Wayward Sisters Spoilers and Speculations

[Whimsy]

Since the Supernatural Spoilers with Speculations thread has gotten some chatter about the spin-off, we thought it would be best to create its own topic. Remember, this is to talk about spoilers and speculations about the new show. Not rehash old SPN episodes where these characters appeared. 

[nightwing877]

Anything from the DC and Hon panels come out about the spin-off or pilot with Kim and Briana? I haven't seen any of the panels they did in the past few weeks leak online yet? Curious if they gave any insights?

[SueB]

I haven't seen the Honolulu one but the DC one is short and to the point.  ETA: 12:44 is the start of Wayward discussion.

Edited November 21, 2017 by SueB

[nightwing877]

On 21/11/2017 at 5:29 PM, SueB said:

 

 

I haven't seen the Honolulu one but the DC one is short and to the point.  ETA: 12:44 is the start of Wayward discussion.

thanks for sharing. :)

[Wayward Son]

http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/more-tv-news/new-sabrina-dont-call-her-a-teenage-witch-series-lands-at-netflix/

 

So the Riverdale spin off reboot of Sabrina has been picked up by Netflix who will air it instead. Since that means it’ll no longer be in competition with Wayward for pick up next season do you guys think the chances of a pick up have improved?

 

I personally think they may be improved for the simple fact I doubt the CW would have wanted to launch two spin offs in the same season. I’ve also always thought Sabrina would be the more feasible spin off due to two factors a) it may be able to attract the attention of those who loved the show which aired in the 90s and b) the Riverdale audience are probably more open to a spin off. Since a lot of the sn fandom have already expressed a refusal to watch a show set in the supernatural verse without one of, or both, Jared and Jensen. 

[nightwing877]

Yeah Wayward Sisters chances just rose massively. CW no longer has a spin-off for Riverdale, so now they are likely surely picking up SPN's spin-off. I didn't think CW would consider both shows, because then nearly everything on the network would be paired or have a spin-off. 

Does this mean the Charmed reboot is back in development without Sabrina on CW. I hope not. 

It wouldn't surprise me if CW picked up WS alongside SPN season 14 in February at the same time. 

[catrox14]

And here we go.

First Look at Wayward Sisters

http://ew.com/tv/supernatural-spin-off-wayward-sisters-first-look/wayward-sisters

Quote

EW has an exclusive first look at the backdoor pilot for Wayward Sisters, which follows Claire's (Kathryn Love Newton) return home to Sioux Falls, South Dakota, where Jody (Kim Rhodes) and Alex (Katherine Ramdeen) are waiting. Add in Donna (Brianna Buckmaster), Patience (Clark Backo), and new girl Kaia (Yadira Guevara-Prip), and you've got the makings of a monster-fighting force. The backdoor pilot is set to air on Thursday, Jan. 18 on The CW.

Pictured here: Alex (Katherine Ramdeen), Donna (Briana Buckmaster), and Claire (Kathryn Love Newton)

Edited December 4, 2017 by catrox14

[catrox14]

Funny how Claire is wearing her long flowing locks when she's apparently out hunting. LOL I'm sorry but like she has her hair up in a pony tail when she's leaving Jody's house but not when she is out hunting. RME.

Come on, show.  Do better on that point.

[bethy]

Long, flowy, perfectly-coiffed hair on women who are doing physical things like hunting is one of my major pet peeves on television - or movies for that matter. Yet another reason for me to dislike Claire.

[catrox14]

10 minutes ago, bethy said:

Long, flowy, perfectly-coiffed hair on women who are doing physical things like hunting is one of my major pet peeves on television - or movies for that matter. Yet another reason for me to dislike Claire.

I don't blame Claire because at least when she wasn't trying to be a hunter she had reason to wear her hair down or rather it didn't matter if she wore it down. She even had the side braids which are gone now.  Her look here reeks of someone at network wanting to make her look sexier.  I guess if it's good enough for Sam ..I keed, I keed. But no, it's stupid and takes me right out of taking Claire seriously as a hunter. It's ridiculous.

Edited December 4, 2017 by catrox14

[Lady Calypso]

I haven't watched much of the Claire episodes (I've been watching on and off for a few years now so I missed most of season 10), though I will go back to watch if Wayward Sisters gets picked up, but I laugh at all the comments I've read about what people think of Claire. 

