Spoilers With Speculation

[Res]

2 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

As far as I'm concerned, Dabb's attention has been turned toward his Wayward spin-off and his own, pet characters since he took over the show. My opinion? He probably thought the end of SPN was nigh and he was planning toward that end. Honestly, with two failures under his belt, I'm disappointed surprised he didn't quit. Guess his pride isn't as important as his bank account. Sorry (not sorry), I just have that little respect for him.

I have even less respect for him and the writers who do not even care enough to know and respect the show's history/canon/characterizations.

[Bobcatkitten]

Now that it's clear no spinoff is happening I hope everyone involved with the show focuses back on Supernatural and improving its quality. 

[Myrelle]

10 hours ago, Res said:

I have even less respect for him and the writers who do not even care enough to know and respect the show's history/canon/characterizations.

One need only visit the writers' thread and witness all the wisdom and hard work ethic that Davey Perez dreams of putting into his writing via his most recent tweet to fear for what comes out of S14 under this bunch.

And as far as the last part of this comment goes, I've been wondering if we should takes bets on whether anyone ever tells Mary in S14 that Dean, as well as Sam, had his own into sojourn in hell, and what happened to him there.

[Pondlass1]

Thing is - Dabb glorifies hunting too much and in the end he cheapens it. 

In the beginning we witnessed the toll it takes - it's a gritty dangerous lonely life.  We see Sam and Dean suffer and what they lost.  But as the years passed and new show runners came along.. 'hunting'  became exciting and thrilling and not really dangerous at all.  Everyone and their giddy aunt wanted to become a hunter.  Teens, nerds, lady sheriffs, mommy dearest, etc etc were overnight sensations and often more accomplished hunters than the originals of the show - namely Sam and Dean.

This is where Dab lost his way.  The first spin off had an uninteresting kid who wanted to be a hunter.  WW was about a bunch of brash annoying teens wanting to be hunters. 

Kripke showed us the horrors of the life.  It wasn't fun.  It was lonely and hard.  Dean warned people off.  And it wasn't something learned overnight.

Dabb just wanted to throw a bunch of pretty hunters at the screen without bothering with  substance.  Neither spin off had legs imo.

Dabb ignores the bread and butter of the show he runs.

[Jonesy]

12 hours ago, gonzosgirrl said:

As far as I'm concerned, Dabb's attention has been turned toward his Wayward spin-off and his own, pet characters since he took over the show. My opinion? He probably thought the end of SPN was nigh and he was planning toward that end. Honestly, with two failures under his belt, I'm disappointed surprised he didn't quit. Guess his pride isn't as important as his bank account. Sorry (not sorry), I just have that little respect for him.

Sorry I think this is way overboard and just incorrect.  Dabb still has Dean and Sam as center of the show and has boosted Cas also.   That he uses other characters just helps the show imo.  See no evidence he is ignoring the show just because he tried two pilots in 2 years...one which Berens did the heavy lifting.  Dabb is not perfect but he does get used as a punching bag in some fan quarters.  Again he's not fantastic but has done a good job the last couple years imo.   Don't think trying 2 pilots that didn't picked up should mortally wound his pride--he took a whack at it and it didn't work...he has his job and seems engaged with it.  And it wasn't like he was forcing the issue the impetus was the CW asking them to try a pilot. 

Edited August 7, 2018 by Jakes

[Myrelle]

1 hour ago, Pondlass1 said:

Kripke showed us the horrors of the life.  It wasn't fun.  It was lonely and hard.  Dean warned people off.  And it wasn't something learned overnight.

And Dean's words/thoughts on the hardships associated with it weren't summarily dismissed simply so that the spin-off could be pimped within an episode of the mothership.

Man, that pissed me off so much.

[Jonesy]

1 hour ago, Pondlass1 said:

Thing is - Dabb glorifies hunting too much and in the end he cheapens it. 

In the beginning we witnessed the toll it takes - it's a gritty dangerous lonely life.  We see Sam and Dean suffer and what they lost.  But as the years passed and new show runners came along.. 'hunting'  became exciting and thrilling and not really dangerous at all.  Everyone and their giddy aunt wanted to become a hunter.  Teens, nerds, lady sheriffs, mommy dearest, etc etc were overnight sensations and often more accomplished hunters than the originals of the show - namely Sam and Dean.

This is where Dab lost his way.  The first spin off had an uninteresting kid who wanted to be a hunter.  WW was about a bunch of brash annoying teens wanting to be hunters. 

Kripke showed us the horrors of the life.  It wasn't fun.  It was lonely and hard.  Dean warned people off.  And it wasn't something learned overnight.

Dabb just wanted to throw a bunch of pretty hunters at the screen without bothering with  substance.  Neither spin off had legs imo.

