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

[Demented Daisy]

Anyway, this is why I say someone needs to take a stronger hand in overseeing the scripts. Not only to smooth out the dialogue, but to do the simple fact checking. If I can remember Dean suggesting to go to the Grand Canyon in and episode I mostly dislike and rarely pay much attention to, it seems like someone else on staff should've remembered it too. I don't expect every writer to remember every detail I do, but when things like the exchange in Halt and Catch Fire about Sam driving Baby if Dean died pass through, it seems like there's no one even paying attention at all.

 

Dean said Baby would smell like taquitos if Sam drove it after Dean died!  Dean, you love taquitos!  (I may have yelled that at the tv and thrown my hands in the air in exasperation.)

 

I volunteer to be script supervisor!  ;-)

[catrox14]

Man, we should just do it by committee. 

[Altered Reality]

Normally I'd say no to anything done by committee, but I think this is one case where it'd be a benefit.

[supposebly]

No committees are necessary. Superwiki is there for the rescue. That's what gets me. There are people out there who take the time to put all this information out there, easily found and cross-referenced and all these writers/showrunners have to do is take a minute to double-check. I google "Supernatural Grand Canyon" and there it is.

 

Maybe it would be better to have a few less episodes per year, 23 is apparently too much to do the job right, let alone pace the season properly. That last is not a new problem. Even J. K. Rowling admitted she used the potterlexicon to check a few things.

 

Another thing that makes me think it's just beyond time to end the show. Every time there is a bad guy, I just can't even begin to think that they have a chance against the Winchesters. All I wait for is for them to get their asses kicked. With all they've been through, the Winchesters are so larger-than-life that there is really no one that poses a serious threat to them anymore. I mean, even Death is a buddy of them.

 

We can't go back to regular hunting because it's all so routine. So, the only threat there is the Winchesters themselves. Oh well, and Crowley seems to have woken up. So, I guess he'll stick around for another year.

Edited May 18, 2015 by supposebly

[Demented Daisy]

Another thing that makes me think it's just beyond time to end the show. Every time there is a bad guy, I just can't even begin to think that they have a chance against the Winchesters. All I wait for is for them to get their asses kicked. With all they've been through, the Winchesters are so larger-than-life that there is really no one that poses a serious threat to them anymore. I mean, even Death is a buddy of them.

 

Precisely why I have long campaigned for God to be the final season "big bad".  Not that God/Chuck is bad, but sooner or later, Sam and Dean have got to be beyond sick of it all.  So who do they have left to blame for it all?  God.  Time to hunt Him down, just like Dean swore he would do, years ago:

 

DEAN: Wow. God gives you a brand-new, shiny set of wings, and suddenly you're his bitch again.

 

CASTIEL: I don't know what God wants. I don't know if he'll even return. It just... seems like the right thing to do.

 

DEAN: Well, if you do see him, you tell him I'm coming for him next.

 

 

[catrox14]

Oh wow. I swear if Dean hunts God I might forgive the entire Lisa thing.

Dean Winchester is a man of his word.

Edited May 18, 2015 by catrox14

[Bruinsfan]

I admit after reading Robbie's interview my respect for him has gone wayyyyyyyyyy up.  :)

He won me as a fan for life with this quote:

Meanwhile, Sam’s flashback shows him doing all those things that we were all sure he was doing, like frantically looking for Dean. As Robbie said, ‘everything that happened before he hit that f—king dog.’

I'll follow Robbie to whatever he does after Supernatural—assuming, of course, that the show and his tenure on it end within my lifespan.

 

What gets me besides this, is that when this show ends, if all they have is bad writing to show for it, how will they get the next opportunity, for a new TV series.  Maybe it is the fact that they get new fans and they feel that counts more?!

Bob Singer will be able to point to the bottom line of having produced a successful show that aired for more than a decade. Eugenie Ross-Leming will be able to point to Bob Singer and say "He's my husband."

Edited May 18, 2015 by Bruinsfan

[7kstar]

He won me as a fan for life with this quote:

I'll follow Robbie to whatever he does after Supernatural—assuming, of course, that the show and his tenure on it end within my lifespan.

 

Bob Singer will be able to point to the bottom line of having produced a successful show that aired for more than a decade. Eugenie Ross-Leming will be able to point to Bob Singer and say "He's my husband."

Though having one successful show doesn't guarantee another.  But yeah, I think that is the MAJOR problem, they've had 10 years so now it doesn't really matter until it does.

[supposebly]

 

Though having one successful show doesn't guarantee another.

 

Just ask Chris Carter.

I watched a documentary on Netflix on TV showrunners yesterday and while it was interesting to see the different approaches to it, the overall tenor was that it takes a lot out of you, especially on Network TV with so many episodes per season. So, I can't quite be so annoyed considering Singer has been doing this one for so long.

What I do find so annoying is that you'd think that things would run better after such a long time but maybe that's exactly the problem. Too much routine, not enough passion. A few cases of nepotism. And an approach to the writers' room that doesn't really seem to work well with a show that old.