Those photos up above make me laugh because Claire not only has her hair down, but her makeup is perfect enough to be noticeable. Like, she's wearing quite a bit of makeup, even with a bruise on her face, which makes me wonder when she had time to touch up her makeup. It looks like she's going to a club rather than going out hunting. I'm hoping that trend for the show doesn't continue if the spinoff gets picked up. We don't need to have the women look like they're going out dancing. They can look a little messed up and they don't need to be wearing makeup. 

[TexasGal]

1 minute ago, Lady Calypso said:

Those photos up above make me laugh because Claire not only has her hair down, but her makeup is perfect enough to be noticeable. Like, she's wearing quite a bit of makeup, even with a bruise on her face, which makes me wonder when she had time to touch up her makeup. It looks like she's going to a club rather than going out hunting. I'm hoping that trend for the show doesn't continue if the spinoff gets picked up. We don't need to have the women look like they're going out dancing. They can look a little messed up and they don't need to be wearing makeup. 

I had the same reaction to the makeup.  I didn't even realize it was Claire until the shot of her with Jody, she's never been made up like that before.  And it really stands out since the other actresses have a much more "natural makeup" look going on.

[catrox14]

1 minute ago, Lady Calypso said:

I haven't watched much of the Claire episodes (I've been watching on and off for a few years now so I missed most of season 10), though I will go back to watch if Wayward Sisters gets picked up, but I laugh at all the comments I've read about what people think of Claire. 

Those photos up above make me laugh because Claire not only has her hair down, but her makeup is perfect enough to be noticeable. Like, she's wearing quite a bit of makeup, even with a bruise on her face, which makes me wonder when she had time to touch up her makeup. It looks like she's going to a club rather than going out hunting. I'm hoping that trend for the show doesn't continue if the spinoff gets picked up. We don't need to have the women look like they're going out dancing. They can look a little messed up and they don't need to be wearing makeup. 

I laughed at that as well. Also, I have long hair that has a natural wave and with a bit of curl enhancer it looks less poofy but Claire's hair looks like she's either slept with curlers or took 20 minutes with a curling iron.

What really sucks about her look here? Is that if they didn't do this we wouldn't be talking about how stupid it is for her to be wearing her hair this way. It's not me being bitchy or catty it's flat out DANGEROUS for her to wear her hair down even if she's just running through the woods because she can easily get her hair caught on a branch or something. I'm not being snarky either. It makes Claire look foolish. 

[Lady Calypso]

Just now, catrox14 said:

I laughed at that as well. Also, I have long hair that has a natural wave and with a bit of curl enhancer it looks less poofy but Claire's hair looks like she's either slept with curlers or took 20 minutes with a curling iron.

What really sucks about her look here? Is that if they didn't do this we wouldn't be talking about how stupid it is for her to be wearing her hair this way. It's not me being bitchy or catty it's flat out DANGEROUS for her to wear her hair down even if she's just running through the woods because she can easily get her hair caught on a branch or something. I'm not being snarky either. It makes Claire look foolish. 

The other girls seem to have their hair down while hunting as well, which disappoints me. At least Donna was the smart one and has her hair up in a ponytail. I know Alex and Patience have shorter hair than Claire's, but their hair could also get caught somehow. For me, it's not even if their hair gets caught somehow (because I think it's equally as likely for their hair to get caught in a ponytail and that could be more dangerous), but because they're hunting and their hair being down means that their hair could end up covering their face and getting in the way when fighting monsters. Who would want to be brushing their hair out of their face while hunting? 

And my issue with Claire's makeup isn't that Claire shouldn't choose what makeup and how much to put on. She can wear as much or as little makeup as possible. But every single show like this when it comes to females basically dictates that women need to look good in order to attract the male audience. This is perpetuated too much in these types of shows and it's very rare for a show to allow a woman to look bad while fighting crime or whatnot. So when Claire wears this much makeup, it makes it seem like she won't just be the female lead, but the sexy female lead. 

Which I'm pretty sure Claire is the female lead, even with the little I actually know about her, so it sucks that her character will be used to most likely reinforce stereotypes like this. I'd really like to be wrong about my above assumption.

[catrox14]

5 minutes ago, Lady Calypso said:

The other girls seem to have their hair down while hunting as well, which disappoints me. At least Donna was the smart one and has her hair up in a ponytail. I know Alex and Patience have shorter hair than Claire's, but their hair could also get caught somehow. For me, it's not even if their hair gets caught somehow (because I think it's equally as likely for their hair to get caught in a ponytail and that could be more dangerous), but because they're hunting and their hair being down means that their hair could end up covering their face and getting in the way when fighting monsters. Who would want to be brushing their hair out of their face while hunting? 