Dabb ignores the bread and butter of the show he runs.

I don't quite see it that way--both shows had the new leads getting into hunting thru tragedy, lose and death...it wasn't just about kicks or thrills at all.  So it was still the SPN hunting life of pain and loss and blood.  Now where the characters the greatest?  NO...but I actually agree with Pedowitz, the J's and Misha brought the star power and talent that is super hard to match.  It's much rarer to find such actors that really create magic. 

[BabySpinach]

1 hour ago, Pondlass1 said:

Thing is - Dabb glorifies hunting too much and in the end he cheapens it. 

In the beginning we witnessed the toll it takes - it's a gritty dangerous lonely life.  We see Sam and Dean suffer and what they lost.  But as the years passed and new show runners came along.. 'hunting'  became exciting and thrilling and not really dangerous at all.  Everyone and their giddy aunt wanted to become a hunter.  Teens, nerds, lady sheriffs, mommy dearest, etc etc were overnight sensations and often more accomplished hunters than the originals of the show - namely Sam and Dean.

This is where Dab lost his way.  The first spin off had an uninteresting kid who wanted to be a hunter.  WW was about a bunch of brash annoying teens wanting to be hunters. 

Kripke showed us the horrors of the life.  It wasn't fun.  It was lonely and hard.  Dean warned people off.  And it wasn't something learned overnight.

Dabb just wanted to throw a bunch of pretty hunters at the screen without bothering with  substance.  Neither spin off had legs imo.

Dabb ignores the bread and butter of the show he runs.

Replied in Unpopular Opinions.

[ILoveReading]

Quote

Question: Scoop on Supernatural? —Susan
Ausiello: “There’s a brewing Bobby/Mary relationship that we want to explore,” co-showrunner Robert Singer tells us. And how will Dean and Sam feel about a potential romance between their mom and their surrogate father’s doppelganger? “I think the boys would be on board with this,” Singer says. “They love [Mary] and like [Bobby] a lot. And if it would make their mom happy, they’d go for that. But this Bobby is a little more complicated of a character in what he’s seen and done, and that can be a roadblock in the relationship.”

https://tvline.com/2018/08/07/greys-anatomy-teddy-owen-baby-spoilers-season-15/

I think this was orignally asked in the context of Sam and Mary bonding now that Dean is gone. 

Just when you think Mary can't get worse, Dabb's like...Hold my Beer

Edited August 7, 2018 by ILoveReading

[trxr4kids]

26 minutes ago, ILoveReading said:

I think this was orignally asked in the context of Sam and Mary bonding now that Dean is gone. 

Just when you think Mary can't get worse, Dabb's like...Hold my Beer

Quote

Question: Scoop on Supernatural? —Susan
Ausiello: “There’s a brewing Bobby/Mary relationship that we want to explore,” co-showrunner Robert Singer tells us. And how will Dean and Sam feel about a potential romance between their mom and their surrogate father’s doppelganger? “I think the boys would be on board with this,” Singer says. “They love [Mary] and like [Bobby] a lot. And if it would make their mom happy, they’d go for that. But this Bobby is a little more complicated of a character in what he’s seen and done, and that can be a roadblock in the relationship.”

WTactualF! There's too much wrong with that statement to even try to pick apart.

[gonzosgirrl]

34 minutes ago, ILoveReading said:

https://tvline.com/2018/08/07/greys-anatomy-teddy-owen-baby-spoilers-season-15/

I think this was orignally asked in the context of Sam and Mary bonding now that Dean is gone. 

Just when you think Mary can't get worse, Dabb's like...Hold my Beer

Dafuq is Singer smoking? Honestly, is there anyone who clamoured for this storyline? Lordy, they should just rename this show Soapernatural.

[catrox14]

5 hours ago, gonzosgirrl said:

Dafuq is Singer smoking? Honestly, is there anyone who clamoured for this storyline? Lordy, they should just rename this show Soapernatural.

I'm starting to think Singer is trying to live out some kind of fantasy for his namesake. 

[SueB]

On 8/7/2018 at 9:52 AM, Myrelle said:

And as far as the last part of this comment goes, I've been wondering if we should takes bets on whether anyone ever tells Mary in S14 that Dean, as well as Sam, had his own into sojourn in hell, and what happened to him there.

Dean told Mary he’s been to hell in “First Blood” (bridge scene). 

There was also a BTS pic and it showed a Carver Edmund book on the MOL library table.  Perhaps that’s how the AU folks learn Sam & Dean’s story. 