When I watch old interviews with Kripke and Singer, it feels like Singer kept things in check when Kripke got too excited about stuff and Kim Manners added that extra ingredient that made many episodes more than their parts. Now, we have Carver who seems to sleepwalk through his job, Singer keeping things in check but there is nothing to keep and no extra ingredients except what JA and JP bring to the table. It makes me sad. Compared to that Sera Gamble's tenure was rocky, it had some interesting ideas considering she had the unenviable job of having to reboot the story. But overall, it feels there was more care to all of it.

Edited May 19, 2015 by supposebly

[DittyDotDot]

I watched a documentary on Netflix on TV showrunners yesterday and while it was interesting to see the different approaches to it, the overall tenor was that it takes a lot out of you, especially on Network TV with so many episodes per season. So, I can't quite be so annoyed considering Singer has been doing this one for so long.

 

I watched that a couple weeks back and it was kinda interesting. I found the mix of showrunners from different genres and network vs. cable interesting. It seems to me, every show runs differently and what works for some doesn't work well for others. It does seem like the job is far more managing to me and just being able to think on one's feet is a handy skill. I'm just not sure many of the current producers have that spark anymore. I will say that I think Singer was a necessary counterbalance when Kripke ran the show, but I'm not sure Carver and Singer have that same balance. But, yeah, I'd say it's really a lack of passion that seems to be missing these days.

[Demented Daisy]

Let's face it.  TPTB has slowly been replaced by CW execs in disguise.  ;-)

[SueB]

I think you are right about the balance issue.  And while I have no doubt that Jim Micheals adores the show and fandom, I don't think he's got the creative bonafides to take on Singer and Carver when it comes to storyline.  After the Charlie mess, Jim tried to send out a placating message of "no one ever truly dies" but it was the wrong time for that note.  He received a lot of backlash.  And it's a completely reasonable statement ... just not one the fandom wanted to hear at that moment.  I do know that Jim, along with Robbie, wanted to keep Charlie alive and got no where in his pleas. 

 

Then you had Singer (and yes his wife was in the audience), on-stage in Rome.  He flat out said Charlie is coming back.  I don't know if he said it to placate the unwashed masses or if he and Carver killed her off intending to bring her back (with whatever vague notion they have). 

 

But I also suspect that if Kim Manners was still production chief up in Vancouver and wanted to argue the case, he'd have likely had more success.  That's two big if's.  But it goes to my overall comment regarding TPTB and balance.  Kim kept things real (within the context of the genre).  It's got a little UNreal in the Gamble and Carver eras.

 

I also think rotating out show runners was the reason the show COULD go on.  Five years is a long time and I think they get burned out.  Seven seems to be a common number as well.  What Kripke created with a universe and two fantastic leads was able to me continued BECAUSE of the leads.  And there is still a lot of story left in this universe, with these actors and characters. 

 

As we speak, Carver and Singer are in a room sorting out where do we go from here (*insert Buffy musical montage*).  I agree with others ... PLEASE avoid The First Evil from Buffy S7.  It was a interesting conceit that just didn't get the job done for me. I'm hoping the they have a rest, drank some good expresso, and are ready to be truly creative.  There's a lot of potential here IMO. 

[AwesomO4000]

As we speak, Carver and Singer are in a room sorting out where do we go from here (*insert Buffy musical montage*).  I agree with others ... PLEASE avoid The First Evil from Buffy S7.  It was a interesting conceit that just didn't get the job done for me. I'm hoping the they have a rest, drank some good expresso, and are ready to be truly creative.  There's a lot of potential here IMO. 

 

I'm not as concerned about a "where do we go from here" yet. I want a better explanation as to what the hell happened in the finale first. As of now they have Dean pretty much close to blameless (he didn't know the spell was going on) even rewriting canon to do it (the mark is so powerful bad that even an archangel was corrupted) - which fine, Dean should be mostly blameless, but they have Sam even worse to blame for starting the apocalypse than even I had imagined - which is amazing considering what I predicted. Hell, we had Death telling Sam what was going to happen, but did he call off the spell? Nope. Not sure how they are going to explain Sam agreeing to die, but still letting the spell happen anyway when Death told him huge bad would happen. No picking up the phone to try and stop it... and then when the mark was gone "This is a good thing." What? Death told you bad was going to happen. What the hell? Am I supposed to believe Sam is that stupid/ naive? At this point I'm almost hoping someone took over Sam's body, because the Sam character destruction is going to epic levels at this point.

 

As I asked in the episode thread: What is Carver's beef with Sam? And why is he insistent on destroying his character? Because if it isn't deliberate, I don't know what to say...

[SueB]

True fact: Jared does the little boy face and single man tear and I'm not remotely capable of being angry at him. I swear, he's kicked it up about three levels for me (as an actor) in the last three years.

So, I get your perspective and can totally see that interpretation,but I don't think Sam screwed up. I think he's going to be right.

[AwesomO4000]

I so wish I could have your optimism, SueB, but considering Sam started an apocalypse again, I can't at present see how he can be right about this. Unless this Darkness only kills one person and/or only kills bad people, I can't see any way it's going to even out that Sam's decision to remove the mark from Dean was the right one. He's been set up again (similar for me to season 8) for abuse.