And my issue with Claire's makeup isn't that Claire shouldn't choose what makeup and how much to put on. She can wear as much or as little makeup as possible. But every single show like this when it comes to females basically dictates that women need to look good in order to attract the male audience. This is perpetuated too much in these types of shows and it's very rare for a show to allow a woman to look bad while fighting crime or whatnot. So when Claire wears this much makeup, it makes it seem like she won't just be the female lead, but the sexy female lead. 

Which I'm pretty sure Claire is the female lead, even with the little I actually know about her, so it sucks that her character will be used to most likely reinforce stereotypes like this. I'd really like to be wrong about my above assumption.

HA! Good point. It would drive me crazy. I would never go hunting with my hair down! And even with the pic of Claire with a pony tail she has wisps around her face. LOL

I agree though with your general thing with the makeup. It's bothersome.

[catrox14]

[SueB]

In a non-Hair and Makeuo Topic - Alex looks like she’s got some steel to her.  Despite clearly wanting to be in the medical profession (and apparently succeeding) she’s out there mixing it up.  

I think Blue Work is another AU, but not Apocalypse world.  

[DittyDotDot]

18 minutes ago, SueB said:

Alex looks like she’s got some steel to her.  Despite clearly wanting to be in the medical profession (and apparently succeeding) she’s out there mixing it up.  

It looks like Claire might have had to talk her into it, but it being a all-hands-on-deck situation... .

19 minutes ago, SueB said:

I think Blue Work is another AU, but not Apocalypse world.  

Yeah, I agree. The one with Claire could be night, but the one with Sam and Dean is clearly got a tint to it.

[gonzosgirrl]

Don't they make police officers with long hair keep it tied back/up? Apart from it getting in the way or tangled up, it gives the bad guys something to grab onto as well.

My only ask for this show is that they don't have the girls earn their chops at the expense of Dean and/or Sam looking foolish or needing saved. They should be respected as the experienced hunters they are. They never made Bobby look like an idiot, even the few times they had to save him. Don't disrespect the mother ship.

Edited December 4, 2017 by gonzosgirrl

[RulerofallIsurvey]

And here I was thinking that Claire finally learned how to fix her hair nicely instead of those awful half-head braids she used to do!  Lol!  Her makeup is much better than it used to be in her full-on emo days.  I like the leather jacket too. 

[MysteryGuest]

Well, I'm going to assume that the show runners are dictating their "look".  And this is the CW, so looking good is pretty much their thing.  Even when our boys are banged up, they still look pretty good.  It would be nice to get a more realistic representation, but I'm not sure that's going to happen on this show.

[nightwing877]

1 minute ago, MysteryGuest said:

Well, I'm going to assume that the show runners are dictating their "look".  And this is the CW, so looking good is pretty much their thing.  Even when our boys are banged up, they still look pretty good.  It would be nice to get a more realistic representation, but I'm not sure that's going to happen on this show.

Yeah that is too bad. Although without Cas in the show, were getting to see the girls injuries not being healed. Jody rocks up with injuries almost every time she appears on SPN. 

[MysteryGuest]

6 minutes ago, nightwing877 said:

Yeah that is too bad. Although without Cas in the show, were getting to see the girls injuries not being healed. Jody rocks up with injuries almost every time she appears on SPN. 

Yeah, at this point, Jody has the knees of an 80 year old.  She's had the same leg injured a few times.  Maybe WS will get their own angel/healer to follow them around.

Edited December 6, 2017 by MysteryGuest
Edited because I keep forgetting this damn show isn't called Wayward Daughters!!

[nightwing877]

12 minutes ago, MysteryGuest said:

Yeah, at this point, Jody has the knees of an 80 year old.  She's had the same leg injured a few times.  Maybe WS will get their own angel/healer to follow them around.

Exactly, at this rate she will need a wheelchair. Perhaps WS will get their own angel or healer. But I guess that is what Alex will provide for the show, since she wanted to get into the field of a nurse didn't she?

[catrox14]

Supernatural Season 13 Photos

Season 13, Episode 10 — “Wayward Sisters”

Supernatural Photos: Wayward Sisters Gather in Spinoff's Backdoor Pilot

By Vlada Gelman / December 5 2017, 3:11 PM PST

Quote

Wayward Sisters‘ girl power is on full display in more than two dozen photos from the potential Supernatural spinoff.