As for Wayward Sisters, I’m fairly certain it was about money.   Bloodlines has mediocre ratings, bad reviews, and generally panned in fandom.  For Wayward Sisters, the ratings were excellent, reviews very positive, and a large fan campaign to get it picked up.  I’m confident WBTV (who pays Dabb’s salary) knownthat one is not on Dabb.  OTOH, “Bloodlines” is all on Dabb.  And yes, ITA with @Jakes , Dabb is a whipping boy for many.  

[Casseiopeia]

2 minutes ago, SueB said:

Dean told Mary he’s been to hell in “First Blood” (bridge scene). 

There was also a BTS pic and it showed a Carver Edmund book on the MOL library table.  Perhaps that’s how the AU folks learn Sam & Dean’s story. 

As for Wayward Sisters, I’m fairly certain it was about money.   Bloodlines has mediocre ratings, bad reviews, and generally panned in fandom.  For Wayward Sisters, the ratings were excellent, reviews very positive, and a large fan campaign to get it picked up.  I’m confident WBTV (who pays Dabb’s salary) knownthat one is not on Dabb.  OTOH, “Bloodlines” is all on Dabb.  And yes, ITA with @Jakes , Dabb is a whipping boy for many.  

You are right about WS cancellation being about money.  Julie Plec had pitched a new series called Legacies (part of her Vampire Diaries franchise) and the network went with her.  She has a track record with the CW and is passionate about her projects (kind of like Kripke and SPN).  Since this was her 4th series for the network (it wasn't being pitched as a spinoff) and as it was part of an already established franchise they went with Legacies over WS.  Mark Pedowitz and the WB just didn't see the same vision for WS as some of it's fans did.

[gonzosgirrl]

I don't understand how Dabb is a 'whipping boy'. I think we can mostly agree that the problems with the show are not with the actors or the performances. Dabb, along with Singer, is the showrunner, not to mention also being one of the writers. The buck stops with him; classifying him as a whipping boy suggests that he's not responsible for the direction of the story, for his writers. Maybe accusing him of being more interested in a spinoff and in his pet characters and actors, often at the expense of the mothership and his lead actors is subjective. Maybe not. But the failures of the writing? All on him. If he's a whipping boy, it's because he deserves his licks. IMO, of course.

[catrox14]

4 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

I don't understand how Dabb is a 'whipping boy'. I think we can mostly agree that the problems with the show are not with the actors or the performances. Dabb, along with Singer, is the showrunner, not to mention also being one of the writers. The buck stops with him; classifying him as a whipping boy suggests that he's not responsible for the direction of the story, for his writers. Maybe accusing him of being more interested in a spinoff and in his pet characters and actors, often at the expense of the mothership and his lead actors is subjective. Maybe not. But the failures of the writing? All on him. If he's a whipping boy, it's because he deserves his licks. IMO, of course.

  This is isn't grade school plays here. This is a multi million dollar enterprise. The actors are responsible for how they present the words written for them. The directors and editors are responsible for how that gets on screen and the final cut that is aired is the responsibility of the producers and not even the director knows what that will be. Jensen has spoken about this, I'm not pulling that out of thin air.  And yes, I am aware of the iterations of script changes that happen from first draft to what ends up on screen. 

Dabb is no more a whipping boy than Singer, Carver,  Gamble or Kripke.  They are/were all the official showrunners and oversee the writers. In the end as EPs they should accept the responsibility and, also credit, for the perceived failures and successes.  So yes, 100% you are correct that the buck stops with Dabb and Singer for this juncture.

49 minutes ago, SueB said:

Dean told Mary he’s been to hell in “First Blood” (bridge scene). 

All he said is that prison was worse than Hell and it was never shown that he nor anyone elaborated on what all happened.  

Interesting that there is a Supernatural book in the bunker? Didn't they destroy those other than what is on line?  Also, curious where you saw that BTS pic. It also doesn't mean it was intended to be part of the narrative if it was never shown on screen during an episode.

[Jonesy]

13 hours ago, gonzosgirrl said:

I don't understand how Dabb is a 'whipping boy'. I think we can mostly agree that the problems with the show are not with the actors or the performances. Dabb, along with Singer, is the showrunner, not to mention also being one of the writers. The buck stops with him; classifying him as a whipping boy suggests that he's not responsible for the direction of the story, for his writers. Maybe accusing him of being more interested in a spinoff and in his pet characters and actors, often at the expense of the mothership and his lead actors is subjective. Maybe not. But the failures of the writing? All on him. If he's a whipping boy, it's because he deserves his licks. IMO, of course.

Yeah and since I think the show is still good--I guess Dabb gets the most credit...for the general direction and writing.  But yes...subjective blame that he doesn't care for the show, main characters and just likes the side characters...to me don't see any of that as true--and think with SOME of these things Dabb hate goes overboard imo, like he's the devil incarnate of SPN and just a rotten dude.   To each their own in the end...a lot of this is subjective of course--so we all throw out our various views.  Such is life, such is the internet.