 

And all Mr. Carver had to do was somehow make The Darkness the fault of something else - why did Sam have to cause it? Have Metatron cause it - he's the bad guy and he's got the demon tablet, so... oh wait, that's partially Sam's fault too... nevermind. But wait, at least it's less directly Sam's fault, so we could've had that - Metatron start the apocalypse, and let Sam just save Dean. There - easy fix and Sam isn't the goat. What's wrong with that?

 

It's such a mixed message Carver is sending here. Dean can save Sam multiple times and it's generally good. Sam saves Dean one time, and it starts the apocalypse and causes a ton of other bad - WTF? What am I supposed to get from that?

 

 

And I so agree about Jared's crushed face. I almost prefer it to Jensen's, because Jensen's is more pretty whereas Jared's seems more vulnerable and lost to me.

 

And I mostly blame all this on the writers, but still... I can understand now why Jared is sort of depressed and exhausted. It must suck having to play a character you know is going to get (mostly undefendable) abuse all the time when you're supposed to be a hero in the show. And no matter what you do, your character doesn't get to save the day... only cause another apocalypse. It's sort of depressing.

[Aeryn13]

 

but I don't think Sam screwed up. I think he's going to be right.

 

If the intended message is "fuck the world, putting one person over the greater good because you care for them and not about anyone else is the way to go", then I`m sure he will be right. Because that is IMO what the writers are selling now. Like, you should applaud such behaviour and find it cute and aww-worthy. I want to root for good people and them getting rewarded with good things, like keeping people around they love. But selfish people flat out do not deserve this to me. They SHOULD lose what they love as punishment for being so damn selfish and pathetic. At least then I can point and laugh.

 

Kripke wasn`t a perfect writer or showrunner but at least he presented the protagonists as the former. They were codepedent still but Carver, I don`t know about him. I think he HATES the second category of codependence, too, and at first he meant to break it a bit. But then realized that a chunk of the audience loves it so now he grudgingly puts it in the show still but in the worst possible light. 

 

It`s become a cycle of "see, they are choosing each other again...are they horrible enough for you yet?"

 

Yes, Carver, they are. If he is too cowardly to break the cycle and not pander to a certain fan segment, I would prefer if he stops with the no-win-scenarios altogether and shows them still be heroic. Kripke did it, even Gamble mostly did it, Carver could too. 

[FlickChick]

Aeryn13 (or others), I have to ask after seeing similar statements, who constitutes this "certain fan segment"? I've seen that phrase often. And how would writers, showrunners, et al know their thoughts/feeling? This is an honest question on my part and am not judging anyone; just curious.

[Aeryn13]

 

And how would writers, showrunners, et al know their thoughts/feeling?

 

The writers are very active on twitter. Where they get mainly three kinds of feedback: a) people who praise them to the high heavens, b) Destiel fans and c) "bro-fans" who demand the brothers be together at all time and be codepenent till kingdom come. Depending on any given episode, b) and c) overlap with a). But I believe the biggest segment is c) and the writers know it. 

 

Before Season 8 started they even admitted outright that brining Dean back from Purgatory in the very first episode and only showing what each brother did in short flashbacks over the first few episodes was done because they didn`t dare have a couple episodes with the brothers separated. Like, they were literally too chicken to do it because ZOMG, beware of the fan response.  

 

They will create faux-drama between the brothers because that is where they believe the only source of conflict comes from (also lovely interview bits where my eyes rolled heavenwards) but in the end, they will never ever rock the boat too much or try something different. 

[FlickChick]

Thanks, Aeryn, but IMO it is a shame that writers are so influenced by these comments. Where is their belief in their vision? Perhaps it was a better world when there wasn't any way to influence writers or showrunners.

[SueB]

If the intended message is "fuck the world, putting one person over the greater good because you care for them and not about anyone else is the way to go", then I`m sure he will be right. Because that is IMO what the writers are selling now. Like, you should applaud such behaviour and find it cute and aww-worthy. I want to root for good people and them getting rewarded with good things, like keeping people around they love.

 

Well I'm hoping that's NOT the message.  I'm hoping the message was another "screw destiny right in the face" message.  I think Dean was willing to believe that he was too bad to be in the world anymore.  And I think Sam CORRECTLY said (essentially)...if you are willing to live for the rest of eternity ALONE to protect humanity...then you are STILL A GOOD GUY.  In which case, what Death was offering kinda sucked.  And it meant killing Sam. Who Dean was pissed at, but in that moment Sam was still believing in Dean and was willing to die to demonstrate his belief.  It's not that Dean thinks life should be fair. But I think he realized that there was something wrong with the picture of both of them dying because of the Mark.  That it was once again, the universe requires Sam and Dean to be damned in order to exist.  Dean wouldn't accept that for another human.  He'd fight for them. 

 

So ... I think THAT is the message.  Specifically that he and Sam may have done some terrible things but they are not, in fact, EVIL.  So maybe the universe needs to come up with a better plan than just hanging them out to dry for eternity.  And if Death, who's always been a pretty fair player...was lobbying for this answer... then maybe there is something wrong with Death. 

 

As for bending to fan will....If that was the case, Charlie would not have been killed IMO.

