Wayward Sisters Spoilers and Speculations

[catrox14]

14 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 talk about the different universes.

He said "save the show from itself". He didn't say 'Save the boys from themselves. Or save the universes".  I'm not giving him or Dabb a pass on this one.

[Casseiopeia]

12 minutes ago, Wayward Son said:

 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. 

I don't know I thought the comment "save the show from itself" and "restoring Supernatural to Supernatural" because of the girls kind of meant that the girls (the spin off) were going to save SPN from itself.  Or the mess that Dabb has made of it.

[catrox14]

12 minutes ago, Casseiopeia said:

I don't know I thought the comment "save the show from itself" and "restoring Supernatural to Supernatural" because of the girls kind of meant that the girls (the spin off) were going to save SPN from itself.  Or the mess that Dabb has made of it.

That's exactly what I thought.

[Wayward Son]

My question is; how do the girls/spin off save the show from itself in the sense fans are taking it? If the spin off is created then that means Jodi, Donna etc will be off on their own show and will have little to no impact on the content of the mother show. If they were saying the main show needed saving due to poor content or whatever then wouldn’t it make more sense to make the mothership an ensemble and promote Jodi, Donna etc to co-leads? Then they’d be in the position of “saving” the show. However, a spin off IMO gives those characters even less influence over Supernatural as they’ll be off doing their own thing. 

Edited December 12, 2017 by Wayward Son

[catrox14]

12 minutes ago, Wayward Son said:

My question is; how do the girls/spin off save the show from itself in the sense fans are taking it? If the spin off is created then that means Jodi, Donna etc will be off on their own show and will have little to no impact on the content of the mother show. If they were saying the main show needed saving due to poor content or whatever then wouldn’t it make more sense to make the mothership an ensemble and promote Jodi, Donna etc to co-leads? Then they’d be in the position of “saving” the show. However, a spin off IMO gives those characters even less influence over Supernatural as they’ll be off doing their own thing. 

Quote

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.

Given the entire article is based on the idea that the show is heavily male dominated it's hard for me to not see the showrunners are finding this objectionable for some reason. Maybe the writer is I'm not sure. 

 I read this a few times and each time I find myself interpreting it in the following way, more specifically:  

Berens says "It's not just a chance to put a light on these female characters but to broaden the POV of the show: To me that means that the show is actually trying to change it's POV from being focused on men and their relationships with each other. I don't really know how to read that any other way given the question is about the heavy masculine tone of the show for all these years.

Then he goes on to say "It's an opportunity for the these women to save the show from itself." : To me that is saying that there is some kind of inherent problem in the show based on it's masculine POV and that the women will be the ones to save it from it's masculine POV. 

[gonzosgirrl]

1 hour ago, Casseiopeia said:

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. 

I would need somebody to explain why a de facto head writer, would say, in the presence of a showrunner: 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. and imagine it could b taken any way but what it states. He doesn't say 'save Sam and Dean', he says save the show. From itself. Unless words have new and different meanings in whatever world Berens and Dabb live in, I don't see how they can be interpreted differently. Regretted, perhaps. But misinterpreted? I don't think so.

[DittyDotDot]

1 hour ago, Wayward Son said:

 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. 

Oh, it was very poorly worded!! I don't blame anyone for being annoyed because...well, like I said, it was very poorly worded. But, was this a live interview or a written one? It almost sounded like maybe he was somewhat babbling and not a written response to a bunch of answers, so I don't know that I would knock him for being a writer. But, it was still poorly worded.

1 hour ago, catrox14 said:

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

I wasn't suggesting you should. The question was if those are the words of our showrunner, which they weren't, they were the words of Berens.

Edited December 12, 2017 by DittyDotDot

[catrox14]

To some other things in that article that I find rather eyerolly. 

Quote

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.

If Wayward Sisters does go forward as a series and you lose all these characters to the spinoff, do you have plans to repopulate the flagship series with more female characters?

Erm, Andrew your main protagonist, Sam Winchester is a "Chosen One" .  He had demon blood which gave him special powers and he was supposed to be the Boy King for the demons. Then he was the Chosen Vessel for Lucifer. Dean was kind of chosen but not really since another person could be Michael's vessel so not so much.  Even in "The Bad Place",  Patience has visions and Kaia can walk through worlds. How are they not chosen or anointed? I mean maybe I have a different understanding of anointed.

