Spoilers With Speculation

[catrox14]

2 minutes ago, Wayward Son said:

Someone else (or was it you LOL) mentioned this theory to Jessica, and she said it was brought up at SDCC and Jensen firmly denied it claiming the anti-Christ storyline was dead and buried. She was there as press. 

Yeah, well Jensen also lies/obfuscates. And he's also not going to give away the return of a cool character like Jesse if he's been told not to say anything. Also, he might be telling the truth as he knows it now, and that could change part way through the season.

So that doesn't deter me at all.  Sorry! I'll keep banging that drum. 

Who is Jessica??

[RulerofallIsurvey]

9 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

Did Lucifer start out good?

Well, that's just my interpretation.  I have a hard time believing that Lucifer would have been God's favorite (whom God also created) if he was Bad from the get go.  

9 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

whatever is bad in Lucifer's DNA is likely to be even more bad. 

That's IF there is something bad in Lucifer's DNA.  We don't know that there is or is not, imo.

6 minutes ago, Wayward Son said:

Someone else (or was it you LOL) mentioned this theory to Jessica, and she said it was brought up at SDCC and Jensen firmly denied it claiming the anti-Christ storyline was dead and buried. She was there as press. 

Aw, that's too bad.  Jesse would have been an interesting villain.   If he's the Big Bad in Apocalypse World, would he also go after Lucifer from the real world because he saw him as a threat to his power?

[Wayward Son]

6 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

Yeah, well Jensen also lies/obfuscates. And he's also not going to give away the return of a cool character like Jesse if he's been told not to say anything. Also, he might be telling the truth as he knows it now, and that could change part way through the season.

So that doesn't deter me at all.  Sorry! I'll keep banging that drum. 

Who is Jessica??

Sorry Jessica is known as thelittletreehopper on tumblr. She is the one who makes the spoiler sheet. 

 

And I suppose Jensen could be lying to perserve the mystery. I just think he might have been more vague about it rather than an outright denial. Kind of like Dabb being all "I plead the fifth" when asked about Michael. A remark that can either be seen as confirmation (it is but he doesn't want to outright say it), or he's just being teasing and it means nothing. Whereas it sounds like Jensen was very firm about it not happening.

Edited July 27, 2017 by Wayward Son

[ILoveReading]

3 hours ago, ahrtee said:

They're not going to make him a goody-two-shoes.  They have to keep up the angst about "is he or isn't he" (and possibly the Sam-vs-Dean arguments) as long as possible.  *sigh*  I'm guessing we won't know till it's time for his exit (one way or another) if he's good or evil, or some combination thereof.  

The problem is that we know Sam and Dean will argue and Dean will give in, with the caveat "We get rid  of him if things go wrong.'  They did this last season with the British Men of Letter, and we, the audience knew this wasn't true because it was only episode 15 and the "maybe these guys aren't so great" revelation couldn't come until the end of the season.  As as result Sam Dean just ended up looking stupid because there were flashing neon-lights that there was something wrong with this guys.  But for plot reasons they had to "miss" them. 

So how to they avoid this plot hole with Jack, without making him a goody two-shoes?  I read a spoiler that said Jack is going to go on hunts and he won't know how to control his powers and it kind of causes trouble.  What if it causes the death of an innocent?  Is that going to be acceptable to Sam?  Will Dean be allowed to  object?

  Since we know the Jack story line isn't going away anytime soon, how many times are Sam and Dean going to be made to ignore questionable behavior from Jack?  So if he's just going to be good, again he's going to be a one note character,   But if he's bad or shows signs of being bad, how do they keep making excuses for Sam and Dean to keep him around?

[Wayward Son]

1 hour ago, Aeryn13 said:

I want it over quickly as well though I don`t particularly care for Dean folding to Sam. It`s not a crime to hold a different opinion or favour a different tactic than Sam and it`s not a slight against him. As for Benny, the "we have to give monsters a chance" approach is pretty rich coming from the guy who called vendetta on Benny out of pretty much jealousy.

Replied in bitch vs jerk!!