Edited August 9, 2018 by Jakes

[gonzosgirrl]

11 minutes ago, Jakes said:

Yeah and since I think the show is still good--I guess Dabb gets the most credit...for the general direction and writing.  But yes...subjective blame that he doesn't care for the show, main characters and just likes the side characters...to me don't see any of that as true--and think with SOME of these things Dabb hate goes overboard imo, like he's the devil incarnate of SPN and just a rotten dude.   To each their own in the end...a lot of this is subjective of course--so we all throw out our various views.  Such is life, such is the internet.

I'm going to assume you are talking about places other than here. Hyperbole aside, stating I think he's a shitty showrunner doesn't have a thing to do with him as a person. I honestly wouldn't know him if I tripped over him in the street. All I care about is his influence and involvement on the show that I love.  And given the opportunity, I would say any of the critiques offered here to his face, so I'm not hiding behind a keyboard like a schoolyard bully. IMO there is onscreen evidence of his preferences, and his interviews only tend to strengthen my opinion. To each their own, indeed.

[Jonesy]

25 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

I'm going to assume you are talking about places other than here. Hyperbole aside, stating I think he's a shitty showrunner doesn't have a thing to do with him as a person. I honestly wouldn't know him if I tripped over him in the street. All I care about is his influence and involvement on the show that I love.  And given the opportunity, I would say any of the critiques offered here to his face, so I'm not hiding behind a keyboard like a schoolyard bully. IMO there is onscreen evidence of his preferences, and his interviews only tend to strengthen my opinion. To each their own, indeed.

I think most of what you say isn't personal at all but accusing him of not caring about the show and wanting to dump it for the spinoffs is going into his personal self that none us knows--so imo only that's edging into personal...but yes there are worse things said elsewhere.   With his preferences I think he's been fine with the top trio and their interrelations but whatever we disagree big time there.   Don't know this--what show runners have you liked?  I assume Kripke...anyone else?  On a scale of 1 to 10--what would you rate Dabb as a show runner?

Edited August 9, 2018 by Jakes

[catrox14]

34 minutes ago, Jakes said:

I think most of what you say isn't personal at all but accusing him of not caring about the show and wanting to dump it for the spinoffs is going into his personal self that none us knows--so imo only that's edging into personal...but yes there are worse things said elsewhere. 

I don't quite understand what you are saying.  Dabb as the showrunner can actually have his preferences for which characters he's choosing to highlight vs not and the future direction of the show. How is that a personal attack on Dabb?

Dabb was a writer first.  Many writers use their  life experiences in whatever manner when writing. It seeps into the writing or they pick an issue and try to include it in some way.   So, I suppose to that end, maybe he is being personal in his writing so viewing his writing and showrunning with a more critical eye, might seem like a personal slight, when it's really not?  

He wrote the first spinoff and IMO he's changed the show even from what Carver was doing to a much more fantasy show vs horror and with that came the addition of more cast members. IMO, he hasn't mastered how to make that big turn without obviously lessening J2/Dean and Sam's  presence. I always refer to Mother's Little Helper as a benchmark for keeping a main character present and meaningful to an episode when said character is not necessarily the A story and is only filming for two days.  

 IMO, he's been trying to expand the show from a two hander with Dean and Sam and later TFW, to a true ensemble piece in the event that WS doesn't fly.  And now that it hasn't, IMO the blurb above about reincorporating WS into SPN, that lessening of TFW 1.0 will likely increase.  And based on past use or lack thereof, with TFW 1.0, I'm reluctant to think he will do it any differently going forward.

Maybe, I'll be pleasantly surprised and happy with the Michael!Dean SL.  I'm reticent at this point to roll back my criticisms of Dabb( and Singer) until I see how that goes.

[companionenvy]

It also seems relevant to me, in assessing Dabb's tenure, that he's presiding over an older show than his predecessors; even if Kripke had stayed, SPN S13 wasn't going to be exactly the same show. Conversely, if Dabb had been the showrunner in S6, he might not have had the same priorities as we're seeing now.

Not sure how much of this is confirmed vs. how much is spec, but I know there's a general sense that the Js simply aren't as willing to carry quite as much of the burden of the show as they were ten or even five years ago. Which is going to necessitate some changes in writing, and the introduction of more side characters in more substantial roles. So far, I don't think that the show has focused on various writers' pets to the exclusion of Sam and Dean; they are still clearly the leads, IMO. 

