“Bitch” Vs. “Jerk”: Where We Discuss Who The Writers Screwed This Week/Season/Ever

[Aeryn13]

 

 

Because they are Sam's choices?

It would be like saying it was Sam's fault that Dean made the deal, because if Sam hadn't have gotten himself killed, Dean wouldn't have made the deal in the first place.

 

Oh, I`m not disagreeing that it would be nonsensical. Just that I still can easily see it happen regardless. And really, there are even fan request for it, that one the one hand, Dean needs to learn to see Sam as an individual who makes his own choices but on the other hand Dean should take full responsibility for "making Sam go dark by stupidly becoming a demon". What this boils down to is Dean should take responsibility for all of his choices, which, according to Carver, are pretty much all bad and all of Sam`s BAD  choices. Sam gets credit for all good things he does. I can see this as a mindset Carver follows, no matter how unfair or hypocritical it is..

 

And if Carver does indeed believe what Sam said in the Purge as the truth and only, maybe, reluctantly "changed his mind" or rather changed course because not all fans gleefully pulled out their torches and pitchforks for Dean, then how can he not hate or at least strong dislike the character?

 

Sam was made to speak in generalizations. Completely. And everything was negative. It was a value judgement of Dean`s entire character and that judgement was 100 % negative. Moreso it attributed the IMO worst traits a (fictional character at least) can have on him: being weak, selfish and cowardly. Even being called a "monster" is much better because at least it doesn`t outright imply weakness or cowardice. The latter are bottom-feeders.

 

Now you can have "ultimate loser" characters in fiction but not as leads, not even villain, let alone hero and I don`t know where the writers fall with them between the two options: contempt or pity.  

Edited September 10, 2014 by Aeryn13

[Mcolleague]

I listened to Kripke's podcast, and the thing that stood out to me was what he said about the extent to which TV shows are planned out - not as much as we think, but not nothing. LOL. He said (paraphrasing) there was a general road map, but that it was not a good thing to overly plan, because television as a medium requires a lot of flexibility. Better ideas might emerge, or certain characters work/don't work, and if it's planned out to the letter, it's hard to make adjustments. I think this is exactly what I dislike about Carver. Carver's seasons are very planned out IMO. He is very very big on structure and parallels and mirrors and overarching themes etc etc. I think it's too meticulously planned out, and he is over-committed to following through with it even though huge chunks of it aren't working. On a Doylist level I do think I understand the thematic things he is going for, and I see what he is trying to do. But these storylines are based on an interpretation of Sam and Dean's characters that I disagree pretty strongly with (I don't even have anything to say about Cas these days, because Carver put Cas in such epically boring storylines I've lost interest completely. Wtf). And I feel like he refuses to listen to feedback, and is quite dismissive of these other interpretations, maybe because he has things mapped out and needs to continue on the path he is on.  

 

It's probably also his personality that really rubs me the wrong way. Why can't he just admit there have been fuck ups, instead of taking every opportunity to basically say, "No, you were just not smart enough to get it. THIS is the correct way."? Ugh. I genuinely don't think he is a very good writer, and I no longer consider Supernatural to be an objectively good show. If it had been written like this from the beginning, it wouldn't have lasted two seasons. Even the very talented cast couldn't have salvaged it. JMO. 

[AwesomO4000]

Sam was made to speak in generalizations. Completely. And everything was negative. It was a value judgement of Dean`s entire character and that judgement was 100 % negative. Moreso it attributed the IMO worst traits a (fictional character at least) can have on him: being weak, selfish and cowardly. Even being called a "monster" is much better because at least it doesn`t outright imply weakness or cowardice. The latter are bottom-feeders.

 

If this is the case - which I think I remember not agreeing with when I first watched it - there is an explanation that has little to do with this being some sort of  "true" opinion concerning Dean: 1) Sam was very angry and he exaggerated and 2) Sam was projecting, which he sometimes does. Because the only behavior approaching "cowardly" Carver gave to a character since his take-over in season 8 and made sure that there was no good explanation for on screen even though it would've been easy to do so - at least in my opinion - was with Sam when Sam abandoned Kevin and the world at large by declaring hunting not his problem anymore. That entire first 2/3 of the season Carver had flashbacks for Dean that showed nothing but his loyalty for Castiel and Benny and Dean's courage in fighting impossible odds to save his friend and keep his promise to Benny - even protecting his friends and continuing that loyalty later in the season with both Benny and Castiel even though it required consequences. Then despite being understandably angry with Sam, Dean then still supported him. I look at actions, since words can be misleading, and with his actions - i.e. what we see on screen - I disagree with your interpretation. Carver might have changed his mind since season 8, but I've not really seen that in what I see onscreen - Dean is still killing the bad guys, risking his life, saving his brother, and being the hero - so we'll have to agree to disagree. We're never going to agree.

[catrox14]

You know listening to Kripke's podcast just reminds me IMO he liked Sam and Dean.  Even if IMO he neutered Dean's arc, I don't think he did it because he disliked Dean. I think he did it because it was a more "romantic",for lack of a better word, ending. But I believe he viewed them as deeply flawed heroes no matter what.

 

I just don't get the sense at all from Carver's tenure that he thinks the boys are even flawed heroes or that they should be family. Sorry Carver, but we've known them to be Big Damn Heroes for too long to retcon them into anti-heroes now.

 

I don't understand the point of him making both Sam and Dean into dicks to each other via retcon by rules that never existed or by behavior or words that make no sense to long time viewers and that no amount fanwanking can make work.  And then turns around and says they are better together? SAY WAT? I legitimately do not understand what he is trying to say about their relationship at all. It baffles me

 

I think of it this way. If I were a new viewer that just started watching in s8, I would be wondering why the hell these guys are even around each other because they seem to not respect each other and kind of hate each other and it's unpleasant in an unsatisfying way. 

 

And I'm really only watching now because I want to see what happens to Dean (I think I want to see it anyway LOL).  But man, if I were a first time viewer I think I would have checked out midway through s8.

Edited September 10, 2014 by catrox14

[Demented Daisy]

And if Carver does indeed believe what Sam said in the Purge as the truth and only, maybe, reluctantly "changed his mind" or rather changed course because not all fans gleefully pulled out their torches and pitchforks for Dean, then how can he not hate or at least strong dislike the character?

 

 

To clarify, when I said that Carver "believed" what Sam said -- I didn't word that well.  I meant that Carver believed that Sam felt that way.  Feelings, by definition, are irrational, so Sam's feelings about Dean made no sense at the time.  He was hurt, he was angry, blah blah blah.

 

Now, do I think it was written well?  No.  Do I think they went overboard?  Yes.  Do I think that their memories aren't as good as ours?  A definite possibility.  I would not be surprised if that speech was written with only season 9 in mind, which is disgustingly short sighted.  And I don't think they expected the reaction they got.

[SueB]

 

I think it's too meticulously planned out, and he is over-committed to following through with it even though huge chunks of it aren't working.

I think this is entirely possible.  It's the start of S10 and the S8 Amelia storyline was boiled down to: that was a fantasy life Sam thought he wanted (hence all the saturated lighting) but it's not his reality. And when it came down to it, he choose mission over fantasy. 

[AwesomO4000]

I think this is entirely possible.  It's the start of S10 and the S8 Amelia storyline was boiled down to: that was a fantasy life Sam thought he wanted (hence all the saturated lighting) but it's not his reality. And when it came down to it, he choose mission over fantasy. 

Which sadly could have been avoided and or concluded in one episode perhaps, if it was even necessary at all, because the storyline covered much of the same ground that was handled more succinctly (in my opinion and ironically also using flashbacks) by "Afterschool Special." That being, a "normal life" was a nice dream/memory, but the reality was that Sam had obligations - he had to accept that growing up meant not always getting what you want and taking care of responsibility - and he chose the mission.

 

If Carver wanted to re-cover this ground, I wish he would've added something more to it, but this time around, Sam almost seemed even more regressed afterwards. It appeared that Sam was still stubbornly holding onto and openly regretting and being almost bitter that he couldn't have that life - which as you said was more fantasy than reality (or to me that should have been the message based on what we saw, since for me Sam/Amelia wasn't really a strongly-based relationship anyway. The idea appeared better than the reality to me.) And so Sam's seeming lack of understanding of this - i.e. that his feelings about the relationship were more the idea of the relationship (and were being remembered in a more idealized way) than what was actually there * - was more of a step back from "Afterschool Special" for me where Sam seemed to understand that his memories were actually more "rosy" than the reality.