[catrox14]

I will always go back to Comic Con 2014 when Jensen introduced the sizzle reel for s10 and said "This is where we see Dean confronting Sam for the first time since he was turned into a demon", and proceeded to show pretty much the entire salient points of all of 10.3. LOL...sigh :( RIP.   But Demon Dean and Sam actually  confronted each other for the first time in person in Reichenbach. So either Jensen lied, or being magnamimous, he was speaking of it from a filming perspective because it filmed first but in the story line it was not the first time they see each other. They were between filming Black and Reichenbach when they went to comic con and I would think he had that Reichenbach script in hand already. 

So yes, I think the Jensen is cagey. Meh, we'll see.

4 minutes ago, ILoveReading said:

So how to they avoid this plot hole with Jack, without making him a goody two-shoes?  I read a spoiler that said Jack is going to go on hunts and he won't know how to control his powers and it kind of causes trouble.  What if it causes the death of an innocent?  Is that going to be acceptable to Sam?  Will Dean be allowed to  object?

OMG wait, I missed this part. Seriously? He's going to go on hunts?

WHY????  Sure, take the entity that doesn't know how to control it's powers on hunts.  This seems like a great plan, fellas.

My head hurts from all the head desking I'm doing today. LOL Sigh

[Wayward Son]

10 minutes ago, ILoveReading said:

how to they avoid this plot hole with Jack, without making him a goody two-shoes?  I read a spoiler that said Jack is going to go on hunts and he won't know how to control his powers and it kind of causes trouble.  What if it causes the death of an innocent?  Is that going to be acceptable to Sam?  Will Dean be allowed to  object?

That is my guess on how things are going to go! I'm speculating that at heart Jack will be a good guy. However, he will be young and inexperienced, which is not a good combination with the level of power he holds. 

 

Perhaps its the bitter Casboy on me pushing my issues on Jack, but i forsee Jack getting treated the same way as Cas has been over the years i.e a good guy at heart, but unfortunately he also has a habit of messing up in a way that drives the plot forward. For instance in season 6 he opened purgatory with the intention of preventing Raphael from rebooting the apocalypse, but went crazy and unleashed the levithians instead and then in season 8 he wanted to close the gates of heaven only to kick the angels to earth instead etc. 

 

I think they'll face a lot of the same writing issues as they have with Cas only x10, and they'll handle these issues in the same way.

Edited July 27, 2017 by Wayward Son

[ILoveReading]

35 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

OMG wait, I missed this part. Seriously? He's going to go on hunts?

WHY????  Sure, take the entity that doesn't know how to control it's powers on hunts.  This seems like a great plan, fellas.

My head hurts from all the head desking I'm doing today. LOL Sigh

I could be mis-remembering, i read the article pretty quickly.  Let me see if I can find it again.

Here it is

Quote

Jack as a Hunter. Will Jack be riding around and accompanying Sam and Dean on cases? “In the beginning, without getting too specific, he doesn’t have much control over his powers,” Singer explained about Jack. “I guess he’s a little bit like the Hulk in that regard, in that he can do things but he does them involuntarily. Part of him, because he’s half-human, doesn’t want to hurt people. He knows he has this thumb drive that his mother left him talking about [the fact that] he can be what he wants to be. And he has this angel looking over him. So he’s aware of all this. But he can’t control himself. So it’s really about how do you get that balance? He’s interested in the hunter world but he has a couple of mis-steps early on and, again, what Dean feels about him in the beginning of the year as opposed to what Sam wants to do with him, they’re really worlds apart. So there’s a lot of conflict between the guys there and this kid is kind of caught in the middle. But good drama is conflict so that’s what we try to do every year.”

It doesn't directly say he goes on hunts, but it sounds like might go on some.

http://www.thetvaddict.com/2017/07/23/supernatural-comic-con-press-room-the-cast-and-producers-tease-the-devils-son-alternate-realities-and-more/

The more i hear about this character the worse he sounds.

Edited July 27, 2017 by ILoveReading

[MysteryGuest]

Jensen made it sound like they weren't going to drag out their difference of opinion over Jack for too long.  I get why Dean's immediate reaction would be to just kill the thing with the super powers, but once Sam can remind him that Jack could help them get Mary and Cas back, he wouldn't still be hell bent on killing him.  I'm hoping this resolves itself in an episode or two.  I can see it being revisited throughout the season whenever Jack's behavior gets out of control, because I think Dean would always be ready to take him out, if he thought he was going to be a danger.