I don't get Dabb most of the time LOL

1 minute ago, DittyDotDot said:

asn't suggesting you should. The question was if those are the words of our showrunner, which they weren't, they were the words of Berens.

IMO Berens is speaking as an EP along with Dabb and the words represent the show's POV about all of this IMO. But we can agree to disagree.

[DittyDotDot]

13 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

IMO Berens is speaking as an EP along with Dabb and the words represent the show's POV about all of this IMO. But we can agree to disagree.

I was responding to a post who asked if specific things said--the women saving the show from itself--were the words of our showrunner. Those specific things were the words of Berens. Whether he's and EP or not, he is not the showrunner.

Like I said, I'm not suggesting you should let Dabb off the hook, but it really has nothing to do with my comment.

[nightwing877]

Yeah the wording is all wrong with what the EP's are saying. And Patience and Kaia seem chosen one like. Because all the other women have no abilities. 

[catrox14]

17 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said:

I was responding to a post who asked if specific things said--the women saving the show from itself--were the words of our showrunner. Those specific things were the words of Berens. Whether he's and EP or not, he is not the showrunner.

Like I said, I'm not suggesting you should let Dabb off the hook, but it really has nothing to do with my comment.

I understood. However, I think in this situation Berens is the showrunner for Wayward Sisters essentially. He's writing and IMO is the one driving the direction of this along with Dabb. So IMO, he is speaking for the show including Dabb.  I don't think Berens had poor word choice. I think he said what he meant and is back pedaling now that he/the show is being questioned on it.

[DittyDotDot]

1 minute ago, catrox14 said:

I understood. However, I think in this situation Berens is the showrunner for Wayward Sisters essentially. He's writing and IMO is the one driving the direction of this along with Dabb. So IMO, he is speaking for the show including Dabb.  I don't think Berens had poor word choice. I think he said what he meant and is back pedaling now that he/the show is being questioned on it.

Again, has nothing to do with my comment. Dabb is the showrunner for Supernatural and did not say the specific quote that was being asked about. My comment was simply a point of accuracy. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Bergamot]

12 hours 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.

They come across as so weaselly and insincere to me, it really leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

First, because they actually are criticizing Supernatural (no female point-of-view! no strong women characters!) but are trying to pretend that they aren't. Because they want the faithful viewers of the old show for the new show, but don't want to bite the hand that feeds them. I think that's why their comments sound so convoluted and poorly expressed, because they are trying to have it both ways. Proven to me by the way one of them quickly tried to backtrack when he was called on it.

Second, because to me, they make it sound as if they are stepping forward as champions to bring us something that is "new", something that is "needed", to bring us this "non-male perspective". I have no problem with them jumping on the women power bandwagon, that's great, but they just come across as if they are patting themselves on the back for it. They are selling a new product, not stepping forward to lead a revolution.

Also, they make a big point about how their characters are "real humans", not like Supergirl or Buffy, supposedly "a good thing that we should see more of on TV." For myself, I loved Buffy, and to me she was definitely a "real human", powers or not. These two can only wish that their characters will end up being as real and three-dimensional a character as she was; it's not just about being mortal or being non-anointed. And anyway, as already noted, one of their characters is a powerful psychic, one is the most amazing dreamwalker EVER who is able to open up doors to alternate universes, one of them was an angel vessel, and one of them was raised by vampires. Hardly an ordinary group of twenty-somethings.

Edited December 12, 2017 by Bergamot

[Wayward Son]

8 hours ago, catrox14 said:

Given the entire article is based on the idea that the show is heavily male dominated it's hard for me to not see the showrunners are finding this objectionable for some reason. Maybe the writer is I'm not sure. 

 I read this a few times and each time I find myself interpreting it in the following way, more specifically:  

Berens says "It's not just a chance to put a light on these female characters but to broaden the POV of the show: To me that means that the show is actually trying to change it's POV from being focused on men and their relationships with each other. I don't really know how to read that any other way given the question is about the heavy masculine tone of the show for all these years.

Then he goes on to say "It's an opportunity for the these women to save the show from itself." : To me that is saying that there is some kind of inherent problem in the show based on it's masculine POV and that the women will be the ones to save it from it's masculine POV. 