Supernatural Season 13 Photos

Launch Gallery

In the backdoor pilot — penned by co-showrunner Andrew Dabb and writer Robert Berens — Sheriff Jody Mills (played by Kim Rhodes) and a group of troubled young women, all of them orphaned by supernatural tragedy, team up as a supreme monster-fighting force. Teens Claire Novak (Kathryn Newton) and Alex Jones (Katherine Ramdeen) will be joined by psychic Missouri Moseley’s granddaughter Patience Turner (Clark Backo) and newcomer Kaia (Yadira Guevara-Prip), who is introduced in this Thursday’s fall finale.

The group, along with Sheriff Donna Hanscum (Briana Buckmaster), joins forces in the Jan. 18 backdoor pilot to “kick some ass and tell a story that [is] in the Supernatural sphere, but will feel and play as much different than” the mothership series, Dabb described at San Diego Comic-Con.

The offshoot’s found-family has plenty of support from the long-running drama’s stars. “There’s a reason that this [spinoff] is hinging around them: because they were [fan] favorite characters on the show,” leading man Jensen Ackles said during TVLine’s set visit last month. “I know they’re favorite guests of [ours], and when they get to come on the show, it’s really fun for us.”

http://tvline.com/2017/12/05/supernatural-spinoff-wayward-sisters-pilot-photos/

[Linderhill]

I was at DC Con and Kim was so very psyched about the upcoming pilot as you can tell by the video posted above. Brianna didn't arrive until Saturday PM because she was filming an episode that, I believe was in conjunction to the set up for the pilot episode. I don't remember Kim or Brianna saying much about it at the Saturday combined panel. It was a couple of weeks ago and I need to refresh my memory. Kim was thrilled that it was Bobo Berens that wrote the episode and she and him were very excited about it. As for the whole hair discussion going on in the previous posts on here, sometimes the networks refuse to believe that their viewers can differentiate between two characters with the same hair color if they wear it the same way. As an example, years ago I was watching the pilot episode of "Without A Trace" listening to the director's commentary. One of the stars, Poppy Montgomery, had long straight blonde hair. The guest star, Arija Bareikis, also had long straight blonde hair. Network management was afraid that viewers wouldn't be able to tell them apart so Arija had to have her hair up in a bun or pony tail in every scene,(even when she was kidnapped and recovered). I'm pretty sure that there is probably someone in production that is thinking that same way although there are obvious differences in appearance between Kathryn and Brianna. And yes, police officers are required to have their hair pulled back or to keep it short. Its just more practical when felons can be grabbing at you. But this is TV and heaven help us if we can't have some "glamour" with our young female actors. I reminds me of the CSI shows and all of the women would be processing crime scenes with their lovely long locks hanging down loose.

[RulerofallIsurvey]

On 12/5/2017 at 9:41 PM, MysteryGuest said:

Well, I'm going to assume that the show runners are dictating their "look".  And this is the CW, so looking good is pretty much their thing.  Even when our boys are banged up, they still look pretty good.  It would be nice to get a more realistic representation, but I'm not sure that's going to happen on this show.

To be fair, it's not only The CW.  See:

1 hour ago, Linderhill said:

It reminds me of the CSI shows and all of the women would be processing crime scenes with their lovely long locks hanging down loose.

And their shirts open practically down to their navels...

Well, at least - hopefully - this being SPN-ish - we won't see that.  :)

Honestly though, for the most part, I don't have a problem with my tv characters looking pretty good even when they totally shouldn't.  If I wanted real realism, I wouldn't be watching a show called Supernatural!  Lol!

[catrox14]

It's not that it has to be a documentary. For me it's a matter of consistency. Most of the female hunters in this show wear their hair up or pulled back when in action or it's styled in a way that it's not in their face. Even last year Claire at least had her hair pulled back in a barrette and off her face when she was in her fed threads but here she's out  on the hunt  but her hair is down and she's all glammed up. It's a jarring shift.