 

* i.e. the John Winchester relationship lens... the marriage was only perfect after Mary had been killed, whereas the reality was something different.

[DittyDotDot]

I find Kripke is the biggest fanboy of them all and his enthusiasm is so very infectious! I know, I'm really late to this party, but listening to that podcast reminded me of why I fell in love with this show. The way Kripke talks about how when he rewrote the Pilot script he just had fun with it and stopped overthinking everything. That's exactly what I feel is missing from the show anymore--I think they take themselves way, way, way too seriously and it's lost its whacky and whimsy to constipation and angst. I also found it interesting how he talks about how Supernatural was almost serendipitous; I've always thought that it was the coming together of all the different people that made the show special and without all of them, it doesn't have the same feel to it.

 

I think what makes Carver not such a great showrunner is simply that I don't think he's very good at managing the writers and pulling their voices together into one cohesive voice. It's an entirely separate skill set than writing, IMO. I think that's what made the show more palatable and digestable under Krike. Also, I appreciate the way he talked about Gamble's run and the reason I give her more slack as a showrunner than I do Carver is simply that I feel like she did try to take the show and make it her own rather than trying to just recycle what was once popular and repackage it as something new.

 

How cute was it that he kept talking about how young and naïve he was, though?

 

 

 

And because I too like to share, I found this one with Ben Edlund...https://www.wgfoundation.org/category/podcasts/.

I haven't had a chance to listen to it (assuming it's really entertaining considering how entertaining Edlund generally is), but the description is as follows:

On July 15, 2014, the hilarious and diabolically brilliant television writer Ben Edlund joined us at the NerdMelt Showroom. We chatted about his work as a writer on shows like ANGEL and SUPERNATURAL and the upcoming GOTHAM, his childhood habit of wearing a leisure suit, his band (Ghost Tyger and Friends), and a ton of other wonderful stuff.

 

I was wondering where he landed after Revolution, I'm glad to see he landed on a show I was planning on giving a chance. ;)

[catrox14]

sonofabitch he got Gotham . man I really did not want to watch that (arrow reasons} and if that is a hit he'll never write for spn again. even Jensen said he wants some Edlund scripts at the last con. :-\

[DittyDotDot]

It appears I gave you guys the wrong link to that Edlund interview. I found the time to listen to it this morning and the link I provided was to the Kripke one. Here's the correct one for Mr. Edlund: https://www.wgfoundation.org/ben-edlund-genre-smash/

 

Off to listen, will probably be back with some thoughts later...sorry, if that sounded like a threat.  ;)

Edited September 13, 2014 by DittyDotDot

[SueB]

 

People always say if a woman was in charge, this wouldn't happen, but the same stuff happened with Sera Gamble. I think it's just something endemic to the show. Either that or it's Bob Singer.

 

Brought this over from the Ask Jeeves thread (I still want to call it "Clue").  Sera Gamble was way worse IMO. And I do think Bob Singer is a potential common thread.

 

warning: rant ON and presume the words "In My Opinion" are in front of every sentence -- definitely a tl;dr unless you are interested

bias warning: I'm female and worked in the heavily male-dominated fields for 30+ years

bias warning #2: hybrid binge/real-time watcher

 

Going thru the Kripke, Gamble, and first Carver years as a binge viewer, it was easier to see the broad strokes. While each have definitive strengths and even elements of creative genius, each also has some weaknesses.  As the topic is "women as victims in Supernatural"-ish, I'm going to focus on what I think is their individual weaknesses that contribute to this:

 

- Kripke's is, IMO, "the overgrown kid combined with mid-western timewarp". While everyone was wrapped up in the emotional voice message Dean left John in "Home", Kripke delighted in the plumber's hand in the garbage disposal.  It's not that he doesn't see the other stuff, but his inner 12yr old can really drive the show vibe.  For him, it's classic horror: the woman is fridged.  He's going to go to that as well as rapey tropes more often than others because he's got this nostalgic love of how those movies make him feel.  And the nostalgia drives the timewarp he shows in everything from motel decor and assigned gender roles of middle America. I recognize his middle America because it looks a lot like my 1970's childhood (which is HIS actual childhood era).  And gender issues were accepted back then in entertainment.  So, I don't think Kripke is unaware of gender issues, I just think he ignores it in favor of living out his timewarp and his inner 12 yr old horror geek vision. He's had outstanding strong women in the first 5 years (Sarah, Deputy in Benders, Ellen and Jo). It's not that he can't write strong women, it's just not part of his vision. And he didn't feel obliged to do so. He wanted his geeky little show on the CW to be his vision. And while we think show-runners are powerful, they usually just want to survive to get another season.

- Gamble's issue was IMO "trying too hard". I don't hold her more accountable as a woman to infuse gender sensitivity. That would be a double standard IMO.  But (and this is where my biases come in), she overcompensated in two way: trying to be 'one of the boys' and trying to infuse energy in a 'wrapped' storyline.  There are far too few female showrunners and so when one gets in there, they are under the microscope.  Sera genuinely loves horror from everything I've listened to in commentary. But look at was happened during those two years: 1) pint for pint there was more blood and viscera, 2) rapey jokes ... mostly directed at the leads BTW, 3) "bitch" and "whore" were used a great deal, and 4) "dick" jokes dominated S7.  As someone whose watched women in male dominated fields my first thought was: overcompensating.  And she did herself zero favors by shoving Baby under a tarp.  She's stated that she was trying to find a different sort of conflict by removing all the elements of "home" and "safety" for the boys... but more blood, less Baby ... just the wrong direction.  It's hard to find fresh challenges after Swan Song and her monsters (Alphas/Leviathans) were definitely clever and new but she just didn't get cohesion. I personally think she's very talented but her priority was to survive as showrunner and anyone following Kripke was going to be in for an uphill climb.

- Carver's issue is "he thinks he's clever" IMO.  And he is...but not THAT clever.  Personally I think he's better than Gamble on the gender issues but MUCH worse on the consent. Carver kills demon and angel vessels without even thinking about it (unless it's Sam or Dean). He keeps up the tradition of horror tropes but with less viscera.  I think he's come to realize the Sam story of early S8 was a mistake ('..and Sam hit a dog'). But in the process of trying to work the "Sam's fantasy is a normal life" he created a very cardboard female character.  At least Gamble did Lisa right.  Amelia was nopeville. Her purpose was Sam and while she had the trappings of strength (veterinarian, some snarkiness, intelligence, etc..) she ended up being the woman in TWO relationship triangles (Sam/hubby/Amelia and Sam/Dean/Amelia). And we didn't want her to win "Sam" in either.  So... nopeville.   Further, Carver still uses the "bitch" term and it's almost glaring these days.  Said intentionally, versus Kripke's "this-is-how-blue-class-'mericans-talk", makes it stand out. It makes me feel like he's trying to be "one of the boys"... he doesn't feel like he's part of the "wrestle in the green room" crowd. He's funny and snarky and that makes him fit in. But... there's an awkwardness that makes me think he relies on Singer for some of the vibe (vice the overall plot...which I think Carver runs more tightly).

 

Which brings me to Singer.  Singer, IMO, has no concern what-so-ever with gender issues.  He IS part of the "wrestle in the green room" crowd. His wife writes some of the WORST episodes (Man's Best Friend...). It's not to say that he's culpable for her perspective, but if you listen to him in the rare times he provides commentary or interviews -- his give-a-shit on this is low I think.  It's not that he has an issue, at all, with women in power or that he's remotely misogynistic.  He just plays the horror tropes and the manly man tropes and doesn't care if it lack gender sensitivity. Let someone else worry about this. 

 

I guess what I'm saying is... you take the one constant (Singer) who appears to not give a shit on these topics and add in show-runners who are tied up in trying to create their own "vision" and...voila, there's some gender insensitivity.