Sign me up for being done with Sam's whole demon blood thing.  Singer keeps saying how they're always reinventing themselves to keep things fresh, so that topic really should never be brought up again.  Of course, I rarely get what I want.

[ILoveReading]

I guess Jensen said that if he had known the direction the writers were going to take, he would have pitched keeping their hiatus beards to show their mental state.

Since they were in San Diego, the majority of last week and had scruff i wonder if we might see this in episode 2.

I also hope we see the Impala kind of dirty, dusty and neglected, since it's always been a metaphor for Dean and to help show what Jensen was talking about at comic con.

[Casseiopeia]

2 hours ago, ILoveReading said:

 

It doesn't directly say he goes on hunts, but it sounds like might go on some.

http://www.thetvaddict.com/2017/07/23/supernatural-comic-con-press-room-the-cast-and-producers-tease-the-devils-son-alternate-realities-and-more/

The more i hear about this character the worse he sounds.

What are they going to do with him?  I know Singer joked about leaving him at the Bunker where he trashes the place...but seriously what are they going to do with him?  Drop him off at Jody's?  Maybe when Cas gets back he can babysit?

I didn't think it was possible but this is worse than having mom tag along.  Will he disappear too?  And then the guys will spend 10-12 episodes "reading the phone book" (which is what Dabb thinks will placate the "core SPN fans").

[MysteryGuest]

8 minutes ago, Casseiopeia said:

What are they going to do with him?

I have no idea, but if he's going to be hanging out at the bunker and going on hunts with Sam and Dean, it's going to get old pretty fast.  Once again, I think they've backed themselves into a corner they will now need to work their way out of.  

[companionenvy]

If some flavor of our Cas comes back in relatively short order, possibly he'll spend significant time with Jack - perhaps teaching him to control his powers. That will let them kill two birds with one stone, as it will give a plausible reason for both Cas and Jack to be off-screen for MOW episodes. 

[DittyDotDot]

20 minutes ago, MysteryGuest said:

I have no idea, but if he's going to be hanging out at the bunker and going on hunts with Sam and Dean, it's going to get old pretty fast.  Once again, I think they've backed themselves into a corner they will now need to work their way out of.  

Eh, I expect him to run off fairly early--probably by episode three--and they'll probably be hunting for him in the background for two or three more episodes before they find him. He'll probably only go on one hunt with them like they did with Mary last season and this parenting will most likely be short-lived.  Then it'll probably be Cass who takes charge of him. 

[Casseiopeia]

21 minutes ago, MysteryGuest said:

I have no idea, but if he's going to be hanging out at the bunker and going on hunts with Sam and Dean, it's going to get old pretty fast.  Once again, I think they've backed themselves into a corner they will now need to work their way out of.  

They had to know this was going to be the same corner they wrote themselves into just last season.   I guess we will see what happens....

 

Just now, DittyDotDot said:

Eh, I expect him to run off fairly early--probably by episode three--and they'll probably be hunting for him in the background for two or three more episodes before they find him. He'll probably only go on one hunt with them like they did with Mary last season and this parenting will most likely be short-lived.  Then it'll probably be Cass who takes charge of him. 

Ugh...

[catrox14]

47 minutes ago, ILoveReading said:

I guess Jensen said that if he had known the direction the writers were going to take, he would have pitched keeping their hiatus beards to show their mental state.

Since they were in San Diego, the majority of last week and had scruff i wonder if we might see this in episode 2.

I also hope we see the Impala kind of dirty, dusty and neglected, since it's always been a metaphor for Dean and to help show what Jensen was talking about at comic con.

I'm confused. It picks up right where it left off. Is he saying he would have pitched for it to not pick up right away?

[ILoveReading]

8 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

I'm confused. It picks up right where it left off. Is he saying he would have pitched for it to not pick up right away?

I don't know, he only said that if he knew, he would have suggested keeping the beards

Edited July 28, 2017 by ILoveReading

[catrox14]

21 minutes ago, ILoveReading said:

I don't know, he only said that if he knew, he would have suggested keeping the beards

Weird. Huh.

[Wayward Son]

6 hours ago, DittyDotDot said:

Eh, I expect him to run off fairly early--probably by episode three--and they'll probably be hunting for him in the background for two or three more episodes before they find him. He'll probably only go on one hunt with them like they did with Mary last season and this parenting will most likely be short-lived.  Then it'll probably be Cass who takes charge of him. 