Oh I get why you see the words that way and I agree they come across that way. 

 

However, it doesn’t make me sense to me. Let us assume Dabb and Co think Supernatural is problematic and “needs saving” from its male point of view. How does sending Jodi, Donna, Claire and Alex off to a seperate show help with that? Sjnce theyll he busy with a show of their own they’ll have even less viewpoint than before. Would it not make more sense to heighten their role on Supernatural? Allow them to “save” the show by making at least some of them co-leads and thus expanding the shows viewpoint. Sending the girls off to their own just doesn’t make strategic sense if ones goal is to “expand the shows viewpoint and save it” 

Edited December 12, 2017 by Wayward Son

[DittyDotDot]

10 hours ago, Casseiopeia said:

I don't know I thought the comment "save the show from itself" and "restoring Supernatural to Supernatural" because of the girls kind of meant that the girls (the spin off) were going to save SPN from itself.  Or the mess that Dabb has made of it.

Oh, I agree it reads that way as sound bites, but when I read it in context of his entire statement it read differently to me. Berens seems to be babbling somewhat incoherently about how Sam and Dean are not in the Supernatural universe and it's up to these other characters to save it so that we can get back to Supernatural the following week.

Quote

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.

[gonzosgirrl]

4 hours ago, DittyDotDot said:

Oh, I agree it reads that way as sound bites, but when I read it in context of his entire statement it read differently to me. Berens seems to be babbling somewhat incoherently about how Sam and Dean are not in the Supernatural universe and it's up to these other characters to save it so that we can get back to Supernatural the following week.

Quote

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.

It makes so little sense though. What show is he talking about? The spinoff or the mothership? 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. What show is changing? It doesn't make sense if he's talking about WS because you can't change what doesn't exist yet. And you don't talk about a 'whole show changing' if it's for one episode of SPN while the women search for and save Dean & Sam.

He goes on to say Sam and Dean are off the board, they don't exist in our reality anymore. The WS reality or the SPN reality? 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. Change the POV of what show? Again, nonsense if he means the WS, and broadening the POV of SPN doesn't make sense either if these characters are then leaving for the new show.  It's beyond explanation, except as @Bergamot said above, they tried to play both sides, failed spectacularly, and then (Berens) tried to backpedal.

[DittyDotDot]

13 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

It makes so little sense though. What show is he talking about? The spinoff or the mothership? 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. What show is changing? It doesn't make sense if he's talking about WS because you can't change what doesn't exist yet. And you don't talk about a 'whole show changing' if it's for one episode of SPN while the women search for and save Dean & Sam.

To me, he's talking about Supernatural changing temporarily by switching POV from Sam and Dean to Jodi and Company

13 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

He goes on to say Sam and Dean are off the board, they don't exist in our reality anymore. The WS reality or the SPN reality? 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. Change the POV of what show? Again, nonsense if he means the WS, and broadening the POV of SPN doesn't make sense either if these characters are then leaving for the new show.  

Well, it will broaden out the POV of Supernatural for this one episode if the POV shifts from Sam and Dean to these other characters. I don't think he's talking long-term, though, but just for this one episode.

 

BTW,  I haven't read any the tweeting. This is my assessment of it free of what Berens said later. I saw the quote with the highlighted bits and went, "What?" and then read the entire statement and decided, that while it was very poorly worded and somewhat incoherent, it took on a different meaning in context.

[Pondlass1]

 It's an attempt at a copycat version of Supernatural featuring plaid wearing females.  I don't see it gathering much moss - especially if they're going to focus on how brilliant and Mary Sue these teen girls are. I doubt they'll have the angst and darkness (and acting abilities) of the Winchesters.  Teens don't tune in for that (well they did back in Buffy days but I think tastes have changed).

A monster will attack the Patience Daddy, which she sees in a vision.  They all flip hair, apply lip gloss and save Daddy who'll kiss and make up with daughter. Crap stuff like that.  Charlie's Angels with monsters.

14 hours ago, gonzosgirrl said:

an opportunity for these women to actually save the show from itself.

What the hell is he talking about?  Can we have this idiot attend a convention and do a panel?