The problem is that the show has never, as far as I'm concerned, done a great job in integrating supporting characters in a way that doesn't just feel like marking time until we can get back to Sam and Dean when these characters appear in solo scenes. In theory, however, giving a somewhat expanded role to the WS crew doesn't strike me as a bad idea, although I share the concern that they writers will feel the need to pimp their skills at the Winchesters' expense, as they've done with Mary, and, in a less positive sense, with the BMOL.

[ahrtee]

3 hours ago, companionenvy said:

The problem is that the show has never, as far as I'm concerned, done a great job in integrating supporting characters in a way that doesn't just feel like marking time until we can get back to Sam and Dean when these characters appear in solo scenes. In theory, however, giving a somewhat expanded role to the WS crew doesn't strike me as a bad idea, although I share the concern that they writers will feel the need to pimp their skills at the Winchesters' expense, as they've done with Mary, and, in a less positive sense, with the BMOL.

I think one of the problems is the difference between "supporting characters" and an "ensemble cast."  I think they actually *have* done well integrating supporting characters, as long as they're within the structure of an SPN episode, where the Winchesters are still central, even if they're not onscreen.  Think:  Rufus and Bobby, both in Safe House and Weekend at Bobby's.  Or compare Donna and Jody working together with Sam and Dean in Hibbing 911 with any of the Wayward Sisters eps where the boys were totally unnecessary (except if they had to be rescued.)  There are any number of interesting guest stars who might actually have more screen time than Sam and Dean but are still essential to the main storyline, not taking off on their own.  (My favorites:  Adam and his golem.  Mildred at the retirement home.  Or even the eps where the boys were played by other characters--whether flashbacks, de-aged (or rapidly-aged. )  All those focus on other characters and give the Js time off without taking focus away from them or the SPN story.

Ensemble casts, OTOH, generally have several characters that sometimes work together, but each one has his/her own storyline independent of the others...such as the Angel Wars or the Crowley/Lucifer SLs.  Those have nothing to do with the Winchesters (except usually a tangential connection to the mytharc) and so feel like marking time.  IMO, that's because the show was *not* designed as an ensemble cast, and trying to force it now is annoying those of us who are invested in the Winchesters and their fight.  

But they've added all these regular/recurring characters to give the Js time off, and so are trying desperately to make them relevant instead of just Winchester add-ons.  But to me, the problem is that they're not all that interesting on their own.  I don't care about Bobby/Mary, or how the AU hunters will fit in, any more than I cared about the angel wars or the fight for control of hell.  And while Cas and Jack might be good characters (and have a strong fanbase of their own) I don't want to watch them by themselves without the Winchesters at least in the background.  And I have less than any interest in watching angsty teenage Superhunters show how easy hunting is.  If they do have eps that focus entirely on the WS and not in context of working with the boys, I won't be watching (and that's from someone who's live-watched every episode since season 4--EXCEPT Bloodlines, for the same reason.)  

So that, I'd say, probably *is* a showrunner issue (getting back to the original question here) :)  Because I'm sure the problem put to him was "find a way to give the Js more time off" and Dabb's solution was to add more characters, not to interact with the boys but to replace them with stories of their own.  And I don't think the audience is ready for that.  JMO.  

[AwesomO4000]

8 hours ago, catrox14 said:

I always refer to Mother's Little Helper as a benchmark for keeping a main character present and meaningful to an episode when said character is not necessarily the A story and is only filming for two days. 

I don't know if Jared and Jensen only filmed for a couple of days for the episode, but my favorite episode in this vein was "Don't Call Me Shurley." We had a focus on two other characters, but they were pretty much debating the fate of Sam and Dean (and the world) and so their interaction was relevant to what was happening with Sam and Dean.

[Wynne88]

2 hours ago, ahrtee said:

Because I'm sure the problem put to him was "find a way to give the Js more time off" and Dabb's solution was to add more characters, not to interact with the boys but to replace them with stories of their own.  And I don't think the audience is ready for that.

I've got to agree with this.  Perhaps if everybody's focus is on saving Dean this season, there will be fewer individual storylines, but  I guess we already know of at least two - Mary and Bobby's romance which pretty much ranks at the bottom on my 'want-to-see' chart, and Jack adjusting to the lack of his power.  

[SueB]

On 8/8/2018 at 10:42 PM, catrox14 said:

 All he said is that prison was worse than Hell and it was never shown that he nor anyone elaborated on what all happened.  

Interesting that there is a Supernatural book in the bunker? Didn't they destroy those other than what is on line?  Also, curious where you saw that BTS pic. It also doesn't mean it was intended to be part of the narrative if it was never shown on screen during an episode.