This is what I hope will happen! Since Cas was set up last season to be his protector / parent, as per Kelly's wishes, Im not at all keen on the brothers having that role permanately.

 

Plus, bitter Cas boy thoughts aside, it makes more sense from a logistical viewpoint. They are never going to place anyone other than J2 in every episode. If they were, I'm sure they'd have done it with Misha by now. So instead of them constantly coming up with eye roll worthy excuses for Jack not being around they can go for the simpler "he and Cas are off together doing xyz" 

[Pondlass1]

11 hours ago, Casseiopeia said:

Eh, I expect him to run off fairly early--probably by episode three

The usual start to an MOTW episode.  Dean enters the room, he's been shopping for beer and jerky.  Sam is tapping on his laptop. Dean: "Any news about Jack?"  

Sam: "No, but here's a job for us....."  And they drive off in Baby. 

[catrox14]

1 hour ago, Pondlass1 said:

The usual start to an MOTW episode.  Dean enters the room, he's been shopping for beer and jerky.  Sam is tapping on his laptop. Dean: "Any news about Jack?"  

Sam: "No, but here's a job for us....."  And they drive off in Baby. 

I miss the days when Sam would mix things up with the "Hey, check this out" or "So, get this" and he kind of taps Dean on the arm and points at the laptop screen(this one being my favorite)

[ZennyKenny]

23 hours ago, ILoveReading said:

I read a spoiler that said Jack is going to go on hunts and he won't know how to control his powers and it kind of causes trouble.  What if it causes the death of an innocent?  Is that going to be acceptable to Sam?  Will Dean be allowed to  object?

This is what I figure was going to happen. How else would they generate conflict concerning Jack without making him the villain?

[Wayward Son]

2 minutes ago, ZennyKenny said:

This is what I figure was going to happen. How else would they generate conflict concerning Jack without making him the villain?

As I mentioned above, that doesn't sound super villain like to me. IMO the Jack incidents are going to be less "muhahahha im here to remake the world in my image" and more "People are dying! That's terrible...  Let me help" -super powered solution-. However, it turns out not to be a solution at all and Jack has inadvertently done more harm than good. 

[ZennyKenny]

22 hours ago, ILoveReading said:

"But good drama is conflict so that’s what we try to do every year."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!! Oh Singer...  *wipes tear from eye* ...you always say the funniest thing!

4 minutes ago, Wayward Son said:

As I mentioned above, that doesn't sound super villain like to me. IMO the Jack incidents are going to be less "muhahahha im here to remake the world in my image" and more "People are dying! That's terrible...  Let me help" -super powered solution-. However, it turns out not to be a solution at all and Jack has inadvertently done more harm than good. 

Yes. That was my point.

[RulerofallIsurvey]

Hm..that's interesting.  In the lasted pic posted by @Casseiopeia in the Supernormal thread from Jared's instagram, you can see Sam's anti-possession tattoo.  He didn't have it in that hallucination sequence with Lady gladshesdeadnow.  

Edited July 29, 2017 by RulerofallIsurvey
it's not Jared's tattoo.

[Casseiopeia]

17 minutes ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

Hm..that's interesting.  In the lasted pic posted by @Casseiopeia in the Supernormal thread from Jared's instagram, you can see Sam's anti-possession tattoo.  He didn't have it in that hallucination sequence with Lady gladshesdeadnow.  

Lady gladshesdeadnow...Lol

[DittyDotDot]

8 hours ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

Hm..that's interesting.  In the lasted pic posted by @Casseiopeia in the Supernormal thread from Jared's instagram, you can see Sam's anti-possession tattoo.  He didn't have it in that hallucination sequence with Lady gladshesdeadnow.  

Well, it was a hallucination... .

[MysteryGuest]

I'm guessing shirtless Jared is coming soon to a television screen near you.

Edited July 30, 2017 by MysteryGuest

[catrox14]

Sam hasn't had the anti-possession tattoo since s9. It's never been seen again. And it's never been mentioned that he got a new one.

Maybe the shirtless scene will be Sam getting his redone.

[DittyDotDot]

3 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

Sam hasn't had the anti-possession tattoo since s9. It's never been seen again. And it's never been mentioned that he got a new one.

