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

[Mcolleague]

Didn't somebody (Kripke?) just say recently that they only realized the goldmine they hit in the characters/relationships/emotional resonance by the time they got to Faith? I think the human/emotional POV storylines were supposed to be a B arc, it was not even part of Kripke's original pitch, the family drama part was the stuff he made up on the spot. The fact that it worked so well is blind luck, and actor chemistry, and at the time having a really good writing team. 

[Aeryn13]

Yeah, Kripke`s original idea was a reporter travelling around, searching out the Supernatural. Maybe a rebellious younger son as well who wanted to escape the roots of his blue collar origin or whatnot. There wasn`t a travelling companion, though. That was the afterthought when the network rejected the original pitch.

 

Hence, I can believe Kripke always had the story of ONE guy in mind. And his real interest was in the mini horror movies/urban legends, not exactly character beats and emo stuff. So giving that to add-on character doesn`t exactly strike me as a writerly focus. I mean, he had to have something to do onscreen. Sam had the entire story so what was the show going to be? Sam being driven around by a mute chauffeur who disappeared from the screen whenever they parked the car?     

[SueB]

Interestingly, though, the audition scene is the one on the bridge (from the Pilot) where they are arguing about their mother.  Which is, of course, the family connect.  I think it was a good audition scene because it hit both the drama and the chemistry button.  Seeing Jared's audition tape (it was on one of the DVDs), a single character in that scene just doesn't get the job done.  It needed both. 

[Aeryn13]

The audition scene was from the pre-revised script, wasn`t it? I remember thinking that in the script, the Sam-character earlier made the point about going his own way and not sacrificing everything for some "duty to society", i.e. to do hunting. Which, so far, so show. 

 

But then miraculously, when they find a hunt, Dean wants to just leave the case and first-script-Sam is all "but we have a duty to save people, it`s callous to just leave them for your own goals". So Dean was just a dark opposing figure to show Sam in a better light by comparism.

 

And both scenes were written with the underlying tone of Sam was right in each case. Seriously, Kripke, you wrote your guy to switch life philosophies when convenient in the span of a few script pages  to magically be the right one in every situation? And not come across like a flaming hypocrite? Luckily, someone, most likely Kim Manners, probably slapped him over the head with it but I think that was a very blatant "I`m the younger sibling who went away and my mean bully family is wrong, wrong, wrong and the world will see my greatness." autobiographical issue of Kripke`s. Unfortunately, he never quite let that go. Making Sam the messiah who saved the world and Dean`s lesson, as per Kripke, to have to learn to love and appreciate Sam just right? Reminded me of a diary entry of an angry teenager, phantasizing about his home town throwing him this parade after all.

[Mulva]

Interestingly enough he has a lot of well defined negative traits, selfish, superiority complex, arrogant, manipulative, won't take blame, etc. Sam makes more sense as a villain,

I honestly have never seen Sam as having any of those traits. I've seen Sam be far more forgiving, especially to Cas, than most people would be, I saw him jump into hell to redeem himself for the apocalypse Dean started, and as for 'selfish', he gave up his friends, his schooling and his career for Dean.

[Aeryn13]

 

I saw him jump into hell to redeem himself for the apocalypse Dean started, 

Dean broke the first seal unknowingly under duress. Then there were numerous seals broken by the bad guys.

 

In terms of Sam breaking the last one, it holds a bit more negative weight for me that Sam fell under Ruby`s sway because he liked how she made him feel strong and he ultimately killed Lilith because she laughed at him and hurt his pride.  

 

When Ruby told him how nicely she had played him, I thought : can I get another reading on the "I`m stronger, smarter, better" line now? Definitely saw arrogance as his worst negative trait throughout the entire series. It`s one they never really worked on either so it`s still my major problem. 

 

 as for 'selfish', he gave up his friends, his schooling and his career for Dean.

 

When he first went with him? That was done out of his own motivation to want to avenge Jessica. Then later because he found out there was a "destiny" waiting for him that very well meant he couldn`t go back to a normal life. 

[7kstar]

Didn't somebody (Kripke?) just say recently that they only realized the goldmine they hit in the characters/relationships/emotional resonance by the time they got to Faith? I think the human/emotional POV storylines were supposed to be a B arc, it was not even part of Kripke's original pitch, the family drama part was the stuff he made up on the spot. The fact that it worked so well is blind luck, and actor chemistry, and at the time having a really good writing team. 

There is a full pilot script that had John dead and Dean trying to get Sam to help him figure out how his father died.

The network hated the idea so he went back to the drawing board and came up with the pilot we know. 

 

His first pitch was news reporters and had nothing to do with family.  Both Jensen & Jared read for Sam, in fact they flew Jensen in to read for Sam, which they didn't do for Jared. Kripke realized he had two Sam's but zero Dean's.  So they asked Jensen to read for Dean and the rest is history.

 

The focus was all on the myths and urban legends and so the focus was on Sam very much in the beginning.  Then Manners and Bob so the gold in the family dynamics and got Kripke to see it.  Hence a change in the writing. 

 

Krikpe used the Star Wars analogy so yes he was very much interesting in Luke Skywalker.  Jess was originally suppose to be a Demon, but he decided against that.  What none of them were prepared for was the chemistry between the two actors that created gold.  Jensen recently admitted that he wasn't suppose to be more than a supporting role but then things started changing.  I don't think Krikpe ever saw  a myth arc for Dean until Season 4.  How it would have ended or at least how much different, we will never know.  But anyway you look at it, the show took a life of it's own and Krikpe was smart enough to listen to some extent to others. 

[catrox14]

I thought Jensen requested to read for Dean because he liked the character more and that they tapped jared for Sam but wanted him to audition.

[shang yiet]

I'm glad Sam had his own reasons for giving up schooling and friends. I'd hate to think he did it all for Dean, like what brother would demand you give up college for him? That would be selfish and Dean wouldn't be that selfish, would he?

 

After seeing Dean mauled by hell hounds and being unable to keep his promise to save Dean from hell, I can well understand how Sam was in a bad shape, suicidal and all, and ripe for Ruby to manipulate. I don't hold that against him. I don't see that as pure arrogance and even if arrogance was a part of all that, so what? The guy is not perfect, only human after all. He is allowed a few flaws, just like Dean,

[SueB]

Thanks for the background 7kstar. I also think the director, David Nutter (who directs a great many pilots), had a big influence. It was mentioned several times in the DVD commentary how influential he was.  Nutter directed the first two (both written by Kripke) and then Kim Manners directed the third (written by Gamble & Tucker). With the third being "Dead in the Water" there was a definite improvement IMO in terms of character depth.  And I'm going to credit Kim Manners with a lot of that.  Gamble/Tucker get credit for creating the Dean/Lucas scene in the first place, but Manners/Ackles gets credit IMO for making that scene sing.  And Sam's reaction "who are you and what did you do with my brother" was really a nice way of highlighting that we were seeing into Dean's inner self.  For me, it was "Dead in the Water" that sealed the deal for me on the series.  The guy drowning in the sink still freaks me right the hell out. And the character moments were great.