 

ETA:  Also Dean's plan was NOT to get rid of the Mark.  He didn't kill Death planning for the lightening storm.  That happened coincidentally.  And Sam was not yet on board with the vague "the Darkness" threat.

Edited May 26, 2015 by SueB

[DittyDotDot]

As for bending to fan will....If that was the case, Charlie would not have been killed IMO.

 

Personally, I've seen just as much dislike for Charlie as I have love. They may have gotten backlash for Charlie's death, but that's more about the way they did it than Charlie actually being dead, IMO. Many people have been calling for Charlie's death since her very first appearance, but even Charlie haters were annoyed they basically fridged her. I doubt they had any clue that would happen and I doubt they see where they went wrong with Charlie's death. I'm betting they're thinking it was all because Charlie was popular and not able to see it was the execution that was problem. It seems to me they have a hard time looking at things objectively lately.

 

So, I'm not sure they bend to fandom as much as I think they do things they think the fans will love. Not so much giving in as much as fan service--if that makes any sense? But, since there's no real consensus about much of anything within this fandom, servicing one aspect always gets another riled up. I just find the story gets disserviced in their attempts to service the fans. I think it's great they make themselves so available to fandom , but I sometimes wonder if it isn't hampering storytelling process. I'd think it would be hard to shut out all the noise coming from every direction and keep yourself on course.

 

 

As we speak, Carver and Singer are in a room sorting out where do we go from here (*insert Buffy musical montage*). 

[...]

I'm hoping the they have a rest, drank some good expresso, and are ready to be truly creative.  There's a lot of potential here IMO. 

 

Yes, but isn't there always potential? I sometimes wish I had your optimism, SueB...but sometimes I really prefer to embrace my inner cynic...or is it curmudgeon? ;)

[Demented Daisy]

 I think it's great they make themselves so available to fandom , but I sometimes wonder if it isn't hampering storytelling process. I'd think it would be hard to shut out all the noise coming from every direction and keep yourself on course.

 

 

If you believe Joss Whedon, it's why he quit Twitter again.  Not saying that TPTB should be all-around more Whedon-like, but in this case, it could be a good thing.  Maybe they should step away from the internet while mapping out their stories for the season.  *shrug*

[catrox14]

I don't think they give in to fan service that much. I mean if they did they would have Destiel by now, and then Bros only at the same time. I think they love Misha and don't want to lose him or his fans so they keep trying to fit him in and he doesn't have much to do.

 

Carver said s10 would be a much more personal journey with no big bad and he pretty much delivered that, with varying success,  right up until the final moments. I might not care for the execution of the MoC storyline in the end but he did stick it and with how the brothers' choices affect the world. "Who's the real monster" seemed to carry all the way through. 

 

Now what he's trying to say about the brothers confuses the crap out of me, but I think he is going with whatever vision he started in s8 with Sam not looking for Dean and the boys together not closing the Gates of Hell and then Dean letting Sam be possessed without Sam's consent by an angel. ime believing they really do give in to fan service in most cases.   I'm no fan of the Carver and even though I don't get what he's doing a lot of the time, he seems to be telling the story he wants to tell.

 

 

ETA: I think Fan Fiction was not so much fan service as just a tip of the cap to the fans and how things are interpreted by the audience. He truncated demon!Dean much to the chagrin of many viewers

Edited May 27, 2015 by catrox14

[DittyDotDot]

I don't think they give in to fan service that much. I mean if they did they would have Destiel by now, and then Bros only at the same time. I think they love Misha and don't want to lose him or his fans so they keep trying to fit him in and he doesn't have much to do.

 

Like I said, I'm not sure I was making sense...I don't think he caves to storyline ideas and stuff, but inserts things into episodes only because he thinks the fans will like it. IMO, he's not throwing up his hands and giving them what they want, but it's more the feeling of "ooh, they're gonna love this."

 

I totally agree Carver is mostly telling the story he wants, but I just wonder if the reason things are rather muddled is they are trying to please the fans in ways the fans aren't asking for and each writer is reading the fandom room differently due to the room being very varied making it almost impossible to read.

 

I'm not sure I'm making any sense still, I'll stop now.

[7kstar]

Like I said, I'm not sure I was making sense...I don't think he caves to storyline ideas and stuff, but inserts things into episodes only because he thinks the fans will like it. IMO, he's not throwing up his hands and giving them what they want, but it's more the feeling of "ooh, they're gonna love this."

 

I totally agree Carver is mostly telling the story he wants, but I just wonder if the reason things are rather muddled is they are trying to please the fans in ways the fans aren't asking for and each writer is reading the fandom room differently due to the room being very varied making it almost impossible to read.

 

I'm not sure I'm making any sense still, I'll stop now.

IA that Carver is telling the story he wants, except for a few things.  I think they are stuck in group think.  Well Season 4 was so popular because...those elements keep being used.  Dean's story, followed by Sam's secret & other brother's discover secret...The pattern are so similar and unwilling to do something really different.  Afraid of the really major risks due to the fact that they may loose the fans they have built...

 

He didn't cave on killing Charlie but really is oblivious to why so many in the fan-base was so upset with how she was killed even if they hated her.  I think mainly the lack of risktaking makes the story pretty dull.