Again, it's not because they can't be pretty or wear makeup, they need to be practical. Heh, maybe Kathryn has a deal with a cosmetics company and well see Maybelline mascara in her bag LOL

[Casseiopeia]

1 hour ago, catrox14 said:

It's not that it has to be a documentary. For me it's a matter of consistency. Most of the female hunters in this show wear their hair up or pulled back when in action or it's styled in a way that it's not in their face. Even last year Claire at least had her hair pulled back in a barrette and off her face when she was in her fed threads but here she's out  on the hunt  but her hair is down and she's all glammed up. It's a jarring shift.

Again, it's not because they can't be pretty or wear makeup, they need to be practical. Heh, maybe Kathryn has a deal with a cosmetics company and well see Maybelline mascara in her bag LOL

I had the same problem with Charlie in Revolution.  This was supposed to be an apocalyptic world and she looked like she just left the mall.  All I kept thinking (as someone who works outside) was grab a rubber band or cut your hair....something!

[catrox14]

28 minutes ago, Casseiopeia said:

I had the same problem with Charlie in Revolution.  This was supposed to be an apocalyptic world and she looked like she just left the mall.  All I kept thinking (as someone who works outside) was grab a rubber band or cut your hair....something!

I used to yell at Lori in the Walking Dead for the same reasons. Just put your hair up in a clip!!! It doesn't even need to be a ponytail. A little loose bun!! Something. Anything. LOL

[Wayward Son]

My greatest hope for WS is that the relationships on the show will be more organic and less convulted once they’re free of the stupid “no one but the two leads” can appear in every episode rule. Hopefully they’ll allow all characters main and minor to appear as much, or indeed little, as needed to match the plot / relationships.

[catrox14]

1 hour ago, Wayward Son said:

My greatest hope for WS is that the relationships on the show will be more organic and less convulted once they’re free of the stupid “no one but the two leads” can appear in every episode rule. Hopefully they’ll allow all characters main and minor to appear as much, or indeed little, as needed to match the plot / relationships.

It's already set up as an ensemble show with Jody, Donna, Alex, Claire, Kaia, and Patience, and I bet...Jack eventually because his friendship with Kaia. Unless Jack dies in SPN.

SPN was built off the X Files model. It started as a two hander, it's always been a two hander, it will end as a two hander. And despite it being a two hander, they have expanded to more characters who aren't required to be in every episode. Two different basic set ups.

[Wayward Son]

20 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

It's already set up as an ensemble show with Jody, Donna, Alex, Claire, Kaia, and Patience, and I bet...Jack eventually because his friendship with Kaia. Unless Jack dies in SPN.

SPN was built off the X Files model. It started as a two hander, it's always been a two hander, it will end as a two hander. And despite it being a two hander, they have expanded to more characters who aren't required to be in every episode. Two different basic set ups.

I understand this, but IMO the two hander hasn’t been working in the shows favour in years. It has only served to create uneven and convulted storytelling to support its continued existence and done both Sam and Dean and the characters involved an injustice. The secondary characters are being failed because the writers create the most stupid of reasons to get them off screen and Sam and Dean are being failed because they often look like heartless douchebags such as LARP and the Real Girl. At least the X Files had the sense to move on from this model when the time came. The people behind this show are too idiotic to do the same. 

 

So without that stupid rule to hold them back I hope the Wayward crew and any support characters the show introduces are more organic and allowed the room to develop as needed. 

Edited December 8, 2017 by Wayward Son

[catrox14]

4 minutes ago, Wayward Son said:

I understand this, but IMO the two hander hasn’t been working in the shows favour in years. It has only served to create uneven and convulted storytelling to support its continued existence and done both Sam and Dean and the characters involved an injustice. The secondary characters are being failed because the writers create the most stupid of reasons to get them off screen and Sam and Dean are being failed because they often look like heartless douchebags such as LARP and the Real Girl. At least the X Files had the sense to move on from this model when the time came. The people behind this show are too idiotic to do the same. 

 

So without that stupid rule to hold them back I hope the Wayward crew and any support characters the show introduces are more organic and allowed the room to develop as needed. 

Two hander doesn't mean they have to be in every episode TOGETHER. Scully and Mulder weren't always together. And thinking back SPN separated the boys more in 2, 4,5,6,7 and 9 and for me those are some of the better seasons because they split them up for organic story reasons. So I don't think it's A RULE or even the nature of the beast of two handers but more the unwillingness of fans to accept them being apart for five freaking minutes.

Since WS is already designed to be ensemble I'm sure there will be much more moving around of characters and different parings.