He said he'd been to Hell.  Transcript from Closed Caption, ~37min mark on iTunes:
 

Quote

DEAN:”Mom.. that place... there was only one way out of that place and it wasn’t breathing. So I made a call.”
*flashback*
DEAN: “Billie.”
SAM (Voiceover): “Dean talked with her , and then Billie came to see me.”
*back to bridge*
SAM (continuing): We made a deal. We get to die and come back one more time, but in exchange...”
BILLIE:”Come midnight, a Winchester goes bye-bye. Like permanently. And that is something I’ve been looking forward to for a long time.”
MARY:”Why would you —“
DEAN:”We were already dead. Being locked in that cell with nothing... I’ve been to Hell. This was worse.”
SAM: “At least this way, one of us gets to keep fighting.”

No, at that moment he did not elaborate on his statement that he'd been to Hell.  But he stated he'd been to Hell -- an not metaphorically.  Plus the obvious answer (if asked) about how Cas met them "well I raised Dean from Perdition". 

So, she knows he's been to Hell -- canon.  Maybe they've never discussed it but it's not a secret.

On 8/8/2018 at 10:30 PM, gonzosgirrl said:

I don't understand how Dabb is a 'whipping boy'. I think we can mostly agree that the problems with the show are not with the actors or the performances. Dabb, along with Singer, is the showrunner, not to mention also being one of the writers. The buck stops with him; classifying him as a whipping boy suggests that he's not responsible for the direction of the story, for his writers. Maybe accusing him of being more interested in a spinoff and in his pet characters and actors, often at the expense of the mothership and his lead actors is subjective. Maybe not. But the failures of the writing? All on him. If he's a whipping boy, it's because he deserves his licks. IMO, of course.

He's absolutely responsible.  I'm just thinking he's not responsible for making individual viewers happy.  I think people want to have the show THEY want, and they beat on Dabb because it doesn't live up to their expectation.  I think it's absolutely undeserved to say "they don't care".  How would a viewer know?  I think it's undeserved to say "lazy writing".  Just because it doesn't meet expectations doesn't make it lazy.  If the comments are "I don't like the way the show is written" -- totally reasonable.  But Dabb is attacked for not caring and being lazy.  The opinion that the writing is poor is just that -- opinion.  Unless someone on the board is hiding screenwriting credentials, there's no absolutes here.  Yet the constant berating (and yes, it's berating when it impugns their character) is to the level of "whipping boy" IMO.  Viewers take their show frustrations out on the show runner.  That's to be expected IMO.  Personal berating?  I think the term "whipping boy" is justified. 

On 8/8/2018 at 10:42 PM, catrox14 said:

Interesting that there is a Supernatural book in the bunker? Didn't they destroy those other than what is on line?  Also, curious where you saw that BTS pic. It also doesn't mean it was intended to be part of the narrative if it was never shown on screen during an episode.

They asked Charlie if there was a way to destroy them and there was not.  We've never seen the boys destoy any of the books.  Metatron threw ONE into the fire.  That's the only book destruction that's happened.

Since that prop was clearly taken out and put on the table, I think it's a fair bet one of the AU people found the series.  That would please me to no end.  Although I think Dean would prefer Mary not read the "full frontal part."  

Edited August 10, 2018 by SueB

[gonzosgirrl]

3 hours ago, SueB said:

He's absolutely responsible.  I'm just thinking he's not responsible for making individual viewers happy.  I think people want to have the show THEY want, and they beat on Dabb because it doesn't live up to their expectation.  I think it's absolutely undeserved to say "they don't care".  How would a viewer know?  I think it's undeserved to say "lazy writing".  Just because it doesn't meet expectations doesn't make it lazy.  If the comments are "I don't like the way the show is written" -- totally reasonable.  But Dabb is attacked for not caring and being lazy.  The opinion that the writing is poor is just that -- opinion.  Unless someone on the board is hiding screenwriting credentials, there's no absolutes here.  Yet the constant berating (and yes, it's berating when it impugns their character) is to the level of "whipping boy" IMO.  Viewers take their show frustrations out on the show runner.  That's to be expected IMO.  Personal berating?  I think the term "whipping boy" is justified.

As you state several times here, all of this is your opinion, as are my thoughts. But I don't need screenwriting credentials to have a valid opinion of the writing and the direction of the storytelling. I don't need to have a medical degree to say someone is a poor doctor if they let their patient die of a curable disease. Dabb is the showrunner, the flack, or the praise if it were the case, falls to him. Just like the flack for products we sell at my company comes to me - I didn't personally build the product, but I sold it and I am responsible for it as far as my customer is concerned.

 

3 hours ago, SueB said:

I'm just thinking he's not responsible for making individual viewers happy.

Maybe not, but he is responsible for putting out the best product possible. I don't think he is. You say that makes him a whipping boy. I say it makes him the showrunner. Vive la difference.