[AwesomO4000]

IA that Carver is telling the story he wants, except for a few things.  I think they are stuck in group think.  Well Season 4 was so popular because...those elements keep being used.  Dean's story, followed by Sam's secret & other brother's discover secret...The pattern are so similar and unwilling to do something really different.  Afraid of the really major risks due to the fact that they may loose the fans they have built...

 

The problem is that the few things that I did like with season 4 - the strong monster of the weeks, the strong writing - are not what's being repeated. What's being repeated recently are the things that I didn't like about season 4. Things like the unrelenting angst, the over-the-top brother conflict, Sam being played and looking like an idiot. Truthfully season 4 was not one of my favorite seasons anyway. Overall I even actually enjoyed season 7 more, because despite the grimness, it actually somehow ended up being less depressing than season 4. At least the guys got a win. And the overall story arc may have been somewhat simple, but at least it made sense.

 

I'm hoping the they have a rest, drank some good expresso, and are ready to be truly creative.  There's a lot of potential here IMO. 

 

Potential is what Sera left them with - Dean and Castiel in purgatory and Sam above, left to struggle with what to do next. The problem is the purgatory story turned into part of the usual cliche - despite everything he survived through there and supposedly should have learned about himself, he still had major self-esteem issues - and Sam's story appeared to be that faced with what to do next, apparently Sam's big story was to give up and blow everything off.

 

In my opinion, Carver doesn't need more potential. He needs to let the story flow organically from the character history while also letting them move forward at least a little bit at a time. For me a story is only good-writing surprising if it also at least makes a little bit of sense based on what went before. A barking cat might be surprising, but it's not good writing. At the same time, a cat that only meows all the time is boring... let the cat yowl, purr, growl, whatever, sometimes too. So basically what Carver has to do is hit somewhere between a constantly meowing cat (like Sam's story at present) and a barking cat (the current "The Darkness" plot) and let the characters do the rest.

 

I actually think the problem is that Mr. Carver goes with too much potential, and it overwhelms and scares him, so that he doesn't know what to do with it all. He'll stretch that potential in some ways that perhaps it shouldn't be stretched - such as Sam not looking for Dean and Kevin -  and then he falls back on certain familiar patterns when he feels uncomfortable - such as secrets and lies and manufactured conflict . I could be wrong, but that's what it looks like to me.

[Demented Daisy]

Standard disclaimers.

 

I think it's been a terrible mix of Carver's love of shocking the audience and the CW's obsession with angst.  (A lot of Arrow's angsty storylines are eerily similar to SPN.)

 

What makes it so terrible is that they come from the same place -- getting the audience talking.  Carver wants the audience to be up in arms about the most recent death, or the betrayal, or the lies, or whatever.  The CW wants the fandom at odds with each other.  They want the fans to argue amongst themselves.  

 

As a result, good storytelling falls by the wayside because it's not the focus of those in charge.  Some of the individual episode writers could be more focused on telling a good story, but they can only do so much.

 

We, the audience, are the big losers in the scenario.  (Unless, of course, you are in the teenage girl demo.  My daughter's friends loved this season and think it's incredibly romantic that the Winchesters chose each other again.)

[DittyDotDot]

We, the audience, are the big losers in the scenario.  (Unless, of course, you are in the teenage girl demo.  My daughter's friends loved this season and think it's incredibly romantic that the Winchesters chose each other again.)

 

I guess it is kinda romantic, but since they've chosen each other at the end of every season (with the exception of S7) I think I'm over it. That and having a cold dead heart makes it almost impossible to be moved by the romantic. ;)

 

As a result, good storytelling falls by the wayside because it's not the focus of those in charge.  Some of the individual episode writers could be more focused on telling a good story, but they can only do so much.

 

Ooh, look at you swooping in with your words and smarty smart smarts to articulate what I was trying to get across yesterday. ::raspberries:: ;)

[Demented Daisy]

I have a terrible habit of being concise with my words.  If I can get a point across in 5, I don't use 15.  ;-)

[catrox14]

I often wonder how much the CW actually interferes with SPN aside from censoring language. I mean I feel like they just sort of leave it alone since it's been bread and butter for them for a long time. 

 

The past 2 seasons the CW has been openly wooing the 18-49 male demographic with The Flash and Arrow (which I really love Arrow despite the mess of s3 and watched Arrow before I ever watched 5 minutes of SPN, and I'm not a male and not a teenager so go figure. 

 

ANYHOOO,

 

I love angst as long as it's true to the characters and is derived organically from the story.  I felt like the drama and the angst resulting from the MoC and demon!Dean were organic to where Carver decided to take Dean and Sam. I thought s8 had great potential with the Purgatory arc but the Sam stuff is still mind boggling and that angst was inorganic and that's why it bothered me so much. 've taken to looking at Sam's actions in s10 as being less about Sam being stupid but more that Sam was desperately trying to make up for not looking for Dean in s8.  I wish the show had actually addressed that from Sam. I don't mean that Sam had to apologize for not looking for Dean but just a line of dialogue saying something like "I did what I had to do, because I couldn't after the Leviathans sent you to Purgatory".

