bessie said:

Could be. Maybe Hubbard ripped off Aristotle. 

I'm not really a quoty person, but my former editor is. She used to have quotes all over her desk and I keep picturing this one with Aristotle's name, but I could be remembering it wrong.

Either way, they're probably attempting something whack. Whether it's good or not remains to be seen. ;)

[Bessie]

8 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said:

I'm not really a quoty person, but my former editor is. She used to have quotes all over her desk and I keep picturing this one with Aristotle's name, but I could be remembering it wrong.

I had to google it cause I've heard that quote a gazillion times and it was always attributed to Hubbard.

You're definitely not remembering it wrong. It seems to be widely attributed to Aristotle too, but a couple sites say that's a missatribution and it's earliest known recording was in a book by Hubbard.

I had no idea it was known as an Aristotle quote too. Learn something new every day. :)

[DittyDotDot]

10 minutes ago, Bessie said:

I had to google it cause I've heard that quote a gazillion times and it was always attributed to Hubbard.

You're definitely not remembering it wrong. It seems to be widely attributed to Aristotle too, but a couple sites say that's a missatribution and it's earliest known recording was in a book by Hubbard.

I had no idea it was known as an Aristotle quote too. Learn something new every day. :)

Awww, thanks for that, I was being lazy and not wanting to do any research tonight.