 

So.. that we have the optic of extreme violence against a dead female shapeshifter?  The fact that she was female was not part of their equation.  And they don't think it needs to be.  They are doing a horror show with an emotional core surrounding two brothers. I think Carver is better at avoiding some blatant problems (except consent...he just doesn't get consent), but they are not remotely interested in taking on topics that are not part of the show's primary focus.  Perhaps, with the apparent continued success, they can afford to branch out a bit.  They've still got the back 6+ episodes to write (they've already cast thru EP14), maybe they'll improve. But I'm not holding my breath. And now with Carver potentially doing split-duties as show runner on a different pilot...I think Singer is left in charge.  Singer's comfortable IMO.  Someone would need to light a fire under him to take on some issues.  It's actually (I think), within his skill set to do BTW.  I just don't know if he will. 

 

/rant off

Edited November 20, 2014 by SueB

[catrox14]

I cant give Gamble a pass just because she came after Kripkes legacy. I don't think she was trying too hard to be one of the boys. Given that she thought it was really hot when Sam was all rapey and abusive towards Jo when he was MegSam, I think she wanted to be shocking with soulless Sam and the violence and gore and occasional slips into borderline misogyny was born of what she likes in horror.

I also still maintain that the prevalence of "bitch' and" dick" aside from the Dick jokes of s7, is largely due to the limitations by network censors.

SPN gets away with so many things that I can't believe get past the censors but there are still few swear words they can get away with. I believe if they could use "asshole", variations on fuck, "shit etc we would not see the gendered slurs nearly as often and when it was used I think it would be more shocking and more impactful. And without the use of the gendered slurs IMO the killing of female characters whilst problematic, would come across as less misogynistic.

Edited November 20, 2014 by catrox14

[SueB]

 

And without the use of the gendered slurs IMO the killing of female characters whilst problematic, would come across as less misogynistic.

I agree.

[Demented Daisy]

What I find interesting is that in the Kripke era, we had strong females.  But more than that, they were strong females with a purpose.  

 

• Ellen put Jo above everything else, but she still had a business to run and hunters to co-ordinate, in a way.  Jo wasn't her whole life.
• Jodi had a family that she obviously loved dearly, but she was also sheriff.  When the time came, she did what she had to do to keep the town safe, even though it meant letting her family go.
• Sarah was in business with her father, but she didn't automatically defer to him.  When she disagreed about what should be done with the painting, she spoke up.
• Lisa was a single mother who had done quite well for herself.  She handled Dean quite deftly, as well, IMO.

 

I'm sure I could think of more, but I haven't even finished my first cup of coffee.  ;-)

 

In the Gamble years, we had:

 

• Gwen Campbell, who appeared to do everything Samuel told her to do without much argument.
• Lisa, who we don't know much about after Dean re-enters her life.  (Is she still working?  I honestly can't remember.)
• Charlie, but she's in only one episode at the tail end of the Gamble run, so we don't learn much about her characterization.  

 

In the Carver seasons, we get:

 

• Mrs. Tran, who I love, but her whole existence is tied up in Kevin.  What do we know about her except she's a widow with a tattoo?
• Amelia -- I think she's been discussed enough.
• More Charlie.  While not a fan, I'd say she's a positive turn for female characterization.  She has her mind and she's not afraid to use it.  She loves what (and who) she loves and makes no apologies for it.  She has guilt over her parents, but it's not her single motivating factor.
• Portia, the witch familiar.  No.  Just no.
• Artemis, which I could write a dissertation on how her characterization screwed with Greek mythology.  In love with Prometheus?  WTF?

 

I've intentionally left out angels, demons, monsters, etc.  Generally, they don't have "relationships" and their characterization is going to be outside the norm simply because they're not human.  (I had to include Artemis, though, just because I'm still pissed off about it.)

 

I'm not going to draw any conclusions because I'd really need to analyze every female character to find any true patterns.  On the surface, it would appear that Kripke's female characters are hard-working blue collar types, just like the men.  Gamble and Carver's females seem to be more decorative.

 

As for the violence against women, I would need to analyze every episode to form an opinion on the differences in the 3 show runners.  I will say, though, that I think it was probably coincidence that Dean's MoC-influenced overkill was against female characters.

 

Edited to fix some grammar mistakes I missed in my proofread.

Edited November 20, 2014 by Demented Daisy

[Aeryn13]

 

More Charlie.  While not a fan, I'd say she's a positive turn for female characterization.  She has her mind and she's not afraid to use it.  She loves what (and who) she loves and makes no apologies for it.  She has guilt over her parents, but it's not her single motivating factor.

IMO they would need to let Charlie be handled by another writer but will never do so because she is Robbie Thompson`s pet project. And that is exactly the problem.

 

From every interview he gives about her to the way he writes her, it`s the 13-year old inserts herself into first fanfic trope. Adored by all, uber-capable, aquiring skill-sets like they are going out of business, out-leading the leads and making them look inferior in just about every situation. And so on and so forth. And just like those 13-year-olds lack the perspective how a character so sparklingly perfect unicorns will weep in joy can come across to anyone not them, Thompson clearly lacks that perspective as well.

 

He has admitted that she IS his avatar, even if a female character and I don`t think he even sees how self-aggrandizing that would be, to admit you are write yourself and then write yourself as the epitome of perfection.

 

So far to some degree the actress and especially a cute chemistry with Jensen have saved it from becoming a total disaster but if she comes back as super-hunter on of everything, I will not only not be surprised but it will be a death blow for the character.

 

As such, I can`t put her in the strong female character category, just as I wouldn`t say the raven-haired, violet-eyed orphan yet secret heiress with a half-Supernatural lineage, coming with special powers no race possesses and a Chosen destiny who is the greatest martial arts specialiest in the whole wide world and immediately sexually attracts everyone from Fanfic Nr.5 was a strong female. Not even if she defeated an army of five thousand evil dhampires all on her own with her trusty katana.

[rue721]

What I find interesting is that in the Kripke era, we had strong females.  But more than that, they were strong females with a purpose.

 

A personal favorite of mine is Kathleen, from S1's "The Benders." She stands out for me, even though I don't like the overall episode very much. I actually really liked her vibe/interaction with Dean, too -- they made a good team.

 

And without the use of the gendered slurs IMO the killing of female characters whilst problematic, would come across as less misogynistic.

 

Definitely true for me, I was put off the show and stopped watching for a year or two after a scene of Dean calling a woman a whore as he stabbed her to death with a huge piece of wood (or metal? I forget now and that doesn't really make a difference). The slurs make the violence seem much more gendered and even sexualized than it would otherwise imo.

 

They also don't *have* to use "bitch" just because they can't use "fuck" or "shit," though. It's not like the network is demanding they meet an episode quota for gendered slurs or for cussing in general, I'm sure, and the writers aren't eleven-year-olds, they can do better than to just throw a bunch of cusses or pseudo-cusses into the script to "harden up" the guys' dialogue.

[AwesomO4000]

In the Gamble years, we had:

 

    Gwen Campbell, who appeared to do everything Samuel told her to do without much argument.

   

Lisa, who we don't know much about after Dean re-enters her life.  (Is she still working?  I honestly can't remember.)

   

Charlie, but she's in only one episode at the tail end of the Gamble run, so we don't learn much about her characterization.

 

We also had more Jodi Mills again. She was in "Weekend at Bobby's" and at least 3 episodes of season 7, and we see her very much taking care of herself and helping Bobby and then Sam with a slight dip into domestic Jodi, but she turned out to be very helpful there also. I also liked her "in the know" aspect during season 6 and 7. Jodi very much understood what was going on and helped both Bobby and Sam and Dean cover things up so they could continue doing what they needed to. And I liked how she somewhat gradually had to be convinced in "Weekend at Bobby's" into helping cover up for Rufus. It was very much her decision to become involved and help, and it wasn't one she made lightly.

Edited November 20, 2014 by AwesomO4000

[amensisterfriend]

This is such an interesting conversation! I'm actually not sure ANY of the writers have excelled at writing female characters, and that's putting it mildly. I think maybe I just define 'strong female characters' differently than most. For me, it's not just someone who's super cool, tough, sassy, awesome-at-everything prototype that you tend to see on SPN and many other shows. I like my female characters to feel like relatable, real women with a few salient strengths and flaws. Most of the females on SPN just tend to seem like one-dimensional, chicks-that-male-writers-think-are-cool 'types' and poorly defined IMO. For me, Lisa and Jessica seemed to fall into this category, in addition to a huge percentage of the women we meet in any given episode. Jo and Ellen were in this same 'tough 'n sassy' mode, IMO, and I never had a strong opinion about them one way or the other.