 

 

After seeing Dean mauled by hell hounds and being unable to keep his promise to save Dean from hell, I can well understand how Sam was in a bad shape, suicidal and all, and ripe for Ruby to manipulate. I don't hold that against him. I don't see that as pure arrogance and even if arrogance was a part of all that, so what? The guy is not perfect, only human after all. He is allowed a few flaws, just like Dean,

  I think Mystery Spot also did a HUGE number on Sam's head.....taking the rest of my thoughts to the Sam thread....

[Aeryn13]

 

I'd hate to think he did it all for Dean, like what brother would demand you give up college for him? That would be selfish and Dean wouldn't be that selfish, would he?

 

I don`t think Dean demanded it and I agree it was Sam`s decision, made for his own motivations. I was arguing against saintifying Sam for it.

 

 

I don't see that as pure arrogance and even if arrogance was a part of all that, so what? The guy is not perfect, only human after all. He is allowed a few flaws, just like Dean,

 

Again, I agree. Like I said, arrogance has always been the character`s biggest flaw for me. I don`t necessarily even have a problem with it. Just with the way I think the show doesn`t see it as one or doesn`t see him having flaws. I was just addressing the notion that Sam had no arrogance, condescension or other negative traits named before which I disagree with. Dean has flaws, it would be ridiculous to say otherwise. I know there is a "Sam is better than Jesus" movement on tumblr, I just epically disagree with all of it.  

[7kstar]

I thought Jensen requested to read for Dean because he liked the character more and that they tapped jared for Sam but wanted him to audition.

The story goes that Jensen was brought in to read for Sam.  Jared was brought in to read for Sam, then they had two Sam's but not a Dean.  Then the question was brought up to have Jensen read for Dean and he had prepared for that because it was the character he was most interested to play.  They liked what they saw and the rest is history. 

 

Now did Jensen request to read for Dean, I don't remember but he wasn't originally brought in to read for Dean.  A smart actor is prepared especially if he is interested in doing it.  Jensen is smart.  :)

[shang yiet]

I don`t think Dean demanded it and I agree it was Sam`s decision, made for his own motivations. I was arguing against saintifying Sam for it.

 

 

Oh I know you are against saintifying Sam and I'm against saintifying Dean for his decisions. While Dean didn't demand Sam leave Stanford, he was clearly not happy about it. I still hate his attitude in Dark Side of the Moon.

 

I disagree the show doesn't think Sam has flaws, in fact, I think the opposite.

[Aeryn13]

 

While Dean didn't demand Sam leave Stanford, he was clearly not happy about it.

 

Well, how a character feels about their or other people`s choices is another thing. And you can`t control feelings. Sam hasn`t been happy about a lot of his or Dean`s decisions either. I think he regarded Dean staying with John as negatively as Dean regarded Sam going off to College. Not in the same way but if you think of something as disloyal or as pathetic, it`s a negative judgement either way.

[rue721]

I'm not sure there's all that much desperation about a spinoff. Until last season, there hadn't been any talk in a while of trying for a spinoff, as the CW obviously wasn't interested. That spinoff seemed to be so unlike SPN I've always assumed the CW called most of the shots. Now TPTB have talked again about if they do a spinoff, but I don't get the idea that it's a big priority or that they expect it to happen (especially since The Flash is a big hit for them and that may push the CW more toward comic book fare). I think it's just that any time this show features anyone but Sam, Dean, Cas, or Crowley for more than 2 seconds, people assume it must be a spinoff.

 

I hear they're going to do another backdoor pilot this season, though I don't know anything else about it. Bloodlines was so terrible that it snatched defeat from the jaws of victory, but (before it aired) there was much more hype for it than for the backdoor/pilots for The Flash or The Originals, and the names connected to Bloodlines were at least as big as the ones connected to either of those other backdoor pilots, too. I think Bloodlines was considered a relatively sure bet on being picked up, actually, until it aired and was so universally disliked that there was just no way. That spinoff didn't fail because the producers or anyone behind it had written it off, imo. If anything, I think the producers et al counted their chickens before they hatched and their overconfidence made them too complacent about turning out a really shitty pilot/episode/show. But of course that's just my personal guess.

 

There are all kinds of other (mostly financial) things that probably come into play, too, that no outsider is really going to know about. Or that I sure don't know about or really speculate on, anyway. For example, the CW seems to be trying to move more toward co-productions and gives its co-productions more leeway. SPN is obviously not a co-production since it even predates the CW (ffs! that always cracks me up. I want it to stick around forever if only because of that) and it's also Wonderland's big production/money-maker afaik. I'm not sure how CBS's interests, and Wonderland's interests, and whoever else's interests, might come into play in terms of getting a spinoff going. Maybe there are also people with a (financial) interest in SPN who *don't* want a spin-off to be successful, out of fear that once a replacement gets going, that the network will be happy putting SPN out to pasture. Who knows. (I would LOVE TO know about this stuff, though. So if you do, please tell me! :P).

 

Anyway, SPN is able to anchor a night for the CW and its ratings are inexplicably solid/growing, plus it's got the supernatural/heroes thing going on that's fashionable now, so I think that there is a 0% chance that they'd be happy with it just vanishing from the schedule without a trace ("a trace" as in, a spinoff). They've already gotten successful spinoffs going from Arrow and from TVD, too, so SPN is really the only strong show they've got on their schedule that they *haven't* been able to get a good spinoff from yet. I think that they're likely to keep trying until they get it. What's keeping things from becoming too urgent, imo, is that baring some kind of drama like one/both of the leads making impossible demands or refusing to sign new contracts or something (not likely to happen, imo), this is not the last season of the show. I say that not only because of the ratings, etc, but because you know they'd be MILKING the final season. Imo it's likely to be Smallville Final Season-level, x10. The way the CW has been billing this is just as a regular season. And I think it's hard to work up much urgency with no SPN characters to base a spinoff on. That's not fatal, the Flash wasn't a big character on Arrow after all, but I think that probably makes things more difficult and makes the attempts at putting together a spinoff more aimless.

 

Imo it would be great if they could do a spinoff (loosely) based on Constantine, b/c when the (imo, total shitshow of a) series came out on NBC this fall so many people were comparing it to SPN (the comparison was always unfavorable to Constantine from what I saw), and it did make me start thinking that those comics and Supernatural are set in very similar worlds, and could have a similar tone. That spinoff could kind of be the CW's version of Gotham. Which imo would also maybe be what the CW would be looking for anyway, because I think that what the CW is trying to do in general is to kind of wedge themselves more into what has traditionally been Fox's niche. I think they're trying for a brand that's a little quirky and young but relatively "network" and for (young) adults rather than teens. Meanwhile, ABC Family has been trying to move into the CW's niche for years now, and the CW has really dropped a lot of their teen-centric stuff in the meantime, but ABC Family kind of got kicked on their ass this season, so who knows what's going on with that.