[DeeDee79]

59 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

As you state several times here, all of this is your opinion, as are my thoughts. But I don't need screenwriting credentials to have a valid opinion of the writing and the direction of the storytelling. I don't need to have a medical degree to say someone is a poor doctor if they let their patient die of a curable disease. Dabb is the showrunner, the flack, or the praise if it were the case, falls to him. Just like the flack for products we sell at my company comes to me - I didn't personally build the product, but I sold it and I am responsible for it as far as my customer is concerned.

 

Maybe not, but he is responsible for putting out the best product possible. I don't think he is. You say that makes him a whipping boy. I say it makes him the showrunner. Vive la difference.

I agree with this entire post.

[ILoveReading]

https://ew.com/tv/2018/08/15/supernatural-season-14-wayward-sisters/?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=entertainmentweekly&utm_medium=social

My biggest regret about this spin off not getting picked up.

[Aeryn13]

Quote

My biggest regret about this spin off not getting picked up.

Yeah, I`m not keen on "multiple episodes" where all those characters are coming back. At the time they made the decision which show to pick up, I was okay with it since I actually favoured Legacies but now that showrunner has gone and scorched the Earth for the fans of the franchise so good luck to that. Wayward might have held better appeal after all. 

The only thing I slightly perked up at was the mention of some tie-in to what Michael wants. We know he wants an army. Maybe after ruling out angels, demons and humans, he thinks about beings from Rift-world or whatever was left open in that backdoor Pilot.  

[SueB]

If Dark Kaia is there, I wonder if somehow she is a 'coming together' point for Sam & Dean -- not in that they come to any agreement, just that they cross paths.

[DeeDee79]

3 hours ago, ILoveReading said:

https://ew.com/tv/2018/08/15/supernatural-season-14-wayward-sisters/?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=entertainmentweekly&utm_medium=social

My biggest regret about this spin off not getting picked up.

I am not even remotely surprised by this.

[Res]

5 hours ago, Aeryn13 said:

Yeah, I`m not keen on "multiple episodes" where all those characters are coming back. 

 

The only thing I slightly perked up at was the mention of some tie-in to what Michael wants. We know he wants an army. Maybe after ruling out angels, demons and humans, he thinks about beings from Rift-world or whatever was left open in that backdoor Pilot.  

Definitely do not want "multiple episodes" of WS. It was bad enough last year. That was the only reason I was really routing for it to be picked up (so I wouldn't have to see them anymore) I also didn't want them to take up more SPN episodes or have Dean and Sam so dumbed down that they would have to be rescued by WS because that's just pathetic for these aged hunters.

 

I'm glad the tie-in with Michael perked you up. It doesn't do anything for me unless Jensen is still Michael at that point, which I don't believe it will be.

[ILoveReading]

This was filmed during the 2nd episode apparently, and you can see that Jensen's chair next to Jared's.  So it does seem like Michael is either gone or captured by the 2nd episode.

At least they arent' pretending 'year of Michael" this time.

[gonzosgirrl]

13 minutes ago, ILoveReading said:

This was filmed during the 2nd episode apparently, and you can see that Jensen's chair next to Jared's.  So it does seem like Michael is either gone or captured by the 2nd episode.

At least they arent' pretending 'year of Michael" this time.

Not that I doubt the brevity of Mean!, but wouldn't both their chairs still be on set regardless of who Jensen is playing (or if he's filming at that time)?

[ILoveReading]

1 hour ago, gonzosgirrl said:

Not that I doubt the brevity of Mean!, but wouldn't both their chairs still be on set regardless of who Jensen is playing (or if he's filming at that time)?

Im not sure, but would they need Jensen's chair if he wasn't filming?

[gonzosgirrl]

14 minutes ago, ILoveReading said:

Im not sure, but would they need Jensen's chair if he wasn't filming?

I think it would always be on set. But since they do so much non-location (on set) filming, I just don't think his chair being their automatically means he is filming scenes with Jared/as Dean.  Surely even Dabb wouldn't limit Jensen/Mean! to less than two full episodes.

[Res]

3 hours ago, gonzosgirrl said:

 Surely even Dabb wouldn't limit Jensen/Mean! to less than two full episodes.

I wouldn't be too sure of anything where Dabb is concerned, especially where it concerns Jensen and Dean's sl.

And don't call me Shirley. ;-)

[Bobcatkitten]

I'm commenting really just to push this back up...

[Casseiopeia]

I'm not sure which one said this at Dencon (Jared or Jensen) but they just recently filmed a scene between Sam and Michael.  Aren't they filming E4?