 

I love whoever mentioned Kathleen from Benders! I know we didn't know her well, but she felt real to me---smart and competent and compassionate but with a surprising ethical greyness and hints of real emotional depth that separated her from most SPN females for me. I also ended up loving Bela, though I have trouble defending why :) As for more recent writers, I agree that Jodi is a good female character, albeit not an especially memorable one for me.   

 

Honestly, though, I don't really think rich, nuanced, consistently defined characterization has been any of the writers' strong suits, irrespective of gender :) 

[Demented Daisy]

I was put off the show and stopped watching for a year or two after a scene of Dean calling a woman a whore as he stabbed her to death with a huge piece of wood (or metal? I forget now and that doesn't really make a difference).

 

Are you talking about when he killed the Whore of Babylon?  (S5  99 Problems)

[rue721]

Are you talking about when he killed the Whore of Babylon?  (S5  99 Problems)

 

I think so, though to be honest, I haven't gone back to check. When I rewatch, I mostly stick to my favorite episodes, and virtually all of them end up being from S1-3. The seasons after that bleed together somewhat for me, since I've only seen most of the post-S3 episodes once, either during broadcast or when I went and tried to catch back up with the show (though I do have a couple favorites from S5 and S6 that I rewatch, too).

[mertensia]

Eh a sexually active Artemis/Diana was hardly original: Thorne Smith had one (she was also a heavy drinker) in his The Night Life of the Gods back in the late 20s/early 30s. (Along with Neptune, Hebe, Venus, Mercury and..whoever killed the Gorgon.)

I don't cringe when Dean calls the being he is killing whore in 99 Problems because Cas said she was the Whore of Babylon. Dean certainly seemed taken aback earlier in the episode when Cas first called her that.

[Demented Daisy]

Eh a sexually active Artemis/Diana was hardly original: Thorne Smith had one (she was also a heavy drinker) in his The Night Life of the Gods back in the late 20s/early 30s. (Along with Neptune, Hebe, Venus, Mercury and..whoever killed the Gorgon.)

 

You mean Medusa?  That would be Perseus.  (Her sisters Stheno and Euryale were also Gorgons, but they were immortal -- until Percy Jackson came along.  But that a different story.  ;-) )

 

Original or unoriginal is immaterial to me.  I'm annoyed with the change in Artemis' characterization because her motivation becomes saving a man who does not love her.  Just as Josie did in Mother's Little Helper when she begs Abbadon to possess her over Henry.  

 

Had Artemis saved Prometheus because it was the right thing to do, because Zeus was wrong, I would have not have complained.  Had Josie offered herself to Abbadon because Henry had a wife and son who didn't deserve to be abandoned, I would have been fine.  But by making it about love, it reduces the characters to an Unrequited Tragic Maiden trope.

Edited November 21, 2014 by Demented Daisy

[Pete Martell]

What I find interesting is that in the Kripke era, we had strong females.  But more than that, they were strong females with a purpose.  

 

I often tend to wonder how much of that was Kripke and how much was Kim Manners. Or if it was Kripke, but was something he sacrificed when he decided to change the tone of the show after season 2. 

 

You had some good characters, like Jody, or Pamela (even if Pamela was overly sexualized), but you also had Ruby, who on the surface seemed strong and confident, but was ultimately just a pawn for Lucifer, held in place as the man who had called her slurs for two seasons stabbed her to death. You had Bela, who was also given the veneer of strength, but was ultimately weak and craven, with the implication that she deserved to go to hell for fighting back against sexual abuse. You had Lilith, who became an oversexualized cliche who killed herself for Lucifer. You had Becky, who was, frighteningly, supposed to represent all female fans. You had Anna, a cipher who was thrown away when the show and fans preferred Cas, and was finally reduced to a "fatal attraction" cliche whose death (by yet another white guy) was supposed to be an awesome moment. Then there was that awful 99 Problems episode where a woman was literally named Whore of Babylon, and Dean got jokes about how on a good day you get to kill a whore. 

 

It often feels like the show just sees women as if TPTB were aliens who have only seen porn or bad cable movies to tell them what women are like. Like Tracy, the hunter in "Devil May Care." I liked her, but decisions like having her in booty shorts meant that many viewers would never take her seriously.

Edited November 21, 2014 by Pete Martell

[SueB]

I cut Kripke some slack for Bela and Ruby as they were Network demands. Ruby's long-con makes sense, from my perspective, because she needed to separate Sam and Dean. Plus I can't help but see it easier for Sam to suck blood out of a woman's arm than a man. They made it sexualized and it would be an intimate act on any day. Having the 'betrayer' role be female works as well because Dean would initially see her as 'love interest' and perhaps give more slack (until he found out the whole demon thing). Bella's story was pretty transparently a patch-on to the show. I think she suffered from the truncated season. I thought they were going to go down a redemption route but she did quite the heel-turn post writer's strike,

ITA with you on Lilith (who was better as a child), Becky, and Anna. I wish they had kept both Cas and Anna or let Anna go out as a hero. Cas was just too good to lose IMO. They seemed to strike gold with Misha, that's hard to predict.

Finally, I think Kim was solely focused on direction and Vancouver production. I don't think he had much to do in the way of character initial creation.

Having said all this, I think Kripke has some hits and misses compared to the other show runners.

[DittyDotDot]

Having said all this, I think Kripke has some hits and misses compared to the other show runners.

 

I agree, even though I tend to think he had more hits than misses. I don't credit Kripke alone in any of the rich characters that came around in the first few seasons, but I think they had a different team of writers to hash these things out, so it's kinda like comparing apples to oranges at times.

 

I do think we had richer characters in general--not just female--in the first few seasons; characters I could see watching a whole series about outside of Supernatural. For me, it's not necessarily where they took the story, but that they were deep enough characters to begin with. Anna may have gotten a crap end to her story, but there was enough there from the beginning that made me think she could've carried her own spin off. Same with Pamela, Deputy Kathleen, Bela, Jo, Ellen and probably a few more I'm not thinking of right now. They had their own life and purpose outside of Sam and Dean and/or the show itself.  I can't even think of one female character--and very, very few male ones--since S4 that I've felt like this about.

 

I thought Charlie was fine in her first appearance, but she's really a one-note character, IMO, so I've gotten progressively bored with her in the episodes she comes back in. Maybe it's because Robbie Thompson is the only writer that's used her, so we've never gotten a chance to see a different twist on her character, but I tend to think there's just not much more there to work with. She's a geeky, goofy, cool woman-child, got it. Ruby fits into the same category as Charlie, for me, since she was all about getting Sam to that church at the end of S4 and there wasn't anything deeper ever learned about her. She should have been a very rich character--a witch who spent her time in Hell and came out the other side a demon and somewhere along the way became a severe Lucifer loyalist, but they never explored any of this, IMO. Whether Ruby 1.0 or 2.0, she was same one-note posturing woman rather than a character in her own right. Neither of these characters felt like they breathed their own air nor could exist outside the show, IMO.

 

Personally, I think all the showrunners have had their strengths and weaknesses--Kripke seemed to be best with mythology and keeping the team working together and heading in a certain direction, but lacked maturity to give the story deeper meaning (where I think his team helped him with immensely); Gamble seemed to manage the staff well enough, but also seemed to be all ideas--lots and lots of ideas--but not enough care and feeding was given to them in the end; Carver seems to know where he wants to go, but I think he lacks the managerial skills to bring his team into one cohesive voice so the show seems rather disjointed (plus, I think the show is taking itself far too seriously under his reign). I may prefer the Kripke years, but that doesn't mean he's a god in my eyes either. I think he lucked out and had a team of people that compensated for his weaknesses. And, he also ran the show when everything was new and shiny. I'm just not sure Gamble and Carver have had the same luck as Kripke.