 

In s9, I never thought Dean saving Sam by any means necessary was OOC but his methods were "Not Great, BOB" so the angst in s9 made sense because Dean fucked up big time, he knew it but he also knew it but it wasn't within him to let Sam die. And I thought  Sam's anger was justified but it was not well written IMO and was confusing because it was kind of all over the map.  Now for me in s10 whatever angst was born of demon!Dean and the MoC! it felt like it was suitable and organic.

I have a terrible habit of being concise with my words.  If I can get a point across in 5, I don't use 15.  ;-)

 

Well that's boring!.  I say use ALL THE WORDS.

[Demented Daisy]

 

ETA  If you aren't familiar with Hyperbole and a Half, I highly recommend you look it up.

Edited May 27, 2015 by Demented Daisy

[Altered Reality]

Hyperbole and a Half for the win!  I think her pain scale should be posted in all hospitals and doctor's offices.  Would have helped me the last time I was in hospital to be able to just point!

 

And on topic, sort of, yes use aaaaalllll the words!

 

From someone who believes the quickest way to her point is in ever decreasing spirals ;D

[SueB]

My personal writing style is verbose piffle.

[Altered Reality]

SueB you may be verbose (and there's nothing wrong with that!) but I refute the idea that what you say is piffle.

[AwesomO4000]

I love angst as long as it's true to the characters and is derived organically from the story.  I felt like the drama and the angst resulting from the MoC and demon!Dean were organic to where Carver decided to take Dean and Sam. I thought s8 had great potential with the Purgatory arc but the Sam stuff is still mind boggling and that angst was inorganic and that's why it bothered me so much. 've taken to looking at Sam's actions in s10 as being less about Sam being stupid but more that Sam was desperately trying to make up for not looking for Dean in s8.  I wish the show had actually addressed that from Sam. I don't mean that Sam had to apologize for not looking for Dean but just a line of dialogue saying something like "I did what I had to do, because I couldn't after the Leviathans sent you to Purgatory".

 

In s9, I never thought Dean saving Sam by any means necessary was OOC but his methods were "Not Great, BOB" so the angst in s9 made sense because Dean fucked up big time, he knew it but he also knew it but it wasn't within him to let Sam die. And I thought  Sam's anger was justified but it was not well written IMO and was confusing because it was kind of all over the map.  Now for me in s10 whatever angst was born of demon!Dean and the MoC! it felt like it was suitable and organic.

 

I agree with most of what you say here. Most of the stuff that wasn't organic for me came from season 8. The purgatory arc for me could've had more potential if it hadn't been turned into a Dean misremembers the whole Cas thing, because of self-esteem type issues. Bleh on that part of it.

 

I also agree the season 9 stuff was organic... for Dean's part of the story anyway. However, I thought the return to lying was like my cat meowing complaint (more of the same), and the Sam angst was, in my opinion, really forced and as you said not well written at all. Since when - before the Carver era - has Sam held a grudge or not forgiven someone for that long? Castiel broke Sam's wall leading to him taking on about 180 years of hell memories.... and Sam ends up being the one to say "I still think you're one of us, deep down" and think that Castiel is worth calling for help. Sam finds out about Dean making the deal, and is angry with him for what maybe a day? Then he's all about trying to help find a way to get Dean out of it. In my opinion, Sam let go of most of his grudge-keeping with John's death, learning then that it wasn't worth it, and he took that lesson to heart and lived it thereafter for the most part. Even half-crazy Sam stayed mad at Dean for all of one week or so, then he ended up being the one to capitulate and let it go. (Carver's having Sam bring that up in season 8 was not in character, in my opinion, but Sam pretty much wasn't for the first half of that season anyway)

 

So I guess I'm trying to say that Mr Carver has generally shown a lot of potential for Dean's stories, but he doesn't seem (to me anyway) to know what to do with Sam, so he just shoves him in there and makes him fit to whatever it is he wants to happen in the story... until this season when I thought that Sam's story finally had potential, and I was really enjoying it.... until the annoying cliches got thrown in there with Sam's lying even when it made less sense and the constant Sam being told he shouldn't do this but he did it anyway stuff started coming up as a repetition of season 4. Then I started questioning what the message was here... and it won't be until I see the fallout next season before I decide fully what I think of all of this. If it's just more repetition of Sam starts another apocalypse because he's arrogant and stubborn and wrong, I won't be amused. That kitty's meowed enough. Maybe just once more I'd like to see Sam be right about something major and not have to eat crow... again.

 

Well that's boring!.  I say use ALL THE WORDS.

 

Hee. Not only do I use all the words, I tend to make up some more if even all those words aren't enough.

[Altered Reality]

 

Hee. Not only do I use all the words, I tend to make up some more if even all those words aren't enough.

My people!

 

{BTW, I did say I was overtired and on pain meds didn't I? Yeah, not responsible for whatever drivel I might post ;D}

[7kstar]

After reading @Tippi Blevins great Brother's Keeper recap, I really really want Carver to have to sit down with fans and explain himself.  I want him to have to answer the tuff questions and not be allowed to get away with because it was where the story took us.

 

I mean is this what they teach when they teach TV writing?  I don't know as I have very little training in writing other than what I got from English. 