[Pete Martell]

I hear they're going to do another backdoor pilot this season, though I don't know anything else about it. Bloodlines was so terrible that it snatched defeat from the jaws of victory, but (before it aired) there was much more hype for it than for the backdoor/pilots for The Flash or The Originals, and the names connected to Bloodlines were at least as big as the ones connected to either of those other backdoor pilots, too. I think Bloodlines was considered a relatively sure bet on being picked up, actually, until it aired and was so universally disliked that there was just no way. That spinoff didn't fail because the producers or anyone behind it had written it off, imo. If anything, I think the producers et al counted their chickens before they hatched and their overconfidence made them too complacent about turning out a really shitty pilot/episode/show. But of course that's just my personal guess.

 

I remember more backlash than hype, because of the fans who insisted that the show was using them and they'd never support anything that wasn't about Sam and Dean. I know there was some belief in the industry sites like Deadline that the show would be picked up, but I don't think it was ever a lock the way Flash and The Originals were, as both of them had already taken great pains to set up new shows (The Originals had characters spun off who'd been on the show for years, and a backdoor pilot that I think even ended up being repeated as an episode of The Originals the next fall; Arrow spent several episodes on Barry Allen, with his fate being left as a cliffhanger). Flash was 100% considered a done deal, as was Originals. Bloodlines never seemed like that level of absolute to me. 

 

I also don't believe the pilot was so terrible that it would never be allowed to see the light of a day as a series. I think it was forgettable, and I'm not surprised it wasn't picked up, but I think if they'd wanted it that much it would have been picked up to be tinkered with and maybe aired midseason.

 

One of the reasons I don't think it was just TPTB doing a horrible job and half-assing is because it didn't even feel like a typical bad episode of the show to me. It didn't really feel like an episode of Supernatural at all. So that's why I tend to wonder if the CW tried to get them to do a pilot that really wasn't like Supernatural, as they have no great interest in Supernatural itself, other than the brand. 

 

I know they said if they do another one it will have more involvement from Jared and Jensen, and Kripke also seems more involved, but I tend to think they won't get another chance. Even if it's a brilliant episode (which seems unlikely), the fans who went out of their way to scream that this was an abomination and a travesty and a betrayal probably made it clear the most vocal in the fandom won't support a spinoff that isn't shot inside Jared's nose or Jensen's nose. 

Edited December 17, 2014 by Pete Martell

[rue721]

I remember more backlash than hype, because of the fans who insisted that the show was using them and they'd never support anything that wasn't about Sam and Dean. I know there was some belief in the industry sites like Deadline that the show would be picked up, but I don't think it was ever a lock the way Flash and The Originals were, as both of them had already taken great pains to set up new shows (The Originals had a backdoor pilot that I think even ended up being repeated as an episode of The Originals the next fall, and Arrow spent several episodes on Barry Allen, with his fate being left as a cliffhanger). Flash was 100% considered a done deal, as was Originals. Bloodlines never seemed like that level of absolute to me.

 

One segment or another of SPN fans are always flipping their shit over something, I doubt that whatever faction of fans who preemptively decried Bloodlines before it even aired was all that important at that point. I think that the spinoff had the seal of approval from the producers and everyone who needed to give a seal of approval, which is why places like Deadline were taking it as basically a done deal, and all the backdoor pilot had to do was not totally screw up. But then the episode actually aired and everyone hated it, which was a big enough screw-up to get it binned regardless of who had backed it before it turned out to be so unpopular. I think a huge problem is that there was just nobody who wanted to see the story that the pilot was trying to set the series up to tell. And another huge problem is that the episode stank. And another huge problem is that it didn't have anything much to do with SPN. Those are the reasons I think it was unpopular, and imo it was binned because it was unpopular.

 

The Flash was only barely a backdoor pilot, the only reason I even knew that the Barry Allen intro episode was supposed to be a backdoor pilot for a series is because of reading articles online about it. I do think that was basically a lock, but that's also a different case than SPN, because with Green Arrow and the Flash, they're dealing with licensed characters. I would guess that they had to hammer out a lot of stuff beforehand, so by the time the Barry Allen episode aired, I do think that they were invested enough and had enough people on board that it would have had to have been a disaster for it not to have been picked up (and it wasn't a disaster at all, it was a pretty big success in terms of backdoor pilots, imo -- a good episode, and popular). One thing they did that I thought was a good idea is that they introduced Barry early but relatively subtly (he was a big character in his intro ep, but not unusually so -- there are plenty of side characters whose introductions have been as fleshed out), and *then* they started building the hype a lot more and getting people interested in the character a lot more. They didn't just throw Barry Allen/the Flash at Arrow viewers as a full concept, they did the "frog in boiling water" method of acclimatization (LOL). They've also been obsessive about the cross-overs between the Flash and Arrow, too, they've definitely tried to keep have the shows help each other out in terms of ratings/audience. I think that's smart, it's working very well imo. The Vampire Diaries and The Originals haven't done a ton w/r/t crossovers yet, but it'll be interesting to see what happens when a lot of the TVD's casts' contracts are up (after next season, iIrc?). Those shows are very definitely set in the same world, though, and events from one show directly impact the characters in another pretty often. They also have had cross-overs. And I think it's a different case in that way, because the mains on TO were mains on TVD for years before the spinoff attempt, so there didn't need to be as much hand-holding. Still, TO and TVD are definitely *nowhere near* as separate as Bloodlines and SPN would have been.

 

Anyway, the CW's success with having the mothership and the spinoff show overlap each other and interact a lot more in order to boost both shows (like Flash/Arrow have been doing, especially) is likely one reason why they would be talking about more involvement from the Winchesters in any spinoff attempt. The spinoff attempt that I think is most comparable to Bloodlines is that aborted Gossip Girl spinoff about a main character's mother, set when the mother was a teenager in the 80s. Imo the issues that that spinoff attempt and Bloodlines had were similar:  they were set in very different worlds than the worlds of the original shows, the opportunity for interaction between the mothership/spinoff shows' casts would have been extremely limited, and they were very self-contained episodes but neither were well-written or popular (episodes) in their own right. I think that the next time they try to do an SPN spinoff, they'll probably aim more for a Barry Allen-esque intro, and they'll definitely try harder to set the spinoff in the same world as SPN, a la TVD/TO. The problem for me there is that I feel like SPN has had a huge tonal shift in the past few years, and if they're going to spinoff of the show as it is *currently* and try to create spinoff based in the world of the show as it exists *currently,* imo they're going to have some trouble. Oddly, I find the world of the show *now* more dated and generic than it was back in the day -- though of course YMMV -- and think they'd do better if they did a bit of a throwback. But anyway. Which is why I throw out something Constantine-eque (the comics, not the show) as an idea.