[Demented Daisy]

Carver seems to know where he wants to go, but I think he lacks the managerial skills to bring his team into one cohesive voice so the show seems rather disjointed (plus, I think the show is taking itself far too seriously under his reign). 

 

I agree with everything you said, but I wanted to chime in and say that I've always felt that Carver is like a chef running a kitchen.  Not only are there too many cooks, but there's only one stove and they're jostling each other to take care of their own dishes without bothering to see if they work together to make a tasty, satisfying meal.  Or at least that's what 8 and 9 felt like -- I'm reserving judgement on 10 because it's way, way too early.

 

Tortured the hell out of that metaphor, didn't i?  ;-)

[DittyDotDot]

Tortured the hell out of that metaphor, didn't i?  ;-)

 

Hee! You did far better than I when trying to do these things. I enjoyed every word of that torture, BTW.

[Aeryn13]

 

I don't cringe when Dean calls the being he is killing whore in 99 Problems because Cas said she was the Whore of Babylon. Dean certainly seemed taken aback earlier in the episode when Cas first called her that.

 

I didn`t mind the term because it is an actual term from the bible, connected to the revelation, so it`s not like the SPN writers made up "Whore of Babylon" specifically. Though if memory serves the entire city of Babylon was the "whore", wasn`t it? Or was it more left to nebulous metaphor?

 

But the "on a good day you get to kill a whore" was just a very stupid word pun. I have no doubt the writer didn`t even think twice about the impication. I mean, it could have been "on a good day, you get to kill the Whore of Babylon" but noone would really say this.

 

Maybe with Lucifer, it could have been clever to say "on a good day, you get to kill the devil". But "a whore"? Dean isn`t Jack the Ripper. And he very much never looks down on women in the sex trade so he hardly feels urges to kill them. Hence, the "joke" falls flat.

 

 

You had Bela, who was also given the veneer of strength, but was ultimately weak and craven, with the implication that she deserved to go to hell for fighting back against sexual abuse.

 

I don`t think it was that so much as they brought in her actually sympathetic backstory much too late. Until then she was such a cliché. The cunning, beautiful thief who outsmarts the guys at every turn. And it was so obnoxious.

 

Amanda over on Highlander was a similar character and she fooled Duncan, the lead of the show, a few times. But not all the damn time. Not like freaking Roadrunner and Wily Coyote. Yet that is what Bela did, especially to Dean since she was more often paired with him. When I like the leads of a show, I do not enjoy guest stars who come in and are made to look wonderful at the actual lead`s expense all the time. That is a quick way to turn me against guest character.

 

It doesn`t help then to throw in a "see, what a misunderstood woobie" curveball at the 11th hour. I think little Bela had a horrible childhood and didn`t deserve to be forced into a deal and ultimately go to hell for it. Problem is, I can`t muster up sympathy when Big Bela bugs me as much as that freaking obnoxious Roadrunner. I wouldn`t like HIM any better either if he had a tragic childhood. :)

 

Lauren Cohan wasn`t the problem. I did enjoy the actress muchly over on Vampire Diaries but Bela was just a big balls of no. Even in her own show, I would have then rooted for a guest star to come in and continously make her look the fool. Just for cosmic payback.  

[Pete Martell]

I think the show was never the same after the second season wasn't the success that Kripke or the network may have expected, and panic mode set in. After that the show lost much of the craft it had established in the first two seasons. The juvenile, crass humor was amped up, as was the hostility toward women and treating women as objects. The heavy-handed parallels and having characters literally scream lines like I KILLED MY BROTHER!!! began. The shock value deaths done because of abject terror of having any type of canvas. The tonal issues and odd pacing. The obsession with angst over storytelling. 

Carver seems to know where he wants to go, but I think he lacks the managerial skills to bring his team into one cohesive voice so the show seems rather disjointed (plus, I think the show is taking itself far too seriously under his reign).

 

Sometimes I wish he took it more seriously. The serious plots in season 8 didn't work, but Dean's story, which was very depressing and somber, worked well in season 9 - probably the best story arc since season 3 or 4. Yet the show doesn't want to commit to sacrificing the winks and nods. As a result, dead end characters like Crowley stay around because they are, essentially, in on the joke that the show sees itself as.

[SueB]

 

As a result, dead end characters like Crowley stay around because they are, essentially, in on the joke that the show sees itself as.

I can see the opinion that the show is a joke (not my opinion, mind you, but that someone feels this way). I see zero indications that the show feels this way.  Evidence that suggests the contrary:

- The skint (that means 'cheap' for those who don't recognize the term) netlet CW has made a fairly big deal out of the 200th.  And Mark Pedowitz?  Thrilled with the show.  And yes, it's now become a bit of a flagship for the netlet because of it's reliability, but Pedowitz in interviews is clearly a show watcher.  And he's told Carver & Company the show goes on as long as they want it too.

- Did you see the mockumentary?  That's a labor of love.  If the show is a joke, just a reliable paycheck...they don't put themselves out like that. And Carver was in that.  Making fun of himself.  Did you see him on twitter on Halloween?  This guy is having fun.

- 'Fan Fiction' was fantastic.  I like that Robbie Thompson said he was ready to kill all the other writers to make sure he got to write that one.  Doesn't sound like he's punching a clock or thinks the show is a joke. 

- Read the tweets of Bobo Berens, Robbie, and Adam Glass.  Glass can piss fans off, but he's in the office on weekend and holidays tweeting when he's working.  I bet they are not on an hourly salary. Robbie is hilarious with his constant #Supernatural reminders. Bobo engages even hostile fans with respect.  They get frustrated (especially Glass) but there tweets bubble over in enthusiasm.

- Read the tweets of the production crew: Jim Micheals, Ryan Curtis, Ross Hamilton...they tweet often.  No one pays them extra to tweet about their job.  This definitly comes off as a labor of love.

- The stars: yes, they get a shit-ton of cash for it --- but those conventions would be a lot different if J2 and the rest didn't actually engage with the crowd like they do.  Mark S. tweets out at 1am when he's in the freaking gym. Alana Hoffman at 6 am (different gym).

- Finally, tweets from TV veterans like Timothy Omundson and comments from other actors make it clear that the two leads NEVER phone it in.  At the end of S8, Jensen spent HOURS on set during Mark & Jared's dramatic moments JUST to provide the appropriate reactions when Dean was in the scene. And the same has been said of Jared.  Yes, they can slip in and out of character on a dime, but they are leading their show with a passion and enthusiasm that is often remarked upon because of it's rarity.

 

So... sure, if you think that the show is a joke that's completely your prerogative.  But there is a ton of BTS material, DVD extras, interviews and social media that tell me that the people running the show do NOT think it's a joke. Like it or not, it's their labor of love.  Could they do better? Well of course.  But do they put a great deal of effort into what they do and how well they do it?  I think the answer is yes. 

Edited November 21, 2014 by SueB

[7kstar]

 

Sometimes I wish he took it more seriously. The serious plots in season 8 didn't work, but Dean's story, which was very depressing and somber, worked well in season 9 - probably the best story arc since season 3 or 4. Yet the show doesn't want to commit to sacrificing the winks and nods. As a result, dead end characters like Crowley stay around because they are, essentially, in on the joke that the show sees itself as.

Carver seems to be good with certain types of arc's.  Dean & Benny seemed golden, On the whole the MoC works.  But I think they are trying to please too many and avoid upsetting fans.  But the dark stuff does seem to flow better sometimes.

 

 Bobo engages even hostile fans with respect.  They get frustrated (especially Glass) but there tweets bubble over in enthusiasm.

- Finally, tweets from TV veterans like Timothy Omundson and comments from other actors make it clear that the two leads NEVER phone it in.  At the end of S8, Jensen spent HOURS on set during Mark & Jared's dramatic moments JUST to provide the appropriate reactions when Dean was in the scene. And the same has been said of Jared.  Yes, they can slip in and out of character on a dime, but they are leading their show with a passion and enthusiasm that is often remarked upon because of it's rarity.

 

  Like it or not, it's their labor of love.  Could they do better? Well of course.  But do they put a great deal of effort into what they do and how well they do it?  I think the answer is yes. 