[Wayward Son]

Going to move to All Episodes thread

 

1 minute ago, catrox14 said:

Two hander doesn't mean they have to be in every episode TOGETHER. Scully and Mulder weren't always together. And thinking back SPN separated the boys more in 2, 4,5,6,7 and 9 and for me those are some of the better seasons because they split them up for organic story reasons. So I don't think it's A RULE or even the nature of the beast of two handers but more the unwillingness of fans to accept them being apart for five freaking minutes.

Since WS is already designed to be ensemble I'm sure there will be much more moving around of characters and different parings.

[Jediknight]

52 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

It's already set up as an ensemble show with Jody, Donna, Alex, Claire, Kaia, and Patience, and I bet...Jack eventually because his friendship with Kaia. Unless Jack dies in SPN.

Don't you put that evil on us.  Jack has been a great addition, and that gives me a lot of hope that they'll be able to balance all the characters on this show.  They were able to take a character that really could have been eye-rolling, and made him fantastic.  And hopefully, they put a call into the Legends writers to ask for some pointers on how to to an ensemble show, where everybody kicks ass and nobody is left to the side, till it's time for them to shine.

[catrox14]

3 hours ago, Jediknight said:

Don't you put that evil on us.  Jack has been a great addition, and that gives me a lot of hope that they'll be able to balance all the characters on this show.  They were able to take a character that really could have been eye-rolling, and made him fantastic.  And hopefully, they put a call into the Legends writers to ask for some pointers on how to to an ensemble show, where everybody kicks ass and nobody is left to the side, till it's time for them to shine.

I'm not rooting for him to die, just saying it could happen.

[nightwing877]

I am curious if WS will be a full ensemble show. If all six leads appear in every episode. I could see many episode's pairing certain characters up. Is Donna going to relocate towns. 

I wonder if the show will make a habit of having a dinner table scene in most episodes with all six women at the table. We've seen that occur back in season 11, and now in the pilot. It could be a staple of the show to make an effort of all six characters present in a single scene. 

The fact that the show is a roadshow and is set in one location and town really should help. Unless a character is off out of town. 

[DittyDotDot]

19 hours ago, Wayward Son said:

 At least the X Files had the sense to move on from this model when the time came. The people behind this show are too idiotic to do the same.

Well, to be fair, The X-files was forced into it. Between the contract dispute with David Duchovany and Gillian Anderson wanting to step back from the show some, they no longer had Mulder and Scully for enough episodes to keep the format a two-hander. I personally don't doubt they would've kept that format if they could've, though.

12 hours ago, nightwing877 said:

I am curious if WS will be a full ensemble show. If all six leads appear in every episode. I could see many episode's pairing certain characters up. Is Donna going to relocate towns. 

I hope so. Don't get me wrong, I love Sam and Dean, but the Supernatural has become very claustrophobic and somewhat stagnant because they don't develop characters outside of Sam and Dean enough--and Sam and Dean are over-developed at this point. They need to liven up their dynamic and as I always says the best way to liven up any stale dynamic on a show is to pair up your characters differently and see what happens. Supernatural just doesn't have enough developed characters to jumble around these days.

[catrox14]

1 hour ago, DittyDotDot said:

Supernatural just doesn't have enough developed characters to jumble around these days.

The show did that in s9 and s10 for a hot minute. And yes it was done under negative circumstances but I think that's the only way the show can do it because when the brothers get along a lot of fans only want them together, working with or against others. Heck even when the brothers don't get along they want the "brodependency".

WS  have  6 characters who can be paired off in any number of ways and there is no attachment to one particular pairing.

[nightwing877]

10 hours ago, DittyDotDot said:

 

I hope so. Don't get me wrong, I love Sam and Dean, but the Supernatural has become very claustrophobic and somewhat stagnant because they don't develop characters outside of Sam and Dean enough--and Sam and Dean are over-developed at this point. They need to liven up their dynamic and as I always says the best way to liven up any stale dynamic on a show is to pair up your characters differently and see what happens. Supernatural just doesn't have enough developed characters to jumble around these days.

1

Yeah, it happens when a show originally started out with only two leads. This is how it was for shows like Supernatural and a lesser extent Xena or X-Files. 

They really do need to liven the show-up. But sucks they had to keep killing characters left and right. Funny how last season even though Mary wasn't a regular, I felt she was. Because she got so much story for herself and it wasn't even tied to Dean and Sam and many episodes she didn't even interact with them. 