Maybe the shirtless scene will be Sam getting his redone.

I don't know, I think it would be pretty foolish for him not to have replaced it long before now. Just because we didn't see Sam get a new one, doesn't mean he didn't. I mean, we didn't see them get them the first time and it was revealed they had them for almost a year after they got them. I just assumed it was a foregone conclusion Sam replaced the tattoo immediately.

I'm guessing it just means there's a scene where, for whatever reason, we might see the tattoo. It could just be that Sam gets injured and we see a bit of it, not necessarily a full-on shirtless scene though?

[catrox14]

Just now, DittyDotDot said:

I don't know, I think it would be pretty foolish for him not to have replaced it long before now. Just because we didn't see Sam get a new one, doesn't mean he didn't. I mean, we didn't see them get them the first time and it was revealed they had them for almost a year after they got them. I just assumed it was a foregone conclusion Sam replaced the tattoo immediately.

I'm guessing it just means there's a scene where, for whatever reason, we might see the tattoo. It could just be that Sam gets injured and we see a bit of it, not necessarily a full-on shirtless scene though?

I think the show just fucked up with continuity on Sam's anti possession tattoo. I'm just saying maybe for gratuitous eye candy reasons we get to see him getting it put back on. 

[DittyDotDot]

8 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

I think the show just fucked up with continuity on Sam's anti possession tattoo. I'm just saying maybe for gratuitous eye candy reasons we get to see him getting it put back on. 

Yeah, I understood what you were saying, I'm just saying I'm not a fan of gratuitous, so I'm hoping that's not what the scene is. If they want to do a shirtless scene, it needs to have a story purpose just like every other scene, IMO. 

Edited July 29, 2017 by DittyDotDot

[catrox14]

Getting the anti-possession tattoo redone would be a story purpose. It might be a stupid and nonsensical to think Sam never had it redone before, but when has stupid and nonsensical ever stopped these writers?

[DittyDotDot]

27 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

Getting the anti-possession tattoo redone would be a story purpose. It might be a stupid and nonsensical to think Sam never had it redone before, but when has stupid and nonsensical ever stopped these writers?

It could've been a story purpose back in S9, but Sam replacing that tattoo now would only be fan service, IMO and not a story purpose. 

[MysteryGuest]

Well, if we're going to have gratuitous shirtless scenes, I call equal time for Dean.  Maybe they go to the beach?

[RulerofallIsurvey]

9 hours ago, catrox14 said:

I think the show just fucked up with continuity on Sam's anti possession tattoo. I'm just saying maybe for gratuitous eye candy reasons we get to see him getting it put back on. 

For the record, I am all in favor of gratuitous eye candy when it involves Sam! and/or Dean.  :)

[RulerofallIsurvey]

13 hours ago, DittyDotDot said:

Well, it was a hallucination... .

Replying in All Seasons

[Casseiopeia]

12 hours ago, catrox14 said:

I think the show just fucked up with continuity on Sam's anti possession tattoo. I'm just saying maybe for gratuitous eye candy reasons we get to see him getting it put back on. 

You are right they kind of did...

 

[DittyDotDot]

Actually, I think it's on the correct side...it only appears as though it's not because of the mirror:

[Casseiopeia]

30 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said:

Actually, I think it's on the correct side...it only appears as though it's not because of the mirror:

 

31 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said:

Actually, I think it's on the correct side...it only appears as though it's not because of the mirror:

It's the tattoo itself.  The little flame thingy's are pointing the opposite way.

[DittyDotDot]

7 hours ago, Casseiopeia said:

It's the tattoo itself.  The little flame thingy's are pointing the opposite way.

Right, it's a reflected image. 

[rue721]

3 hours ago, DittyDotDot said:

Right, it's a reflected image. 

OK, admittedly, I'm terrible at these "is this the same shape from a different perspective?" spacial reasoning tests.

But in the old photo, the tattoo's spikes are pointed down, and in the new one, they're pointed up -- so I think it's not the mirror.

I think probably the makeup artist accidentally flipped the tattoo to the wrong side when she was putting it on him.

Edited July 30, 2017 by rue721

[Casseiopeia]

3 hours ago, DittyDotDot said:

Right, it's a reflected image. 

The image from the mirror was flipped...  