I totally believe all are giving their best and that they care about it.  It is always easier to find fault, find what didn't work, it is much harder to fix what is broken.  The fact that the two leads aren't phoning it in, is great.  It is easy to do after doing it for so long, but I think they will give their all until the show ends.  I love that they mix comedy with drama.  As long as they remain passionate, I am for them continuing.  But I also want them going out with me wanting more, not leaving when I no longer care.   I think personally it is because they care so much that the show is still on the air.

[Pete Martell]

I can see the opinion that the show is a joke (not my opinion, mind you, but that someone feels this way). I see zero indications that the show feels this way.

 

When I say joke, I don't mean that they don't take the work seriously. I think the main cast, the crew, and some of the writers do (sorry but no one can convince me people like Jenny Klein do...).

 

I mean they have a very "inside" view of the material and the show's history, and assume fans do as well (and many fans do, of course), so they play up to that. For instance, the meta on meta on meta, the gay jokes, the dick of death jokes, a comedy segment with Mary on the ceiling, Crowley still being there mostly for one-liners and safe flirtations, even though it's gotten past the point where there is less than no reason why Sam and Dean haven't killed him. 

 

One of the reasons I was hoping Abaddon would stay around is because she was a much more serious foil. There was no winking to the audience like a cute sitcom child. 

 

The first two seasons had winks and shoutouts, but were serious in tone, without going overboard into maudlin (the way season 4 did). I feel like the show really should look back to that material.

[rue721]

I think the show was never the same after the second season wasn't the success that Kripke or the network may have expected, and panic mode set in. After that the show lost much of the craft it had established in the first two seasons. The juvenile, crass humor was amped up, as was the hostility toward women and treating women as objects. The heavy-handed parallels and having characters literally scream lines like I KILLED MY BROTHER!!! began. The shock value deaths done because of abject terror of having any type of canvas. The tonal issues and odd pacing. The obsession with angst over storytelling.

 

ITA about the shift in tone from S2 to S3, and I think there was another one about halfway through S4, in the same "more macho!" and "as heavy-handed as possible!" direction. You really put it perfectly.

 

I haven't heard about the ratings panic after S2, though. What happened? Looking back, the ratings look really solid? Were the demos different from what they thought? Was it about the network's change from the WB to the CW?

[DittyDotDot]

From what I understand, the ratings were steady--not spectacular, but steady--in S2, but the first three years were always nailbiters when it came to renewal time--which isn't necessarily always about ratings. The show was their odd-man-out and I don't think they knew what to do with it. S2 was the first year on the CW. The network was new and was trying to find their core audience. There was a big push from the network to focus on young "girly" material--and I don't think a horror drama about to guys really fit their ideas. So, the network renewed the show for S3, but also made some demands of the show--adding some regular female cast members and brightening up the show considerably. Since S4, with the exception of S8, the show has been blessed with an early renewal notice.

 

While S3 isn't my favorite, I don't feel like those network demands made the show so different tonally--it was still the little show that could--it was still rooted in blue-collar Americana while hunting things and saving people. The color and lighting pallet was something--and I don't mean something good--but it was also their first year shooting digitally and many shows had a hard time transitioning to the new media, so I give them a little break there. Personally, I think the biggest shift tonally happened in S4 with the introduction of the angels. To me that's when the show hit a point of no return. It no longer was this little show, with little hunts and little victories; it now was a fight between heaven, hell and for the fate of the entire human race. Now, I loved the introduction of the angels back in the day and I think it was a shake up the show really needed, but I also don't think the show was never the same after. I think it also hurt the show greatly to lose Kim Manners that same year, IMO. I think he was the steady hand the show has been missing for a very long time.

[Pete Martell]

While S3 isn't my favorite, I don't feel like those network demands made the show so different tonally--it was still the little show that could--it was still rooted in blue-collar Americana while hunting things and saving people. The color and lighting pallet was something--and I don't mean something good--but it was also their first year shooting digitally and many shows had a hard time transitioning to the new media, so I give them a little break there. Personally, I think the biggest shift tonally happened in S4 with the introduction of the angels. To me that's when the show hit a point of no return. It no longer was this little show, with little hunts and little victories; it now was a fight between heaven, hell and for the fate of the entire human race. Now, I loved the introduction of the angels back in the day and I think it was a shake up the show really needed, but I also don't think the show was never the same after. I think it also hurt the show greatly to lose Kim Manners that same year, IMO. I think he was the steady hand the show has been missing for a very long time.

 

For me the biggest difference was in the overall presentation of the show. Before season 3, it was a serious show which allowed for some humor and goofiness within that framework. There were still standalone episodes that were lighthearted ("Tall Tales," "Hollywood Babylon"), but they still felt like part of a natural flow.

 

Season 3 swerved toward a hard sell of absurdity, treated as a shortcut for characterization. For instance, the way they handled Dean's reactions in "Magnificent Seven." It was one thing to let us know that he was coping with sex, but they repeatedly had him interrupting the case so he could try to get some tail. I felt as if they assumed viewers were stupid and needed to be reminded 3 or 4 times, in the crudest way possible, that Dean was having a hard time dealing with his impending death/trip to Hell. And I thought it made the character look terrible.

 

This continued on throughout most of the early season 3 stories, where forced merriment made a complete hash of an already bad episode ("Red Sky at Morning"), got in the way of an otherwise decent plotline (Dean reconnecting with Lisa being overshadowed by Ben being a clone of him in a way that seemed creepy and inane), reminded me of a very crass Crimetime After Primetime episode from 1989 (that idiot hunter friend of Dean's in "Sin City"), and just plain confused me (the bizarre whimsical murder style in "Bedtime Stories" that threw me out of the episode, along with the ill-advised bro humor of Dean telling Sam how gay he was). Even episodes that did have some moments I really enjoyed, like "Bad Day at Black Rock," had mess to wade through (I didn't like the comedy criminals scenes, or the religious fanatic, and the writing for Bela was just awful - they were going for sleek, blunt, sexy, and yet devoted lengthy scenes to Dean damning her as a bad person [which meant many viewers would never accept her] and her shooting Sam [which meant many other viewers would never accept her]).

 

They toned this down as the season went along, but I still feel like it set a precedent they've never shaken.

 

Since season 3 the show has ping-ponged between abject misery and glib frat boy humor. Sometimes it works - it doesn't work as well now that Jensen and Jared are in their 30's, so they give some of that to Crowley (who can get away with being a pig) or they soften it somewhat - but overall I think it just makes the show feel too safe and makes the strong dramatic moments feel more like set pieces, not quite as powerful as they could be if the show had a more coherent tone and was willing to truly address some of the issues they bring up (especially about Dean's psyche and his childhood abuse).

 

I'm not saying glibness or whimsy has to be bad; sometimes i prefer it to misery and emo woe. I just wish that it wasn't often the default, or that I didn't feel like the show was sometimes afraid of moving away from it.

[7kstar]

For me the biggest difference was in the overall presentation of the show. Before season 3, it was a serious show which allowed for some humor and goofiness within that framework. There were still standalone episodes that were lighthearted ("Tall Tales," "Hollywood Babylon"), but they still felt like part of a natural flow.

 

Season 3 swerved toward a hard sell of absurdity, treated as a shortcut for characterization. For instance, the way they handled Dean's reactions in "Magnificent Seven." It was one thing to let us know that he was coping with sex, but they repeatedly had him interrupting the case so he could try to get some tail.  And I thought it made the character look terrible.

 

This continued on throughout most of the early season 3 stories, where forced merriment made a complete hash of an already bad episode ("Red Sky at Morning"), got in the way of an otherwise decent plotline (Dean reconnecting with Lisa being overshadowed by Ben being a clone of him in a way that seemed creepy and inane),  Even episodes that did have some moments I really enjoyed, like "Bad Day at Black Rock," had mess to wade through (I didn't like the comedy criminals scenes, or the religious fanatic, and the writing for Bela was just awful - they were going for sleek, blunt, sexy, and yet devoted lengthy scenes to Dean damning her as a bad person [which meant many viewers would never accept her] and her shooting Sam [which meant many other viewers would never accept her]).

 

They toned this down as the season went along, but I still feel like it set a precedent they've never shaken.