Really they should have kept season 1 with just the two of them, and kept adding new regulars year after year and stuff. Angel started out with just three but kept adding new people into the story each year. 

Curious if John was a regular in season 1, the show would be vastly different, even if he still died the following season and they added Ellen, Jo and Bobby in S2. The show might be different. I guess they made a mistake not adding new regulars fast enough earlier in the show's run. 

 

8 hours ago, catrox14 said:

The show did that in s9 and s10 for a hot minute. And yes it was done under negative circumstances but I think that's the only way the show can do it because when the brothers get along a lot of fans only want them together, working with or against others. Heck even when the brothers don't get along they want the "brodependency".

WS  have  6 characters who can be paired off in any number of ways and there is no attachment to one particular pairing.

Yeah, I don't get why they have to always be together. Fans complained like this on X-Files or Xena, which were a two-person lead show. I don't get it. 

 

That's why I like WS has 6 characters to develop and pair off all the time. Even if half the time some of them are not even in town, and off elsewhere. But that might be rare. I guess I'm looking at shows like Buffy, which was based only in one location. Not something like Charmed or Angel which was based in a much larger location setting.

[gonzosgirrl]

Interesting - and by interesting, I mean shitty and disrespectful of the mothership - take on the spin off from its writer, Berens.

 

Of course when questioned on it (see the tweet thread) he walked it back, claiming even he couldn't understand what he'd said (this from a guy who, you know, writes for a living) and was sorry *if* it was misinterpreted.

 

Personally, I think it's the most honest any of TPTB have been about how they see the spin off, and how they see the mothership.

Edited December 11, 2017 by gonzosgirrl

[gonzosgirrl]

I case you don't want to read the twitter thread, this is his response to the original question, and to the person who 'explained' it for him.

 

[catrox14]

Bringing this over from another thread since it's relevant here now and goes along with  @gonzosgirrl post.

.

On 12/7/2017 at 11:46 PM, catrox14 said:

'Supernatural': Why the Time Is Right for Spinoff 'Wayward Sisters'

 

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/supernatural-wayward-sisters-spinoff-andrew-dab-bob-berens-1065310

For such a historically male-driven show, how does an all-female cast change things up creatively?

BERENS: The whole show is changing in order to open up the focus to include other characters, so it's almost not even about gender in that sense. It's about what happens when Sam and Dean are off the board. Basically, they don't exist in our reality anymore, so the cameras, the POV of the show, finds these other characters, a group of women who have, to varying degrees, been saved by Sam and Dean, have been touched by the supernatural, who are working as hunters in their own right. It's not just a chance to put a light on these female characters, it's also a chance to broaden out the POV of the show … as well as an opportunity for these women to actually save the show from itself. Sam and Dean are gone, so they're restoring Supernatural to Supernatural. So the focus will return to Sam and Dean in a very firm way by episode 11, and in a way, it's these women who are making that possible. That's how we conceptualized it.

DABB: The hope is that while these actresses and characters have been injecting a non- Sam and Dean, non-male perspective into the world, these characters all really matter. If we were populating it with four random female characters who no one had met before and expecting people to tune in just because they should support female-driven genre shows, I don't know if the audience would respond to that; I don't think that would be a good thing for us. We've spent, in some cases eight or nine years, building up these characters and hopefully making people care about them. Our hope is that people respond to these characters as characters. I would never say it's not about gender but the gender is something that would permeate the DNA of this show from the beginning, but at the end of the day, I don't think we expect people to tune in only because of the gender mix of the show. They're going to tune in because they're fascinated by these characters and our hope is that we did our jobs and created characters that are fascinating.

But while it's not solely just based on gender, it is so exciting to finally see a piece of the Supernatural world populated with so many strong female characters. Given the climate of the industry today, why was it the right time to do this? 

BERENS: Giving the spotlight to women and getting them to be centered in that [Sam and Dean] way is exciting because it's new. A lot of what we're seeing is Supergirl-like characters, and something that's special about Supernatural that becomes even more special when it's about women is that these are human beings. They're mortal fighters. They get beat up, they get bloodied, they get emotionally devastated. There's something very grounded about the central characters of Supernatural and having female heroes who are women doing extraordinary things, that's a very special and exciting thing that I don't think we've seen that much of yet.