[SueB]

3 hours ago, Pondlass1 said:

 It's an attempt at a copycat version of Supernatural featuring plaid wearing females.  I don't see it gathering much moss - especially if they're going to focus on how brilliant and Mary Sue these teen girls are. I doubt they'll have the angst and darkness (and acting abilities) of the Winchesters.  Teens don't tune in for that (well they did back in Buffy days but I think tastes have changed).

A monster will attack the Patience Daddy, which she sees in a vision.  They all flip hair, apply lip gloss and save Daddy who'll kiss and make up with daughter. Crap stuff like that.  Charlie's Angels with monsters.

What the hell is he talking about?  Can we have this idiot attend a convention and do a panel?

Wow.  That's really offensive.  Surely you didn't mean to imply that this is how female hunters act?

From Kim Rhodes mouth: 'This is not Supernatural with women replacing men. Yes, the characters are female but the emphasis is on fully fleshed out individuals.' 

Do I think the CW might promote it as 'female hunters'?  Sure.  They're asshats who look at things superficially.  But no way will we be seeing "flip hair, apply lip gloss'.  You really don't have much of an appreciation for Rhodes, Brianna Buckmaster, or Robert Berens if that's what you think is coming.

Was there ANYTHING in any of Claire's past episodes, Alex's two episodes, Patience's episode, or Kaia's episode that was "flip hair, lip gloss"?  The answer is not a single scene.  

It's true "Bloodlines" was a CW product.  That's not what Wayward will be.  But your boiling down these women to such trivial characterizations is unsupported and offensive.

[SueB]

3 hours ago, Pondlass1 said:

What the hell is he talking about?  Can we have this idiot attend a convention and do a panel?

ETA: Based on all the spoilers I think it goes something like this:

- The event in 13.09 created a rift in that ship.  I may not be close-able.  This may be the "Hellmouth" that the summer spoilers were talking about.
- So, in the course of the mothership, they unintentionally created a hellmouth while trying to escape.  
- "Wayward" will allow "Supernatural" to continue on as "Supernatural" as these women will stay behind and manage this likely permanent problem.
- IF they didn't then Sam and Dean would have to stop hunting and either figure out how to close the rift (which, let's be honest, if the show doesn't go, that's exactly what they'll do), OR they can leave someone to guard it -- the Wayward Sisters.
- The Wayward Sisters are the ideal guardians because 3 are hunters (Jody, Donna, Claire), Kaia is the lynchpin dream walker, and  Patience can warn them when bad is brewing.  I don't know Alex' role yet but she's loyal to Jody and Claire (although I think there will be friction) and she'll be there, turning into a hunter herself.

Back to his sentence: "an opportunity for these women to actually save the show from itself."
Translates to: Allow the show to continue it's normal format after opening up a Helmouth. Otherwise it would have to shift to deal with this new threat.  Thus they are "saving" Supernatural. 

I agree that if you aren't paying attention to all the hints put out, it's easy to not see this. I also agree that this is a poorly crypticly worded statement.  Bobo has stepped into offending the mothership and that's a bad idea as clearly fans are touchy.

[gonzosgirrl]

I'm paying attention, and I can parse and infer and twist myself into a pretzel to explain some of Berens' nonsense. I don't really appreciate the implication that I am just not smart enough to 'get it'.  But I challenge anyone to explain to me how these actual words can be interpreted to mean anything else but that they feel the show's POV is somehow less-than, needs fixing and this female POV is the way to do it. He says the show, not the supernatural world, not the boys, not an episode. The show. I think he knew exactly what he was saying, and then regretted his candor once he was called on it.

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.

Edited December 12, 2017 by gonzosgirrl

[catrox14]

I've been saying for a while now that I think Dabb has been slowly trying to alter the mothership rather than focus on creating a real spinoff.  That might explain the disconnect and weirdness of that interview.

If the spinoff fails to get picked up then they have "broadened the POV of the show" which IMO really means add more "badass" female characters who don't die to the the cast vs adding a more "female" tone  which what does that really mean? It means a lot of things. Does it mean feminist? Maybe but in my opinion this show has been fairly feminist at times already. ** 

So now, they won't kill off these characters (well maybe Claire because Kathryn seems to be in high demand these days) and they will have suggested that because the women and girls have saved the "boys" they now have a reserved table in SPN proper if the spinoff isn't picked up. And if it is but only for a limited run, then they can bring them back to have a seat at that table of the "broadened POV SPN" (read: ensemble show now). That's what I think is really being said between the lines. 