 

Since season 3 the show has ping-ponged between abject misery and glib frat boy humor. Sometimes it works - it doesn't work as well now that Jensen and Jared are in their 30's, so they give some of that to Crowley (who can get away with being a pig) or they soften it somewhat - but overall I think it just makes the show feel too safe and makes the strong dramatic moments feel more like set pieces, not quite as powerful as they could be if the show had a more coherent tone and was willing to truly address some of the issues they bring up (especially about Dean's psyche and his childhood abuse).

 

Since I came after season 3, I found myself like both Bella and Ruby.  I did think they just didn't know what to do with them.  Your reasoning why fans wouldn't like Bella most likely was true.  I liked her in Bad Rock and Red Skye, but the old woman with Sam, yuck. 

 

I really think the show has suffered from the death of Kim Manners.  I do think he added so much to the first 3 seasons.

 

My real issue is that in season 4 they had the perfect opportunity to deal with Dean's issues and set it up and then said "got ya"  nope not dealing with it.  I agree they play it too safe and they can't seem to decide what direction they are going.  It had that problem in seasons 1-3 but it wasn't as obvious as it is now, IMO.

 

I also loved the introduction of the angels and it started off with a bang but then now it just doesn't seem to fit.    Cas works better when he is with the boys than on his own.  I think the other issue is that they don't really watch it from a fan's perspective.  I think if they did, they might be more surprised and see what the fans are fussing about.  JMV

[SueB]

 

My real issue is that in season 4 they had the perfect opportunity to deal with Dean's issues and set it up and then said "got ya"  nope not dealing with it.  I agree they play it too safe and they can't seem to decide what direction they are going.

Interestingly enough, I just read an old interview scanned in on Tumblr (dustily): http://dustily.tumblr.com/post/54237965268/eric-kripke-interview-from-issue-8-of-the

 

Seems to me, they didn't have a detailed plan for Dean to go to Hell and their focus was Sam going dark.  They improvised due to the writers' strike. So they dumped Dean in Hell, raised him up and that was the B-story to Sam's going dark A-story.  But now add Jensen Ackles and the amazing Misha Collins and it's hard not to see this is a missed opportunity.  IMO they had to introduce Angels to yank Dean out of hell -- and the whole show changed. Now I had heard about the Angels coming out of the writer's strike but now it sure looks more incidental to solving the logistics issue (how to get Dean back quickly) than the Micheal vs Lucifer vessel plot.  Does anyone know WHEN the vessel plot was introduced? Was it always the plan for dark side Sam or just how it manifested? 

 

Regardless, I think Kripke had Sam going to Hell early on (at least NLT early S5), which gave them at least from January (when the decision was made to continue SPN) to June to correct the mistake of not really handling Dean's hell story all that well by doing more with Sam's.  Shit happens.

[DittyDotDot]

Now I had heard about the Angels coming out of the writer's strike but now it sure looks more incidental to solving the logistics issue (how to get Dean back quickly) than the Micheal vs Lucifer vessel plot.  Does anyone know WHEN the vessel plot was introduced? Was it always the plan for dark side Sam or just how it manifested?

 

 

The vessels weren't introduced until the beginning of S5--Dean was revealed as Michael's vessel in Sympathy For The Devil and Sam was revealed as Lucifer's in Free To Be You And Me. Personally, I've always thought the original plan, back at the start of the series, was Sam would be taken over by Satan in some form.  I think the part they didn't work out until S4 was Dean's side of things. I'm sure he was always integral--yes I know that's not a popular opinion here--but I think his story changed drastically once they introduced the angels. All the sudden there were some new possibilities that were off the table before. Kripke said many times in interviews that angels were never the plan and when writers would try to pitch angel stories he'd tell them there were no angels in Supernatural. But after the writer's strike and they ended up sending Dean to Hell, he realized angels needed to exist on the show.

 

 

Regardless, I think Kripke had Sam going to Hell early on (at least NLT early S5), which gave them at least from January (when the decision was made to continue SPN) to June to correct the mistake of not really handling Dean's hell story all that well by doing more with Sam's.  Shit happens.

 

I agree with you that the plan always was for Sam to go to Hell at the end of the series. I hear a lot of fans say there was a different plan starting with Point Of No Return that got scraped once they learned of the renewal notice for S6, but I see little to no evidence to support this. The official renewal notice wasn't announced until after they finished shooting Point Of No Return, so I think that episode is how they planned it to be. I do think they made some tweaks to Swan Song--namely that people lived and Dean going to be with Lisa and Ben--but I don't think they ever planned for Dean to say yes to Michael. Personally, I think the plan was for all of Team Free Will to die and no one would be left that knew of their sacrifice--other than Chuck, of course. Which would fit into one of the early themes of the show quite well, IMO. They always lived on the fringes saving folks who didn't even know they existed.

[catrox14]

Even if shit happens, the show has had ample opportunity since s4 to revisit beyond On the Head of a Pin, what Dean went through.

 

Sam going to Hell and his experience =/= Dean going to Hell and his experience. In no way do I accept Sam's Hell experience as an avatar for Dean. Because Sam did not go through what Dean went through and vice versa.  Dean was made to torture dead human souls for 10 fucking years. That is going to affect Dean differently than Sam's time of 200 years of torture at the hands of insane archangels.  I am not saying one had it worse than the other. Just that it's going to affect them in different ways.  And we saw in great detail what that did to Sam. Whilst Sam's soul was literally removed from him, I would argue that Dean's soul was compromised because he tortured other people.

 

I wonder to this day if Dean was ever absolved of his 'sins" in Hell.  I was really hoping they would tie in Dean's time with actual demons as a part of his "demon!Dean" thing but alas.  It's just really frustrating.

[SueB]

I wonder to this day if Dean was ever absolved of his 'sins" in Hell.

I'd have to say yes as per Joshua God granted them salvation. ITA that exploring Sam's time doesn't remotely make up for failing to explore Dean's time. I'm just saying there's rationale why they didn't make the same mistake twice. And I also agree, I'd love them to somehow explore the impact again given Dean's current issues.

[AwesomO4000]

The weird thing about them not exploring the effects of Dean going to hell on him was that it wasn't for lack of time or focus on Dean in season 4. Sam's story of going dark was the main story, but weirdly a lot of it happened offscreen - in my opinion anyway. We would know that Sam would be off with Ruby somewhere, but we wouldn't see what he was doing with Ruby for the most part. A lot of Dean's onscreen time instead was focused on the angels priming him for *something* (it turned out to be trying to get him to be Michael's vessel) and alienating him from Sam. I'm wondering if Castiel's expanded role - assuming that it was originally smaller - took away from that a bit (in other words, when Castiel was onscreen with Dean, Dean wasn't going to be talking about his experiences with him.) But I'm also wondering if they just weren't sure how to address it properly, but still wanted the angst of it. They may have figured out too late that it was just too large a concept and that they'd gone too far over the top to properly look at it without making that over-the-top nature look even more ill-advised.

 

In my opinion, the angels were kind of short-sighted. They should have tempted Dean with promising to take his hell memories away rather than threatening to send him back. In my opinion that had the potential to be more effective.

[DittyDotDot]

But I'm also wondering if they just weren't sure how to address it properly, but still wanted the angst of it. They may have figured out too late that it was just too large a concept and that they'd gone too far over the top to properly look at it without making that over-the-top nature look even more ill-advised.

 

Yeah, I think they thought it was a cool and rather bad-ass idea, but the show neither had the maturity or the means to really do this story properly, IMO. I think they realized far too late that they painted themselves into a corner. So they decided to muck up the entire floor getting back out rather than painting back over their footsteps on the way out.

 

Wow, that is one tortured little metaphor right there.

[7kstar]

Interestingly enough, I just read an old interview scanned in on Tumblr (dustily): http://dustily.tumblr.com/post/54237965268/eric-kripke-interview-from-issue-8-of-the

 

Seems to me, they didn't have a detailed plan for Dean to go to Hell and their focus was Sam going dark.  They improvised due to the writers' strike. So they dumped Dean in Hell, raised him up and that was the B-story to Sam's going dark A-story.  But now add Jensen Ackles and the amazing Misha Collins and it's hard not to see this is a missed opportunity.  IMO they had to introduce Angels to yank Dean out of hell -- and the whole show changed. Now I had heard about the Angels coming out of the writer's strike but now it sure looks more incidental to solving the logistics issue (how to get Dean back quickly) than the Micheal vs Lucifer vessel plot.  Does anyone know WHEN the vessel plot was introduced? Was it always the plan for dark side Sam or just how it manifested? 