 

Anyway, unlike the Flash, the Originals was a real backdoor pilot, but it was also a very strong pilot. Like I said, it was also all about characters who were already mains on TVD, so there didn't need to be a ton of background/exposition and it wasn't especially jarring to have an episode all about those characters. I'm not sure if TO's concept would ever have been greenlit if it weren't a spinoff, but that (backdoor) pilot was also definitely strong/liked enough to get a pickup just on its own merits imo. The series's supposed "actual" pilot is basically a rehash of the backdoor pilot's SL, told from another character's POV -- I'm not sure if they actually showed the "The Originals" TVD episode as a pilot episode for the show or not, though. Something else that's interesting about TVD and TO's relationship is that TVD is still only under WB, but TO is a co-production between WB and CBS. That's why TO has so much support and is pretty stable despite so-so ratings, imo -- the margins aren't as tight because the costs of production are spread out more, and I would think that it also helps that there are also more people/businesses invested in it and hoping that it won't fail. Then there are shows like Reign (and Hannibal) that get a ton of funding from being an international co-production. I really don't know the ins and outs of how that works, but it apparently cuts down *so much* on the cost, that shows can get away with pretty low ratings with it. Not sure about Reign specifically, but Hannibal is on the air because it's so ridiculously cheap for the network -- they only have to pay the licensing fee iIrc -- that there's just no way, I don't think, that they could get original programing for cheaper. Anyway, I think any SPN spinoff would likely be a co-production in some way or another, because the CW seems to be moving much more toward co-productions, for obvious reasons. But I'm not sure how that would work as far as Wonderland goes (or whether it would even come into it), and I don't know how that would effect which spinoff ideas would be palatable -- I mean, if the producers have to sell the idea to people from outside of WB, that might change what ideas they can/will sell. That's also why I wonder about people worrying about a spinoff pushing SPN off the air, because that would cut into their finances somehow. I'm not sure if that's a likely fear, or if that's not a problem. Idk, I'm really curious about who might be involved or who has a stake in what, in terms of the production companies and networks, but am totally ignorant about what's going on there.

 

Bah, sorry for the rambling. Anyway, my point is that I don't think that Bloodlines pissed in the pool so badly that nobody's ever going to try to make another spinoff. I'm sure there will be plenty of SPN fans screaming "ABOMINATION," because there are always plenty of SPN fans screaming "ABOMINATION." That just makes me think that they'll try to go more the Flash route of slow acclimatization rather than trying to do the Originals/Bloodlines route of dumping us into the deep end. If this were five or ten years ago, I think that it would be a larger possibility that there would be no more spinoff attempts, but not after the CW has tasted the sweet nectar of spinoff success with the Flash and the Originals, and definitely not for a show like SPN that isn't already an adaptation of books/comics/whatever that they'd need to buy the rights to.

[DittyDotDot]

The Flash was only barely a backdoor pilot, the only reason I even knew that the Barry Allen intro episode was supposed to be a backdoor pilot for a series is because of reading articles online about it.

 

I'd actually given up on Arrow, but was curious about The Flash so I watched Arrow's S2 to make sure I didn't miss anything before I watched The Flash. I didn't. You wouldn't even know the two episodes Barry Allen is in is a backdoor pilot. Barry Allen helps the Arrow team work a case, but he's not even The Flash yet nor is he really the focus of the episodes, IMO, he's just there for us to get to know him a little. They did have little mentions about the particle accelerator and stuff throughout the season, but not enough to distract you or anything. I would've never known it was a backdoor pilot if I hadn't read about it somewhere. As I recall, The Originals was introduced in the same way, but I've never watched The Vampire Diaries or The Originals, so I might not have all the information on that.

 

Anyway, I agree there's still a chance for Supernatural to do a spin off if they so choose, they just need to find the right angle on it. I didn't think Bloodlines was a terrible pilot, exactly (although, I probably wouldn't watch that show), but thought it was a poor episode of Supernatural. I think if they want to do a new show that has little to do with Supernatural, they should instead try to sell it as "made by the folks who brought you Supernatural" rather than trying to tell me it actually belongs in the Supernatural universe. Wow, that totally made sense in my head.

 

I still think Cole was conceived of as their Barry Allen. His story seemed so tangentially forced into the narrative this season and then wrapped up way too easily for me to believe they didn't have other ideas for him. It's kinda genius when you think about it--introduce the character without any fanfare and see if the audience warms to them. If not, no one is the wiser; if so, they got their next series.

[catrox14]

"I know they said if they do another one it will have more involvement from Jared and Jensen, and Kripke also seems more involved, but I tend to think they won't get another chance. Even if it's a brilliant episode (which seems unlikely), the fans who went out of their way to scream that this was an abomination and a travesty and a betrayal probably made it clear the most vocal in the fandom won't support a spinoff that isn't shot inside Jared's nose or Jensen's nose."

Most all the complaints I read here and in other forums is that it was not an episode of Supernatural nor a worthy spinoff ecause those are are built around a character that has previously exists generally as recurring character or advances the overall theme of the mothership and reflects at least some respect for the mothership. The betrayal and sense of being used arose from how much bloodlines did not havs even a passing resemblqnce to SPN even its latter years. It was for more akin to The Originals or TV&. If they wanted to use Sam And Dean to launch it they were barely in the episode. It's placement during the final 4 episodes didn't help it's cause either and along with Canon destruction .

I feel confident the CW, Kripke etc will look for another way to do a spinoff and it will reflect themothership more appropriately if they want the current t audience to follow. I think including jared and Jensen is out of respect to them as being what has kept the show going for 10 seasons.

Edited December 17, 2014 by catrox14

[Pete Martell]

 The problem for me there is that I feel like SPN has had a huge tonal shift in the past few years, and if they're going to spinoff of the show as it is *currently* and try to create spinoff based in the world of the show as it exists *currently,* imo they're going to have some trouble. Oddly, I find the world of the show *now* more dated and generic than it was back in the day -- though of course YMMV -- and think they'd do better if they did a bit of a throwback. But anyway. Which is why I throw out something Constantine-eque (the comics, not the show) as an idea.

 

It would mostly depend on who would be in the spinoff and who would be running it. Supernatural even now has very different tones depending on who wrote what episode. They have probably since season 3, season 5 at best, and the people who made the show more cohesive and plugged into a quasi-relevant urban/rural Americana are gone now. 

 

One of the reasons I was hoping for something like a Men of Letters spinoff is I think it could have been unique, it's territory they haven't covered, and they could even bring back cast members for new roles. 

 

If they won't do that, something like letting us see the daily lives of hunters who barely know Sam and Dean would interest me. 

 

If it's about Cole, or someone introduced for two minutes in an episode, I can't see it going anywhere, in the slim even they even get the chance.

[Pete Martell]

Most all the complaints I read here and in other forums is that it was not an episode of Supernatural nor a worthy spinoff ecause those are are built around a character that has previously exists generally as recurring character or advances the overall theme of the mothership and reflects at least some respect for the mothership. The betrayal and sense of being used arose from how much bloodlines did not havs even a passing resemblqnce to SPN even its latter years. It was for more akin to The Originals or TV&. If they wanted to use Sam And Dean to launch it they were barely in the episode. It's placement during the final 4 episodes didn't help it's cause either and along with Canon destruction .

 

I'm sure that was part of it, but the noisiest parts of fandom were upset, months before the episode aired, that the show would have used "Supernatural" in the title. I get that fans helped build Supernatural, and so did Jared and Jensen, but they treated that word being used for another show as a personal attack. That's when I knew they'd never give a spinoff a chance. And I doubt they ever will.