[gonzosgirrl]

3 hours ago, Casseiopeia said:

I'm not sure which one said this at Dencon (Jared or Jensen) but they just recently filmed a scene between Sam and Michael.  Aren't they filming E4?

I saw this tweet earlier today from the Gold panel. Haven't seen any vids so I don't know the context, but Jared said the first time he 'saw' Michael was at SDCC. Did he mean Jensen's little homage to the coat flip? What episode were they filming at that point?

[Casseiopeia]

37 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

I saw this tweet earlier today from the Gold panel. Haven't seen any vids so I don't know the context, but Jared said the first time he 'saw' Michael was at SDCC. Did he mean Jensen's little homage to the coat flip? What episode were they filming at that point?

Just posted the Gold panel in Public appearances....it looks like Lynn tried to "trick" Jared into saying they filmed together but he was on to her.

Edited August 20, 2018 by Casseiopeia

[SueB]

4 hours ago, Casseiopeia said:

Just posted the Gold panel in Public appearances....it looks like Lynn tried to "trick" Jared into saying they filmed together but he was on to her.

IA, Jared was careful.  We don't know yet if Sam/Michael have had a scene together. 

[Bobcatkitten]

He was referring to the clip they showed of Jensen doing a scene as Michael. And that was the first episode because they had just finished just one.

[gonzosgirrl]

19 minutes ago, Bobcatkitten said:

He was referring to the clip they showed of Jensen doing a scene as Michael. And that was the first episode because they had just finished just one.

Oooh, right! I forgot they'd showed that. I get the exclusivity of it (and agree with it) but it sucks that they won't release it now for those not fortunate enough to get to SDCC.  Unless they have some (for me) truly unexpected and creative storytelling in the first couple episodes, I'm going with no Sam & Michael scenes.

[SueB]

58 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

Oooh, right! I forgot they'd showed that. I get the exclusivity of it (and agree with it) but it sucks that they won't release it now for those not fortunate enough to get to SDCC.  Unless they have some (for me) truly unexpected and creative storytelling in the first couple episodes, I'm going with no Sam & Michael scenes.

I still think it'll be episode 6 or 7.  The messy Dean room could be from a whole variety of things -- including a flash-forward (ala "Lost" or "This Is Us").  The lack of Jared beard could be that Sam was finally motivated to shave his beard because he got a bead on Dean or seeing Jody helped him feel more hopeful or 1000 other reasons.

Just a comment about the SDCC footage. Too long comment about sweat equity to get to see the exclusive but - it's a scene, not a sizzler.  I think that makes a difference.

Edited August 20, 2018 by SueB

[Pondlass1]

I remember reading a fan article describing waiting 24 hours in the queue for Hall H panel, sleeping bags and chatting with other fans through the night.  Misha apparently came along next morning with coffee for everyone.  So I agree these fans warrant the exclusive sneak peek.  :)

[ILoveReading]

I agree their should be perks for going, but at the same time the purpose of comic con is to promote your shows/movies and get people excited.  Should the people who got glimpses of movie trailers be the only ones to see them?  Every other CW show released new footage.  Supernatural was the only that didn't.  You want get people buzzing and talking about the upcoming season and clips and spoilers help with this. 

The people that were there still got the exclusive first look at Michael and the gag reel.  But releasing the clip can only help the show because its time to promote  the new season. 

So, IMO, I think they should release the clip, but leave the gag reel for the DVD, that way the people who were there still got something extra.

Talk about the new season has really dropped off lately from the lack of spoilers (at least in my corner of the internet).

[Casseiopeia]

5 minutes ago, ILoveReading said:

Talk about the new season has really dropped off lately from the lack of spoilers (at least in my corner of the internet)

Isn't that the truth!  There aren't any real teasers (especially where the Winchesters are concerned), no fan videos of filming in VC, nothing really from the convention.  No one seems all that enthused about Season 14 and it's less than 2 months away.

[ILoveReading]

4 minutes ago, Casseiopeia said:

Isn't that the truth!  There aren't any real teasers (especially where the Winchesters are concerned), no fan videos of filming in VC, nothing really from the convention.  No one seems all that enthused about Season 14 and it's less than 2 months away.

I watched Lucifer (tv show) and every couple of weeks the writers release script titles, talk about new characters and potential storylines.  Everyone gets me more and more excited for the new season.

I don't get SPN's desire to keep everything so close to the vest.  They should be able to tease without giving away.  At this point I honestly wonder if there is anything to tease. 

Releasing the clip, or some kind of promo can only get buzz going. 

[Bobcatkitten]

Only spoilery thing I saw this week was Supernatural is filming a Halloween-themed episode, which I think could be kind of fun. And obviously with Jared being clean-shaven we know Dean is back by episode 4.