 

Regardless, I think Kripke had Sam going to Hell early on (at least NLT early S5), which gave them at least from January (when the decision was made to continue SPN) to June to correct the mistake of not really handling Dean's hell story all that well by doing more with Sam's.  Shit happens.

At the end of Season 3, Sam's eyes go black.  So the plan was always for Dean to save Sam from being the monster.  Dean wasn't suppose to go to hell at all.  Then they came up with the angel storyline and kept it a true secret which is one reason Season 4's opening is such a  strong opening, JMV.

 

Cas was only suppose to be in 4 to 6 eps, but fans liked him so much that they expanded his role.  I think that is why he was such a poor fighter in the beginning I think he would have been killed off.

 

What would have happened if 5 had been the real end...not totally sure other than Cas would have been killed and Bobby as well.  Would the mess with Adam still have happened I don't know.

 

I did read an interview with Gamble stating that they had to work to figure out what to do with Sam as they had to re-film the ending.  I know some fans had a clearer picture that had been around longer than I was a fan, but I don't know what differences they would have done.

 

I do think they set up stuff and then never deal with it.  Like why did Dean's eyes bleed in "Bloody Mary"  We were teased about yes, there was a story, but the time wasn't right to share and it wasn't when dean played video games instead of watching Sammy.  sometimes I also think they don't know what they are going to do and then meet and say how do we get out of this mess.  Which usually creates more problems.  I think Kripke had a broad plan and said look we can tie this to this ep.  Sometimes he really did plan it, but I really wonder how much was really planned in advanced.

 

He created three ideas for the pilot and two of them were not that good, so I'm not totally surprised about the mess we see sometimes.  JMV

[DittyDotDot]

What would have happened if 5 had been the real end...not totally sure other than Cas would have been killed and Bobby as well.  Would the mess with Adam still have happened I don't know.

 

I did read an interview with Gamble stating that they had to work to figure out what to do with Sam as they had to re-film the ending.  I know some fans had a clearer picture that had been around longer than I was a fan, but I don't know what differences they would have done.

 

I think I know of the interview you speak of, but couldn't find it this morning. As I recall, they shot the stuff with Sam running away from Dean at Lisa's house at the end of the episode as an add-on scene. But I might be thinking of something entirely different than you. I did however find a different interview with her about Swan Song at the time it aired, relevant bit:

 

io9: Did you guys change "Swan Song" at all after you got picked up for another season? Was that how you were always going to end the series?

SG: We knew we were returning for another season well before Eric [Kripke] sat down to write the finale. So, the episode you saw was the story he worked on from the beginning. As for whether or not the episode resembles Eric's vision of the series finale, had the story ended there ... this is a great question for someone to ask Eric. I'd feel weird speaking for him about what was in his head.

 

 Full inteiew here: http://io9.com/5543025/supernaturals-showrunner-sera-gamble-talks-about-god-and-endings

 

 

Personally, I think the Adam mess was the plan all along mostly because the official renewal notice came through on February 17, 2010 and they started shooting Point of No Return--the episode Michael takes over Adam--the first week of February, which means the episode had already been shot and well into post-production before they found out about the renewal for S6 since their shooting schedule is usually about eight days per episode. That, of course, doesn't mean they didn't reshoot a lot of it, I just haven't come across anything to suggest they did. Plus, that can be very expensive and getting guest stars to come back for re-shoots can be tricky. I really don't know for sure, but that's my theory right now.

 

I do agree with you that Kripke had the broad strokes figured out, but the details they figured out as they went along. My comment above about thinking Sam was always supposed to end up being taken over by Satan is just my speculation based on interviews and where the story seemed to be heading before they introduced the angels. I've never seen anything official that said this was the case though.

[SueB]

Long post EATEN by my computer. Insert IMO for every sentence.

Short version: "Better to Burn Out than Fade Away" -- Kripke thesis statement IMO along with song lyrics for Dean's interruption of the apocalypse.

Sam's story straightforward: S1-2 Fight against darkside, S3-4 go darkside, S5 redemption.

Dean's was less story and more ethos: family is what matters

Sam goes out Butch & Sundance style. Dean enables Sam to take control by staying by his side, even if he was going to die. Dean gets a pre-made family. Everyone else probably died originally.

 

Kripke stated he LOVED the finale and was disappointed that everyone didn't love it as much. So, even with what I suspect was a change (Bobby lives, Cas lives, and Sam comes back) -- I think Kripke was happy because in the end, it was "familial love that enabled Sam's redemption".  Seems pretty straightforward to me. I KNOW Mileage Varies.  I'm just speaking to what I think was Kripke's intent and why he was happy with the outcome.

 

PS DittyDotDot, I need my brain back from 4-6 pm, otherwise you can continue to share it as I'm just doing laundry.

[Aeryn13]

I don`t think Suck Song was the always intended ending. Maybe I`m giving Kripke more credit than he deserves but I don`t think this assy piece was supposed to be "it".

 

The dialogue "Lucifer" and "Michael" are having could be somewhat lifted from Season 1 discussions between the brothers with the "good son" vs "I`m a rebel" variety. The scene as was ended up being pretty atrocious and Adam was completely misplaced. I think it was supposed to be Dean and they would be falling into the plothole together.  

 

I also believe the network gave them the thumbs up before the official announcement. That is not so unusual.   

 

 

I think Kripke was happy because in the end, it was "familial love that enabled Sam's redemption".

 

If he truly only ever cared about Sam`y mythos, Sam`s darkside and Sam`s redemption, I wish he would have given Sam simply a dog or something to drive around with. It is less insulting to give such a "role" to an animal.

 

Seeing as I have to live with that episode, I`m at least happy it got some scathing critique. Kripke shouldn`t have been such a fool as not to expect it after writing a Finale for "Samnatural". 

[Pete Martell]

I don't think Kripke ever cared about exploring Dean's baggage from Hell. I have a feeling he would dismiss that type of topic as "whining" and assume viewers don't want to see it. I think the main reason for Dean's tenure in Hell was to reinforce to Sam that Dean was weak, and to give him more justification for continuing his plans. It was also yet another reason for brother wars and brother angst. I think it was also done to tell us that Dean would never be able to handle the apocalypse on his own - that he could only be of value through helping others (which was reinforced again in late season 5, in an even more heavy-handed manner).

 

As for the angels, I think they were great for most of season 4. They were always quite obviously up to little good, but they were mysterious and ethereal up to Zachariah, who was just this one-note, smirky cliche of big business. Once he took center stage most of the worst cliches about angels began, and it's rarely let up.

[mertensia]

I never did figure out why Kripke et alia never saw -with all of their Sam is Luke Skywalker! Dean is Han Solo comments- that people were just as interested if not moreso in Han and that the same held and holds true for Dean.

[shang yiet]

No, I don't believe in this conspiracy theory that Kripke and everyone ignored Dean because Sam is his favourite and was taken by surprise by fan interest in Dean. As early as the third episode Dead in the Water, the emotional beat of the series was handed over to Dean and he got more and more focus. Many of the earlier episodes were written even before they could gauge fan interest in either brother.

[SueB]

If I gave the impression that I thought Kripke ignored Dean then I need to clarify. On the contrary, I think he saw the two together and realized his show was not what he originally thought but would be much better with an emphasis on family. And that's a testament to the J2 chemistry and frankly Jensen's talent. He could go for far more meaty interpersonal stories and did so. In th Special, they all credit 'Faith' with the episode that really changed the dynamic. And Kripke said it was a lot about Dean.

What I was trying to say is that the basic plot arc for Sam's character was straightforward. What they did with Dean is bring out the major theme of the show (family). It was an evolved theme but one that rests pretty heavily on Dean's POV.

I'm not a literary expert (clearly) but I am under the impression that plot and subject actually are transcended by overall theme. Now both Sam and Dean have pieces of plot, can be the subject, and express the theme. But whatever the theme Kripke originally intended, it was changed by the time they got to Faith.

Edited November 25, 2014 by SueB