[catrox14]

When you say noisiest, what platform are speaking of, social media or what?

[Pete Martell]

Yes.

[rue721]

I still think Cole was conceived of as their Barry Allen. His story seemed so tangentially forced into the narrative this season and then wrapped up way too easily for me to believe they didn't have other ideas for him. It's kinda genius when you think about it--introduce the character without any fanfare and see if the audience warms to them. If not, no one is the wiser; if so, they got their next series.

 

I'm torn, because when they introduced him, in some ways it did seem like they were trying to slip in a Barry Allen intro, but they also fumbled it so badly in other ways. Why the weird casting? Why start him out torturing Sam? (And just to make that an even worse intro, Jared was even wearing that ridiculous shoulder brace and looked all skinny at that time). Why have demon!Dean make him look ridiculous in about ten seconds flat? That was basically setting him up to fail as a character the audience could get behind imo.

 

But in general with this show, it's hard to tell what's the TPTB being dumb, and what's TPTB being dumbasses, imo. I would think that they'd know not to introduce Cole in those ways if they actually wanted him to be successful, because of course the writers and producers are smart, talented people who are high up on the food chain for a reason (so they're being dumbasses and just setting Cole/spinoff ideas up to fail for some reason?). But on the other hand, there are often things that go on with this show that I can't imagine aren't just straight up accidents and screw ups, and so sometimes I think that the writers and producers maybe are genuinely trying to get us to like Cole, etc, but are failing (so they're just dumb?).

 

The set up for Donna was much better, imo -- they had her be well-liked within her milieu, set up some backstory for her and gave her a personal life/personal SL, prove herself in that (successful!) vampire hunt, and she learned about the supernatural more-or-less onscreen, so it works pretty well as an origin story. But I don't think that anyone is planning to base a spinoff on her, she's much too broad as a character, so I don't know why they made sure that she'd be as likeable as possible, lol.

 

Most all the complaints I read here and in other forums is that it was not an episode of Supernatural nor a worthy spinoff ecause those are are built around a character that has previously exists generally as recurring character or advances the overall theme of the mothership and reflects at least some respect for the mothership. The betrayal and sense of being used arose from how much bloodlines did not havs even a passing resemblqnce to SPN even its latter years.

 

Tbh, I still have probably not even watched the whole episode of Bloodlines. Maybe when it was aired, but I don't remember very well. At one point I tried to watch it on Netflix, but that time, I stopped once they'd fridged the fiancee. I just don't care about a supernatural mafia in Chicago or whatever the hell. Exactly zero of the reasons I like and watch SPN were included in that concept. To be fair, current!SPN no longer includes many the original reasons I like and watch SPN, but still, a spinoff needs to include at least *some* of those reasons as a hook. If I'm not going to have any of the characters I care about in the spinoff, then I need good music or pretty cars or the open road or urban legends or seat-of-the-pants resourcefulness or *something.* That's some of the stuff I started watching SPN for -- I'm not sure why I'd start watching Bloodlines, though. Or why Bloodliens would especially appeal to people who already like Supernatural anyway, since it has virtually no similarities.

 

The feelings of betrayal and threats to boycott any spinoff and all of that -- that's got to be expected, given how fractious and possessive SPN fans are as a whole. No idea why that's the case, but it is and always has been afaik. I think that Bloodlines also caused some feelings of betrayal that had already been simmering pretty high to boil over, the *only* problem wasn't Bloodlines itself. Again, I don't know why feelings of betrayal often seem like they're simmering within the fandom over this show, and I'm not even exempting myself from it -- but for whatever reason, it seems like any given SPN fan feels she has a beef with TPTB over *something.* What's weird imo is that the beefs are so different from person to person. Like, lots of people have a problem with Julie Plec's handling of the Vampire Diaries, but everyone basically has the *same* problem with her handling of TVD. With SPN, everybody hates somebody or something but it's just so all over the map what that somebody or something is. Not sure what that's about!

[Pete Martell]

I'm torn, because when they introduced him, in some ways it did seem like they were trying to slip in a Barry Allen intro, but they also fumbled it so badly in other ways. Why the weird casting? Why start him out torturing Sam? (And just to make that an even worse intro, Jared was even wearing that ridiculous shoulder brace and looked all skinny at that time). Why have demon!Dean make him look ridiculous in about ten seconds flat? That was basically setting him up to fail as a character the audience could get behind imo.

 

I don't think having Demon Dean make him look ridiculous was a fumble. There's no way he could have fought a demon, especially one with Dean's skills, and if he had, fans would have hated him even more. 

 

I don't think Cole was created for a spinoff, I think he was there to be a mirror to Dean (as Claire is), but other than the casting issues, I think the writing for him wasn't bad. I just don't really think there's enough there to support a spinoff for him.

[rue721]

I don't think having Demon Dean make him look ridiculous was a fumble. There's no way he could have fought a demon, especially one with Dean's skills, and if he had, fans would have hated him even more.

 

It wasn't logically ridiculous, but to show Cole be an asshole and/or a loser in every scene he was in wasn't going to endear him to anyone. So I have to think that either they weren't trying to endear him to anyone (what I personally would bet on) or they're completely clueless about how to endear a character to viewers (they've managed to endear other characters to viewers just fine, so I don't *think* this is the problem, but they've had enough bizarre missteps that I'm not 100% sure).

 

ETA:

 

Yeah, I think he was there to mirror Dean -- when the episode aired, I thought the point was that Dean was Cole's version of the YED. But Cole's SL seemed truncated, so I'm not really sure where they were originally going with that or if he's entirely done or what's going on.

Edited December 17, 2014 by rue721

[Pete Martell]

I think they were trying to show Cole as obsessed with revenge and to have this fail miserably, so that he would then make the choice about whether to keep going down this path or to save himself and his family while he could. I think they had him leave on a positive note for that reason, and made sure he didn't go too far. 

 

I'm not sure where the story is going. I wouldn't be surprised if he returns at some point. If he doesn't, then I will just assume he, like Claire, was there to show us who Dean was and still is.

[SueB]

Random thought bubble to share: J2 got a lot of press in Aug-Oct as S10 geared up and they celebrated the 200th. But while their level of personal responsibility for show success has never been in doubt, it feels like there's a slight shifting in tone. These two have never had Exec Producer status but everything they do seems MORE than some other actors who have that status have done. Now, the comment on involvement in the spinoff concept. It's possible it's just respect, but what if it reflects some actual change in contract terms for their presumably impending contract renewal? Just thinking out loud.....

Edited December 17, 2014 by SueB

[Aeryn13]

 

I don't think having Demon Dean make him look ridiculous was a fumble. There's no way he could have fought a demon, especially one with Dean's skills, and if he had, fans would have hated him even more.

 

I agree. I have an instant hate-on for characters that come on a show and get pimped down my throat at the expense of characters I already favour. 

 

Now I also think that the writers in general have little idea on what "sells". The promo monkeys of the mid-Season Finale knew to make an exciting promo about a certain story but the writers didn`t have enough of a business to actually write an episode about it. Sure, they land some hits but IMO it`s mostly by accident these days.