 

I know Jared always states the fans forgives us, but shouldn't they work a little better in having the plot holes connect the dots so to speak?

 

I understand there has been many badly written TV shows that were popular and time showed how horrible the writing was, but can Carver really think he is doing his best?  Serious question.

[Demented Daisy]

Carver will never admit that "It's where the story took us" is code for "We needed Dean to freak out and the easiest way to do that is to kill someone he loves".

 

In other words, they 'fridged Charlie, they know it, but they will never 'fess up.

[rue721]

After reading @Tippi Blevins great Brother's Keeper recap, I really really want Carver to have to sit down with fans and explain himself.  I want him to have to answer the tuff questions and not be allowed to get away with because it was where the story took us.

 

I mean is this what they teach when they teach TV writing?  I don't know as I have very little training in writing other than what I got from English.

 

I was a writing major in college, and my concentration was TV/theatrical writing. Ime, they mostly just teach you about a way to structure a story or a writing technique, then have you practice that structure/technique until you get it. Basically, you watch/read a lot of scripts that use the structure or technique you're learning about. Then you write a few pieces of your own using that structure/technique. Then, the students' pieces are critiqued by the other students and by the professor in class.

 

Ime, that system actually works pretty well in terms of teaching people how to write. I don't think the issue is that Carver literally doesn't know how to write for TV or how to structure a story. He obviously can write a good script -- regardless of whether or not you enjoy the episode (I do, but YMMV), Mystery Spot is fantastic technically. But writing something as complicated as an hour-long script requires thoughtfulness and care, and imo Carver doesn't give enough of that to the writing on this show. Imo, the scripts are usually very unpolished and feel like first or possibly second drafts. I don't know *why* Carver doesn't spend more time polishing those scripts, since that's his job, but he doesn't. And when a script *is* polished, it's pretty clear it's the individual writer doing that polishing rather than the staff as a whole or Carver as showrunner -- imo that was true for Glass/About a Boy.

 

Also, there's the matter of taste. Maybe Carver has terrible taste. I actually think that might be an issue, given that he can't see things like that killing off Charlie was a bad idea. That showing her dead body crumpled in a motel bathtub was in bad taste. The only fix for that problem imo is to give someone with better taste veto/editorial power. But Carver is head honcho now, so (imo) his bad taste is running amok on the show.

 

I'd be very happy for Carver to be on staff under a new showrunner. I think he's a good writer, but not a good showrunner. Imo, even if he takes pride in his own personal work (which is arguable), I think it's clear that he doesn't feel invested or take pride in the writing/work of the writing staff as a whole, which imo means that he shouldn't be in position of (their) leader. I also think that he needs someone with better taste than he does to give him some editorial oversight. YMMV.

[SueB]

I think the problem is that Singer is COMPLETELY tone deaf.  He might have some creative abilities and is a director who will bring a show in on-budget, but he's not the right guy to balance Carver. 

[Wynterwolf]

I think the problem is that Singer is COMPLETELY tone deaf.  He might have some creative abilities and is a director who will bring a show in on-budget, but he's not the right guy to balance Carver. 

 

Absolutely could not agree more with this.  Singer was the right guy to balance Kripke, he is not the right guy for the show as it is now.

[Aeryn13]

I think Kim Manners was the right guy to balance both Kripke and Singer. I know he wasn`t a writer but IMO he had a better creative vision than anyone currently on the show, 

[7kstar]

Carver will never admit that "It's where the story took us" is code for "We needed Dean to freak out and the easiest way to do that is to kill someone he loves".

 

In other words, they 'fridged Charlie, they know it, but they will never 'fess up.

Which is why I loved the audience response to the answer in Comic Con and that everyone let him drown for a bit.  The defense was half hearted at best.  I wonder if we weren't getting so many new fans is Supernatural would still be on the air?  I'm so tired of saying there is so much potential in the storyline...if I can see it, an untrained writer, it makes me wonder how much Carver cares?

[Mick Lady]

I'd pay good money to see SueB and rue take on Carver. Bet he'd cry.

 

I'm with you 7kstar. If we can see the potential, why can't the pros?

[DittyDotDot]

I'm sure you're all aware of my thinking Carver isn't a very good showrunner, so I'll try not to keep picking at that scab. I will say, I think the biggest issue is, IMO, Caver just doesn't have a passion for the show. I'm not saying he doesn't care--I think he's happy to be working on a show with people he likes and all--I just think he doesn't have a love for the material itself, nor do I think he has much of a vision for it. I just get this sense of "whatever" from him. As in, "Sure, whatever. If it works, that's great. If not, oh well, there'll be another one next week." I think it's probably pretty hard for the writers to get excited if there's little excitement coming from the top.

[7kstar]

IA that Carver doesn't appear passionate.  If it is just a job for him then he is ignoring the big picture of what happens when the show ends?  I think he's generated several good ideas, but maybe he's just terrible at sequence and closure.  His personality is very laid back, so that doesn't help his image. 

 

What's worse is the one that is passionate, maybe to a fault they don't seem to listen to. 