And maybe that is Dabb's entire goal and maybe even the Js' as well. I don't think anyone wants to see the show end and put hundreds of people out of work but if the J's and maybe even Misha, want more time off for whatever reasons, then this is one way to do it. 

**Now this will probably be an UO, but I'm putting it here because it's related to the spinoff.

IMO even though this show has featured more men in leading/main supporting roles it's not overtly masculine as in uber macho douchebaggery or 'toxic masculinity' from most of the males most of the time, and no not even Dean despite the attempts to paint him with that brush. And even though, it features more about the relationships between men vs between men and women, there has been IMO, a good dose of feminism in the show and not just in "badass chick hunter" or what have you. IMO most of that was under Kripke and Carver (YES I SAID CARVER despite Charlie's awful demise), less so with Sera and Dabb who IMO have lacked the alacrity of creating complex female characters as a showrunner, unlike under Kripke's and Carver's watch. Now maybe Sera, the writer, did better than Sera, the showrunner, or maybe Singer's fingers were in Sera's pie more than we realize. Hard to say. 

Don't get me wrong, there is awful imagery and optics and peculiar storytelling with how several female characters met their demise.  And yes the women serve the story of the Winchester boys as does every other character in the show, including Castiel, who I consider more or less a third lead.

Carver was a mixed bag with his female characters. I think, in general, he did well with them. Abaddon, Linda Tran, Amelia (yes I said Amelia who was not likeable but I thought a real kind of unhappy person, that's just me YMMV), Charlie (before she became Charlie Sue), Hannah, Donna, Rowena and for some even Amara (not for me per se).

Young Mary under Kripke was great. She was complex, tormented, believably imperfect, a good fighter and even if Dean had never said "Mom was kind of a badass" I believed it anyway.  Maybe it was Amy Gumenick's performance that gave me that connection and belief that Mary was that complicated person. 

With Dabb, Mary was overly badass and under developed as a human being. Just because she wasn't JUST Mommy Homemaker but because she had no depth really. I felt like she was cookie cutter. Maybe Sam didn't give her enough layers for me to find her more than oddly one dimensional despite the attempts to make her complex. Like for me, just because she slept with the enemy and didn't make Dean's meatloaf, that didn't make her complex. I guess I felt like with Dabb's Mary it was all checklist stuff that was supposed to get me to see 'complex badass female character' but all I saw a caricature of a complex badass female character.  I felt like Dabb took the bullet points for Dean and assigned them to Mary and it didn't work for me. YMMV

Dabb took Rowena from a wonderful complex character to a man chasing manipulator who was burned to death by Lucifer, off screen. Donna changed from s9/10 to s11. She was WONDERFUL in s9/10.  Funny, complex, generally kind, if occasionally snarky, and sympathetic. She is my favorite female character on the show. She felt real to me. Sadly, I think she lost a bit of that in s11 in Plush. Yes I know that was techinally Carver but I think Dabb had his fingers in the pie long before the mid season finale. JMHO.  Donna became more of cookie cutter 'tough chick Donna' who Sam kind of scolds, and she ends up kind of apologizing. And she's quickly dubbed a hunter which might have been a delayed thing from her killing vampires in s10.  I feel like Donna became a little too 'checklist' and less real.  And honestly, she's the only reason I am kind of interested in WS and I'm worried what Berens will do with her TBH.  I don't want my beloved Donna to become a caricature of a "badass" chick.

Jody has even seemed kind of different under Dabb. Jody had the mom thing with Alex so that was fine, I just didn't see the need for the show to make sure Jody is also 'Mom' to the boys too.  I never thought she was particularly the "mom" to the boys despite her saying to Sam 'do I have to use my mom" voice in s7 and shippy stuff with Bobby.  She wasn't "mom" like with them in her s9 and s10 appearances. She was their friend, and colleague. I also ship her with Sam so that's awkward for me now LOL. And Jody is ONLY ten years older than Dean which to me is more understanding friend/big sister stuff not Mom stuff but whatever.