DABB: None of these characters are the chosen one, you know what I mean? When you do a show like this you think of Buffy and people who are, like, anointed. What's great about these characters and Supernatural just generally is there is no one who is anointed. You have to go and search and strive and work hard and sacrifice. That's what we want these characters to do. They're real humans fighting these battles. That's a good thing to see that we should see more of on TV. We should see more women out there kicking ass and taking names and occupying powerful roles in a genre or space where sometimes they get a little buried. Genre television has been very male-focused and it's been very hero-focused in the masculine sense and that is broadening now. Obviously Buffy did that a few years ago, and you've got shows like Wynonna Earp that are doing that now, so the chance to be a part of that is really fun for us and allows us to tell different kinds of stories that are in the Supernatural world that shift the focus enough in a very exciting way.

 

I'm not buying the explanation in those tweets. If you look at the whole of the story here, they are either pushing the "Girl Power" thing OR someone in the show fundamentally thinks it is so male dominated as to not be good.

There is no way for me to interpret "Save the show from itself" as being anything but a meta commentary on the show. I mean yes it is a show that has been about men and their relationships with other men. I am not all comfortable with how this is being framed.

And it's suggesting that women never fared well AT ALL in SPN ever and that's really not the case.

Or Dabb is taking advantage of the current trend to female empowerment works which is fine but why suggest that SPN needs to be saved from itself. And can only be saved by women?

[gonzosgirrl]

I absolutely believe they are band-waggoning. I have to say that for this viewer, all they are accomplishing with this BS is to ensure that I will never watch their show. And yeah, back-pedal all you want - 'save the show from itself' doesn't really leave room for interpretation.

[catrox14]

39 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

I absolutely believe they are band-waggoning. I have to say that for this viewer, all they are accomplishing with this BS is to ensure that I will never watch their show. And yeah, back-pedal all you want - 'save the show from itself' doesn't really leave room for interpretation.

Yeah. And it's funny because if they didn't mean it as a meta commentary why not just say, "Save the boys from their predicament". Like that's all they have to say. But clearly that isn't all there is to it IMO.

[Casseiopeia]

4 hours ago, catrox14 said:

Bringing this over from another thread since it's relevant here now and goes along with  @gonzosgirrl post.

.

 

I'm not buying the explanation in those tweets. If you look at the whole of the story here, they are either pushing the "Girl Power" thing OR someone in the show fundamentally thinks it is so male dominated as to not be good.

There is no way for me to interpret "Save the show from itself" as being anything but a meta commentary on the show. I mean yes it is a show that has been about men and their relationships with other men. I am not all comfortable with how this is being framed.

And it's suggesting that women never fared well AT ALL in SPN ever and that's really not the case.

Or Dabb is taking advantage of the current trend to female empowerment works which is fine but why suggest that SPN needs to be saved from itself. And can only be saved by women?

I think I'm kind of speechless.  Did they really just tell us that WS is going to save Supernatural?  From what?  It's wild popularity around the world? The fact that no other genre show (with the same main cast) has ever gone 13 seasons (and could continue indefinitely if the stars wanted it too)?  What exactly does it need to be saved from?

This is our show runner?  This is his opinion of Supernatural?  Yes it is a male dominated show about the relationships between men.  A unique formula that has been pretty successful so far.  And that is a problem because????   He really has wrecked the Lamborghini....on purpose. 

Edited December 11, 2017 by Casseiopeia

[DittyDotDot]

6 minutes ago, Casseiopeia said:

I think I'm kind of speechless.  Did they really just tell us that WS is going to save Supernatural?

I thought he meant Jodi and Company were going to save the Supernatural universe because Sam and Dean weren't there to do it that day. I think he just got tongue-tied, so to speak, trying to talk about the different universes.

6 minutes ago, Casseiopeia said:

This is our show runner?  This is his opinion of Supernatural? 

No, this is Robert Berens who co-wrote Wayward Sisters.

Edited December 11, 2017 by DittyDotDot

[Wayward Son]

4 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said:

I thought he meant Jodi and Company were going to save the Supernatural universe because Sam and Dean weren't there to do it that day. I think he just got tongue-tied, so to speak, trying to keep talk about the different universes.

 Yeah, I think this is what he meant too! But I don’t blame fans for being extremely annoyed by the remark. It was poorly worded and that’s pretty bad coming from someone who is supposed to write for a living. 

[catrox14]

3 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said:

No, this is Robert Berens who co-wrote Wayward Sisters.

I'm not letting Dabb off the hook here. Berens isn't saying this in a vacuum, when Dabb is being interviewed as well.