[FlickChick]

I think Kim Manners was the right guy to balance both Kripke and Singer. I know he wasn`t a writer but IMO he had a better creative vision than anyone currently on the show, 

Aeryn13, I could not agree more. Kim's death IMO was the greatest loss on this show. I agree with all of you that Carver should not be the show-runner for Supernatural. He must just enjoy the power and the paycheck, because I'm not seeing any positive creativity from him or the staff that he oversees. And I am so glad the the CC audience wouldn't accept his bullshit answer for why he killed Charlie. Too bad he doesn't have to answer to anyone in authority over him. :(  

[supposebly]

Not surprisingly, 10 years plus Carver and Singer's lack of enthusiasm have created complacency while new viewers are keeping the numbers up. I have noticed some time starting around season 5 or so that I enjoy the show so much more when binge watching the season in the summer. That's how I got to it in the first place at the end of season 2.

 

Unfortunately, this year, it's already towards the end of July and I haven't felt any inclination to rewatch. Every time I think about the finale, I only want to forget it ever happened. Usually, around this time I start to feel some kind of anticipation for the next season but it's not happening. It's not just Charlie (I never really liked her all that much), it's the accumulation of many many things, the retcons, the character assassinations, the repetition (Sam starts another apocalypse because the writers can't put a plot together), the completely illogical plot points, the boredom (Demon Dean was boring as hell, Crowley's mommy issues were boring, Sam was.....barely there and then he was boring or season4!Sam for no reason), that have been happening during Carver's tenure.

 

I'm sick of having to fanwank some resemblance of plot and character logic into this show. My hands are tired.

 

They make this big fuss about the Winchesters choosing each other again and all I can do is sit there and scratch my head wondering when they ever didn't do that, even when it made no bloody sense (end of season 8: I still don't know whether it was a good decision or not but we will never know now, won't we).

Or why that was an issue to begin with this season? As far as I could see, it wasn't. Death even said it was a problem that they would always choose each other over everything, so I don't really know why choosing each other is this big news? It just makes me hate them since by now, them choosing each other puts everything else at risk instead of helping saving the world (Swan Song). And now we have "THE DARKNESS!!!!!!" Blergh. How can anyone say that with a straight face.

 

I adore Jared and Jensen. I respect them as individuals as far as that is possible with people I don't know. Especially Jared's courage to talk openly about his issues with depression has earned my enduring respect. They've kept me watching for the last 3 years but it's not enough anymore.

I so want to see them in something else, they are great actors, for heaven's sake, they should start stretching their wings a bit more. The show is old, their character have been treading the same old same old for years and I'm not only bored but frankly, sick of it. There seems to be no substance behind it all anymore and I mourn the show and the characters that were.

 

Charlie's death wasn't a risk, they've killed off beloved characters pretty much from the beginning, it's the WAY it was done. The degree of stupid characters have to be in order to advance the so-called risky move of killing a character (Kevin's death was not much better). The barely-there repercussions, the same old same old of the characters' reactions. The joke that deaths don't mean anything on the show. Why is that supposedly funny? If that's the case, why is that supposed to be risky? If the  deaths are not important, why should I care that Dean was about to chop Sam's head off? The reasons still make no sense to me at all. And I really didn't care much anyway. The acting can't even save the writing anymore, so why should I watch?

 

Without rewatching, these are the episodes that I remember actually enjoying, not just was meh about, or actively disliked.

Fan Fiction

Hibbing 911

About a Boy

 

Not exactly episodes:

Cain's hair.

The Supernatural Parody

 

Not much of a turnout, isn't it?

[SueB]

I think Cain's hair should have had its own trailer and screen credit.

[7kstar]

I've noticed that Jensen is so so in his interviews.  I wonder if he had a goal to get to season 11.  I know he's enjoying it and certainly he doesn't seem bored but he isn't very excited.  Jared on the other hand appears really excited.  Although everyone seems excited about the 4th ep.

 

Now that doesn't mean I think Jensen hates the show or thinks it sucks, but I wonder if he wasn't so careful about his responses if we would see he's tired.  I know he was tired of the Mark of Cain.  But I think he was tired of what it meant.  It didn't really go anywhere but if it had would he have been tired?

 

I haven't reacted to the last death's well because it just felt like hey let's do this death to justify this story.  But now we are in the reverse.

 

Years ago, you never killed the main characters or important people.  Then we've gone through the phase of what if we did.  Now if feels as if well what else can we do, oh let's kill so and so.  It no longer is shocking.  It now doesn't mean much.  So for me, if they are going to kill someone then it really needs to have worth.  In my opinion it looks like they just slam dunked it without any real thought.

 

IA the WAY they do it matters.  I know I have more this season I really like than last and certainly more than season 8...but as much as I like Jared and Jensen, I almost wonder if it would be more exciting to see them in something else.  Of course the logic part is worried that I wouldn't see them in something else, but I hope that they can find something else.

 

If the writer's were really writing compelling stuff, then this conversation would be mute.  I just wonder if the problem of so many people living the life of instant gratification is making everyone dumber.  I know when I was younger, I wouldn't have thought something was badly written.  Heck I thought the old Batman series was good until I saw it as an adult.  Then I realized how bad it was.  Sigh....

Edited July 18, 2015 by 7kstar