 

Characters that get embraced almost always seem to be one-offs, not intended to come back or only play out a a short arc. Hence, the writers don`t put much thought into "how can I get the audience to instantly like them? Oh, I know, I will make them awesome and wonderful at everything, outclassing the leads at every turn. Fans will FOR SURE love them for it". So lack of interest = lack of pimping = audience may like them. Meanwhile a character that is slated for a longer run, they will go the opposite way, in 9 out of 10 cases ensuring that people hate them. And then be all confused and disappointed in interviews why their awesome characters didn`t click and it must be due to audience bias in some way or viewers "doing it wrong".

 

Cole, I don`t think he was much of a spin-off character. For one, he is not CW age. At least not CW age when a show starts. I know the character is supposed to be younger in the show but the actor doesn`t look the part. That`s why it was blatantly ridiculous that twenties!Dean was supposed to have killed his Dad when he was a boy. And yet as adults they look like peers. If they had done the right age, i.e. casted someone very early twenties now, it would have fit the canon timeline AND the CW mold.

 

It`s difficult to do a spin-off of Supernatural anyway. At least if you want to do something in the spirit of the mothership. Another hunting pair travelling the country to whack monsters? Bloodlines had supernatural elements in it but it was more like a copy of the Originals. Or the old Kindred the Embraced. It had diddly squat to do with any of the themes in Supernatural.

 

And if you don`t carry on with a certain well-established character (or characters) from the mothershow (Originals) or with a certain theme (every Star Trek spin-off show, the Stargate spin-offs, the NCIS spin-offs, Flash) or both (Xena, Angel), there really is no point in doing a spin-off in the first place. You are just doing a random show then, that for some reason you have decided to put into the same universe as another show, but that is way too flimsy a connection to give viewers of that first show even the slightest incentive to tune into the new one.

 

So if the whole reason to do a spin-off - audience grab - vs. doing a completely new show falls away, it would be way easier to do a new show because it yields the same results (people check it out and either like it or don`t) and you are not beholden to some pre-established canon.

Edited December 17, 2014 by Aeryn13

[SueB]

Spin-off ideas are here:

http://forums.previously.tv/topic/16853-supernatural-spin-off-ideas/#entry654975

 

check out the video.

[cassandle]

Tbh, I still have probably not even watched the whole episode of Bloodlines. Maybe when it was aired, but I don't remember very well. At one point I tried to watch it on Netflix, but that time, I stopped once they'd fridged the fiancee. I just don't care about a supernatural mafia in Chicago or whatever the hell. Exactly zero of the reasons I like and watch SPN were included in that concept. 

 

This is the only episode of SPN I've never watched.  I didn't bother watching it when it aired because I had a feeling there would be a lot I'd want to fast-forward through so it sat on my DVR for many, many months until I had to do a purge.  It was the first to get erased without me even trying to watch it first.  I'd actually forgotten they tried a spin-off until I started reading this thread.  I just couldn't bring myself to care and even now, reading about this particular episode here, I still have no desire to watch it to find out what everyone is talking about.  Apparently if it's not about Dean and Sam, I'm not interested--I didn't realize I was that attached to them until just now.  Weird :)

[SueB]

There's about 5 mins of Sam and Dean.  Someone has probably put it on youtube.

[rue721]

I think it was really never all that great with some gems here and there but the problem is, when it you start from somewhat lower level, going down is....really going down.

 

The early seasons had really strong writing (in terms of craftsmanship), imo. I agree that the writing has never been good in a "flashy" way, but it was just so solid for a couple years there. By and large, I think each episode was well-paced, had a good balance between the A/B stories, the A/B stories usually played against each other well, there was very efficient storytelling (I also liked that they didn't try to cram in extra stuff, like a "mytharc-related cliffhanger!" at the end of any given episode, and wrote real stand-alones for the most part), the tone was consistent/the world felt completely imagined and appealing, etc. The writing was definitely not lazy or sloppy, imo.

 

Not to say that the writing was ever perfect, but...I'm trying to come up with a sports analogy but sadly I don't know anything about sports. OK, how about:  in the first couple seasons especially, I think the show was written like Magic Johnson played. Not scoring a lot of points, not flashy, but such an all-around pro, and so consistently able to set up the rest of the team to play at their best, too. (But I don't think that was all Kripke, by any means. Judging by S4 and S5, he's more like a Kobe :P).

 

Personally, I feel like good TV writing is like good service*** -- the better it is, the less you should notice it's there. Meaning that if the writing is successful, imo, the story and characters feel organic and the episode's spell doesn't break (you don't get yanked out of it) from beginning to end. Watching any given episode nowadays, it's like trying to enjoy a meal out but having the waitress spilling drinks, never getting refills, forgetting to put in orders or getting them wrong, maybe even dropping a plate, etc. Makes me feel like, "I like the company and the food, but this is still terrible!"

 

***Have worked FOH in bars/restaurants off and on since high school so of course that's the analogy I come up with. No offense meant!

[DittyDotDot]

You wanna sports analogy? I'll give it the old college try...

 

I'd say the first few seasons they were a team. They set each other up and played off one another really well and could run the ball with ease, so almost every episode they scored. Now, it feels like each writer is running their own independent plays, but without the help of the team the ball gets dropped more often than not. Every now and then someone picks up an offensive rebound and scores, but that's fairly few and far between. It probably doesn't help that the current team isn't as athletic as the original team, but I'm generally of the opinion that a good coach can make something out of almost nothing, so...

 

Eh, not sure I really nailed it there. I prefer my too many cooks in the kitchen analogy better. ;)

[Demented Daisy]

I'm generally of the opinion that a good coach can make something out of almost nothing, so...

 

Conversely, a good team can only do so much when the coaches are awful.  You need a good point guard, a good floor runner, but without someone on the sidelines with a plan, the players can't put forth their best possible effort.

[Pete Martell]

I think the first two seasons had strong, cohesive writing. They still made mistakes (I think splitting Sera Gamble and Raelle Tucker was a big mistake), but everything mostly fit together. To me the show wrecked itself when Kripke or the CW or whoever started mandating the weird, rictus grin, happy-fun-ball "comedy" moments that started in early season 3 and led to huge tonal issues. I cringe at them even now. This also led to SPN veering wildly from being too happy-clappy to being miserable beyond belief. 

Conversely, a good team can only do so much when the coaches are awful.  You need a good point guard, a good floor runner, but without someone on the sidelines with a plan, the players can't put forth their best possible effort.

 

I would agree if I thought Kripke was any better than Gamble or Carver. There was a certain sense of fusion in seasons 4 and 5, but looking back, season 4 actually really doesn't hold up as well in cohesion as I'd first remembered, especially with Sam's motivations, which are all over the place. And season 5 was a trainwreck for me, with Sam's motivations at least being clear, but everything else (the angels, Lucifer's characterization, Michael's characterization, Cas' characterization, the brother relationship) falling to pieces. Looking back, I feel like what I thought was some sort of consistency was actually just generic misery and angst that permeated over everything like black goo.