It's just funny that's all.  I know it doesn't really mean anything.

Edited July 30, 2017 by Casseiopeia
add text

[SueB]

On 7/28/2017 at 5:19 PM, ZennyKenny said:

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!! Oh Singer...  *wipes tear from eye* ...you always say the funniest thing!

Yes. That was my point.

Well conflict IS essential to drama.  He's not wrong.  You may prefer other types of conflict, but if there's no conflict, then it's kinda boring.  Name one recent movie or TV drama that has no conflict?

As for who is the "Big Bad", SInger/Dabb was pretty clear in one of the interviews that Jack isn't it. It's the AU dude we've yet to see. Vegas money is on AUMichael.

[ZennyKenny]

16 minutes ago, SueB said:

Well conflict IS essential to drama.  He's not wrong.  You may prefer other types of conflict, but if there's no conflict, then it's kinda boring.  Name one recent movie or TV drama that has no conflict?

Oh I totally agree. That's not what I was laughing at at all.

[Wayward Son]

1 hour ago, Casseiopeia said:

I agree that the online fandom doesn't represent the entire fandom.  However the ratings pretty much tanked last season.  I don't think SPN picked up many new viewers as the core fans gave up.  Dabb and Singer realised that many storylines didn't work out too well.  They both seemed eager to move on (hence the bloodbath).  I applaud the fact that they are willing to move back to a smaller more personal story.

I personally do not believe the credit for this belongs to Dabb & Co. There were three primary deaths in the finale Castiel, Crowley and Rowena. Based on what we know so far Castiel will be back (as himself or an alt is debatable) and Mark Shepard quit as he felt the writers had run out of things to do with Crowley. So really the only death that can be attributed to Dabb is Rowena and even she may come back at some point in future.

[catrox14]

1 hour ago, Wayward Son said:

I personally do not believe the credit for this belongs to Dabb & Co. There were three primary deaths in the finale Castiel, Crowley and Rowena. Based on what we know so far Castiel will be back (as himself or an alt is debatable) and Mark Shepard quit as he felt the writers had run out of things to do with Crowley. So really the only death that can be attributed to Dabb is Rowena and even she may come back at some point in future.

Wait, Mark Sheppard quit? Did he ask to be written out? I thought he said Crowley being killed off wasn't that much of a surprise. Not that he quit. That's a new one on me

Edited July 31, 2017 by catrox14

[SueB]

I'm fairly certain Sheppard was written out.  He would have been clear that he had chosen to leave on SM if that was the case.

This story direction, IMO, is clearly Dabb (with Singer's concurrence).  How it plays out is on Dabb as well.

[Casseiopeia]

3 hours ago, Wayward Son said:

I personally do not believe the credit for this belongs to Dabb & Co. There were three primary deaths in the finale Castiel, Crowley and Rowena. Based on what we know so far Castiel will be back (as himself or an alt is debatable) and Mark Shepard quit as he felt the writers had run out of things to do with Crowley. So really the only death that can be attributed to Dabb is Rowena and even she may come back at some point in future.

I think that Mark felt that Crowley had run his course on SPN but I had never heard that he quit.  He never told his fans that on twitter or anywhere else that I have seen.  There were others besides those three that were killed off in the end.  The entire BMOL's (thank goodness), Eileen (not over it yet), a whole bunch of hunters, Kelly...that's all I can think of on the top of my head.

[catrox14]

1 hour ago, Casseiopeia said:

I think that Mark felt that Crowley had run his course on SPN but I had never heard that he quit.  He never told his fans that on twitter or anywhere else that I have seen.  There were others besides those three that were killed off in the end.  The entire BMOL's (thank goodness), Eileen (not over it yet), a whole bunch of hunters, Kelly...that's all I can think of on the top of my head.

The death pool for s12

BMOL deaths:

Ketch
Mick
Hess
Lady SHEDEAD
Other members during the raid on the BMOL bunker in 12.22, but unclear how many

Hunters:
Asa Fox and a few other  hunters at his funeral
Eileen
Wally

Non-hunter/hunter adjacent
Magda
Hitler and his minions
Tasha and Alicia Banes
Kelly

Supernatural entities:
Crowley
Castiel
Rowena
Billie

Am I missing any, non Apocalypses/Darkness released division?

Edited July 31, 2017 by catrox14