 

To me it's not really about the current writing staff being that awful. I don't like Jenny Klein very much and I don't think Charmello & Snyder are above filler-level (they're good at that type of episode - I thought the "Clue" one earlier this season was good fun), but I think Robert Berens is as good or better than most of the show's writers over the years. When Dabb is good, he's great (when he's bad, he's awful). Adam Glass has gotten a lot better, and Robbie Thompson, while too cute and precious and self-referential for my taste, is also a good writer who can plan out point A to point B to point C (which some of the others can't).

 

The main problem is SPN has no real idea what it is or what its fanbase is. It's 2, 3, or 4 different shows thrown into one, and it shows onscreen. I think the show has just sort of been held together by sticks and glue (whatever Vesta said about Sam) for many years, and as time passes that's more and more difficult to keep going.

Edited January 13, 2015 by Pete Martell

[AwesomO4000]

To me the show wrecked itself when Kripke or the CW or whoever started mandating the weird, rictus grin, happy-fun-ball "comedy" moments that started in early season 3 and led to huge tonal issues.

 

You just reminded me of that Saturday Night Live skit where that "Happy Fun Ball" actually reminds me of some of the humor I like in Supernatural sometimes - amusing, but somehow also so very wrong - "I Believe the Children Are Our Future" * and "Wishful Thinking" ** come to mind. I like some of the lighter comedy also (like "Changing Channels"), but even in episodes like "Weekend at Bobby's" sometimes it's the dark comedy that amuses me the most. ("Nothing beats woodchipper" for the win.) And it's no accident that "Mystery Spot" is in my top 3 episodes of the entire series.

 

Sometimes the humor can go too kooky for me though - like "Yellow Fever", "The Curious Case..." and "Swap Meat," so if that is the kind of humor you mean, then I agree with you. If you do mean the dark comedy kind of "Happy Fun Ball," I actually like that kind.

 

* That little girl explaining to her dad why she doesn't want the tooth fairy to visit her will never not be amusing for me.

** "For tea parties!" Well, duh. And "kneel before Todd!"

[rue721]

I'd say the first few seasons they were a team. They set each other up and played off one another really well and could run the ball with ease, so almost every episode they scored. Now, it feels like each writer is running their own independent plays, but without the help of the team the ball gets dropped more often than not. Every now and then someone picks up an offensive rebound and scores, but that's fairly few and far between.

 

So now, it's like they're playing streetball?

 

I'm loving the sports analogies by the way.

 

The main problem is SPN has no real idea what it is or what its fanbase is. It's 2, 3, or 4 different shows thrown into one, and it shows onscreen.

 

IA, and I find it perplexing that they're so perplexed.

[Demented Daisy]

I was just thinking -- maybe I'm not giving TPTB enough credit.  Maybe all the things that have annoyed me over the past few seasons are a result of network interference.

 

I have no proof, of course, but some of the other CW shows like to wallow in drama of the secrets-and-lies variety.  Coincidence?  Doubtful, in my book.

[catrox14]

I could see this. Especially with a new show runner that might not have the moxie to stand up to network suits like Kripke back in the day.

[rue721]

I was just thinking -- maybe I'm not giving TPTB enough credit.  Maybe all the things that have annoyed me over the past few seasons are a result of network interference.

 

I would guess that at least the initial problems were primarily network interference. S3 was the first season picked up/bought by the CW (rather than by the WB). I don't think that was at all coincidental to the overall tonal shift and S3's relative unevenness. (Love the rictus grin "comedy" description, btw!). 

 

What I'm curious about is who was steering the bus in S1 & S2. Was there an exec at the WB that gave really good notes or something?

 

The third season of SPN was also the season that Gossip Girl premiered, and at that point (the CW's first full season post-takeover/merge) the CW was clearly pushing GG as the network's flagship/defining show. Maybe SPN was trying to incorporate some of same sort of tone as GG* (pop-y, biting, slyly crass, etc) in order to better fit SPN into the execs' vision for the network. I mean via direct network interference and/or via Stephanie Savage, who was a showrunner for GG and a partner at SPN's production company, Wonderland.

 

I think one issue overall was that the WB's bread and butter was (young-skewing) family dramas, but the CW seemed to want teen soaps "with an edge" instead. Since SPN began as sort of a genre/family drama mashup, I think that the change of network vision and ensuing shakeup had a huge effect on it in particular -- SPN became a genre/soap mashup, imo, and also tried to adopt more of an "edge."***

 

Not that there's ever going to be a way to know how any of this actually played out, I'm just a huge geek for the business side of TV in general and enjoy the spec. :P

 

*Gossip Girl is one of my favorite shows of all time, I think it was brilliant in its heyday, but it is a completely different beast than SPN -- and never the twain shall meet between those shows in terms of tone imo.

 

***Though I hate SPN's attempts at "edge," they're just so unsophisticated and horrible in general imo. For example, who thought it would be funny or cute to give Dean that creepy/racist fetish for Asian women? I liked Chuck Bass back in the day and all, but that stuff just...Idk.

 

Also, this is probably just oversensitivity on my part, but that was a period when pop culture and TV in particular was celebrating ostentatious wealth, status, and partying like it was 1929, and I think there was some weird class stuff going on with some of the changes that were made.

Edited January 13, 2015 by rue721

[FlickChick]

You like sports analogies? How about this: in Carver I think we have a Defensive Coordinator instead of a Head Coach. That is to say that he wants to make sure that he doesn't lose the game with bad plays (the show doesn't go off the air), but he also lacks the vision to be proactive and formulate winning plays (great arcs, good pacing, and smart episodes). A good Head Coach relies on his subordinates to give him their best game but guides them at the same time. We don't have that. I have a sneaky feeling that perhaps Kim Manners may have been our coach and not Kripke. We know that S3 was co-opted by the CW and demands were made concerning the female cast members as well as the brighter lighting, but the writers' strike really threw everyone off their game. Heh! They carried on as best they could and then we lost Kim at the beginning of the following season. Coincidence? I don't think so. But just my opinion. 

[SueB]

Kim was the on-set Vancouver guy.  He set the tone.  Jim Micheals is there now and plays a completely different role.  Since Kim's death, I think J2 have set the tone as a part-time extra-duty-NOT-assigned. 

[catrox14]

I think the loss of Kim manners was a huge blow to the show on so many levels. Then I think losing Ben Edlund who IMO wrote some of best episodes of the show at the end of s8 that the show lost that quirky edge that Edlund delivered. I think his departure has mattered as much as anyone. I think he knew just how to bring g the funny weird shit and a hefty dose of angst when needed.

Edited January 14, 2015 by catrox14

[Pete Martell]

You just reminded me of that Saturday Night Live skit where that "Happy Fun Ball" actually reminds me of some of the humor I like in Supernatural sometimes - amusing, but somehow also so very wrong - "I Believe the Children Are Our Future" * and "Wishful Thinking" ** come to mind. I like some of the lighter comedy also (like "Changing Channels"), but even in episodes like "Weekend at Bobby's" sometimes it's the dark comedy that amuses me the most. ("Nothing beats woodchipper" for the win.) And it's no accident that "Mystery Spot" is in my top 3 episodes of the entire series.

 

Sometimes the humor can go too kooky for me though - like "Yellow Fever", "The Curious Case..." and "Swap Meat," so if that is the kind of humor you mean, then I agree with you. If you do mean the dark comedy kind of "Happy Fun Ball," I actually like that kind.

 

* That little girl explaining to her dad why she doesn't want the tooth fairy to visit her will never not be amusing for me.

** "For tea parties!" Well, duh. And "kneel before Todd!"

 

I did get it from SNL. I loved that sketch. 

 

My problem with some of the comedy is when it is too aware of itself and doesn't fit the characters or the tone of the show. I never liked the bumbling criminals scenes in "Bad Day At Black Rock," or the hunter who goes on about his religion and this is supposed to be hilarious. Sam's scenes in this are very funny because they take a character trait (Sam's goofiness) and extend it. 

 

There's a lot of this in early season 3 (most of "Red Sky at Morning," Dean telling Sam how gay he is, Dean going around to hit on women in the middle of a case), and it's continued off and on through the years. A lot of it is obvious crowd-pleasing material, and I'm sure I'm one of the few who hates it, but scenes like the "get out of my ass" scene in "Mommy Dearest," they just throw me right out of episodes. 

I think the loss of Kim manners was a huge blow to the show on so many levels. Then I think losing Ben Edlund who IMO wrote some of best episodes of the show at the end of s8 that the show lost that quirky edge that Edlund delivered. I think his departure has mattered as much as anyone. I think he knew just how to bring g the funny weird shit and a hefty dose of angst when needed.

 

I felt like Edlund was a very isolated presence in his last few seasons, very much about his own niche rather than the show as a whole (Robbie Thompson is also starting to veer in that direction). I think he ended his time on the show in a decent place (I loved "Everybody Hates Hitler," and I loved his Cas and Kevin material in "The Great Escapist,"), but overall he felt like a Special Guest Star equivalent to me rather than someone who helped shape the show.

IA, and I find it perplexing that they're so perplexed.

 

I can see why they're confused. Many fans love the brothers only and are virulently against anything else. Some fans just watch for Cas. Some for Crowley. Some want more female characters. Others get angry when there are more female characters. 

[DittyDotDot]

Kim was the on-set Vancouver guy.  He set the tone.  Jim Micheals is there now and plays a completely different role.  Since Kim's death, I think J2 have set the tone as a part-time extra-duty-NOT-assigned. 

 

I feel like Kripke used to keep the writers on the same page (Heh)  while Manners kept the directors moving in the same direction (Heh, I'm on a roll today).  I know Jim Michaels plays some of Kim Manners' roll, but he's far more of a producer and lacks Manners' directing/artistry sense, IMO. And Jensen and Jared help quite a bit on set, but there's only so much they can reasonably do considering they aren't privy to many of the meetings where most of the big decisions are being made. I would love for them to get a producers credit, but I'm not sure they really have the time to be involved in the show on that level given the amount of time they already put in on set. Hell, they should just give them producer's credits anyway.

 

 

I have a sneaky feeling that perhaps Kim Manners may have been our coach and not Kripke. We know that S3 was co-opted by the CW and demands were made concerning the female cast members as well as the brighter lighting, but the writers' strike really threw everyone off their game. Heh! They carried on as best they could and then we lost Kim at the beginning of the following season. Coincidence? I don't think so. But just my opinion. 

 

I've long believed that it was no coincidence that the season we lost Kim Manners was the season they started to lose me. I've stuck around, but the show lost something special when it lost Mr. Manners, IMO. Maybe the biggest hit the show ever took.

 

 

Not to say that the writing was ever perfect, but...I'm trying to come up with a sports analogy but sadly I don't know anything about sports.  

 

I got another sports analogy for ya rue...

 

I think head coaching isn't about having the agility to play the game yourself, but is far more about managing. Personally, I never thought Kripke was a particularly good player, but made for a good head coach. He had a few good plays and could work out a new one on the fly when needed. Kripke also knew his team's strengths and weaknesses and put his players in the positions that would best utilize their skills. Plus, I think he understood his own weaknesses and put together a team of assistant coaches who compensated in those areas--such as Kim Manners. I also think Kripke had a clear vision of what he wanted his team to be and the type of game he wanted to play. So, even though he might not have had a strict game plan, his plays were created in steering the team in one direction and knew when to call a time out to refocus his team.

 

I think both Gamble and Carver were excellent players, but not necessarily great head coaches. Gamble seemed to manage her team well enough and had lots and lots of different plays. I just not sure she always understood what game she was playing, so the games became confusing and listless for the spectators. With Carver, I think he has a notion of the game he's playing, but his entire game plan seems to be having no game plan and whatever happens will happen. So, at this point, I'm not sure he remembers what game it was that he set out to play. He also seems to only have a couple plays in his wheelhouse that he's played to death. So much so that the opposing team can see the plays coming from a mile away. He's still got some outstanding players that show up and play their hearts out, but can't seem to find a way to get them all to be playing the same game. It seems most of the people in the stands mostly come out of habit and still enjoy seeing the players play, but have lost interest in the game itself. Maybe he'll eek out a win in the end, but still makes the game kinda hard to watch. 

 

How's that sports analogy for you?

[FlickChick]

Excellent, DittyDotDot, excellent. And I think right on target!

[supposebly]

I don't understand sport analogies.....The only sports I watch is a few games of the soccer world cup every 4 years. And this year, the women's soccer world cup. If I have time.

 

My feelings at the moment:

Season 8 is the season that made me stop looking forward to Tuesdays, or Wednesdays or whatever the day was that year. There are about 3 episodes I actually like, 7 that I really hate, and the rest: meh. In sum, the worst season of them all. It mostly bored me and very often offended me and not in a way that is engaging, like season 6, for example. Up until then, most episodes managed to engage me on some level, even if it was to bitch about something.

 

So, from my POV, season 8 broke something (I think it was Sam's character assassination that made no sense for the character, the plot and there was no follow-through in the end). The whole season felt like a waste of time since the trials weren't finished either. Not to mention the retcons that more or less rendered the themes of whole seasons moot. (Demon cure, visible reapers).

 

So I beg of the writers: Develop a bloody endgame, not just ideas without follow-through. I know it's a well-established tradition but it's getting worse and worse. And stop changing the world rules! It feel like they do that because they've run out of ideas and just recycle previous characters and turn them into something to serve the plot of the day.

For example, they could have introduced some version of Charon as the ferryman that brings souls to the underworld. Here, it could have been the reaper for monsters and he could have led Sam to Purgatory and then he would have needed to find a way to hell. These retcons feel just all very lazy.

[catrox14]

I can't decide if the retcons are lazy or intentional to shift the show to Carver's vision. I tend to go with lazy but you never know.

[supposebly]

I don't really see how retconning makes any difference to any "vision" Carver might have had. I would go with lazy as well, especially considering who came up with that to begin with.