Anyway, I think they are playing games here with viewers. I think they are building an escape route back to a refurbished and reoriented mothership, IF the spinoff fails. And if it succeeds then they can wind down the mothership and have the boys occasionally make appearances in the spinoff (which I don't know if I want that or not. I'd rather they have an epic death ending than retire and show up to consult with the Wayward Sisters. I dunno. Mixed feelings. 
 

[catrox14]

37 minutes ago, SueB said:

Was there ANYTHING in any of Claire's past episodes, Alex's two episodes, Patience's episode, or Kaia's episode that was "flip hair, lip gloss"?  The answer is not a single scene.  

It's true "Bloodlines" was a CW product.  That's not what Wayward will be.  But your boiling down these women to such trivial characterizations is unsupported and offensive.

whilst I think "flip hair, and apply lipgloss" is kind of funny and think meant to be a little snarky and I don't think it will be the Charlie's Angels hot chicks posing, they already glammed up Claire to a degree over her previous look, as seen in the promo photos.  What do you make of that?

[SueB]

12 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

whilst I think "flip hair, and apply lipgloss" is kind of funny and think meant to be a little snarky and I don't think it will be the Charlie's Angels hot chicks posing, they already glammed up Claire to a degree over her previous look, as seen in the promo photos.  What do you make of that?

I think they are glamming up Claire a bit - but we'll have to see if it was the makeup/director or intended by the writing. If her character doesn't turn shallow (and I don't expect it to), then I'm prepared to see if it continues or was used as part of the 'sell' to higher ups.  Which is GROSS.  But not necessarily what the show will be about.  Kathryn Newton is in 3 golden globe nominated projects.  She's got 'rising stardust' on her.  I'm not sure it's going to hold up in the more ensemble-focus but I think they will play up Claire in the pilot to grab network attention. 

[SueB]

41 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

I'm paying attention, and I can parse and infer and twist myself into a pretzel to explain some of Berens' nonsense. I don't really appreciate the implication that I am just not smart enough to 'get it'.  But I challenge anyone to explain to me how these actual words can be interpreted to mean anything else but that they feel the show's POV is somehow less-than, needs fixing and this female POV is the way to do it. He says the show, not the supernatural world, not the boys, not an episode. The show. I think he knew exactly what he was saying, and then regretted his candor once he was called on it.

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.

Well that wasn't my intention.  I actually only skimmed most of the complaints about Berens because the gist was that his comments were coming out of the blue.  As I stated, I think the foundation is well laid.  You can have a different interpretation - but that's a different discussion.  The question was "What the hell is he talking about". That's the comment I reacted to.   

As for Beren's feelings on the show -- I think you are conflating 'broading out the POV of the show' and "save the show from itself".  Or not.  He's a writer. He could have many layers to his thoughts.  I certainly know he hated things like killing off Charlie.  But the mothership is doing very well in S13.  If there is no spinoff but we get more screentime of these Wayward Sisters, I'm okay with that too.  If the stories are good and the characters interesting, I'm good.  

[catrox14]

34 minutes ago, SueB said:

Back to his sentence: "an opportunity for these women to actually save the show from itself."
Translates to: Allow the show to continue it's normal format after opening up a Helmouth. Otherwise it would have to shift to deal with this new threat.  Thus they are "saving" Supernatural. 

I agree that if you aren't paying attention to all the hints put out, it's easy to not see this. I also agree that this is a poorly crypticly worded statement.  Bobo has stepped into offending the mothership and that's a bad idea as clearly fans are touchy.

I'm really kind of surprised that some don't interpret it as being "the show" as in the entirety of the "the show". Berens is not inarticulate in interviews that I've seen. To me as writers and EPs they take a much larger big picture view of things as in "THE SHOW". I have a pretty decent reading comprehension and I'm feeling fairly confident that "save the show from itself", can't really be read as "save the boys from AU".

I can read "return Supernatural to Supernatural" in a couple of ways:  The WS save the boys from the AU and let them get back their normal lives and they go off to SD so protect it from the Rift. OR because it's combined with 'The women have a chance to ACTUALLY save the show from itself" , I'm reading all of it together and I see a pretty clear interpretation of the 'The women, the Wayward Sisters, via the writers, are going to save the show as only women can in some way, and then return it to the boys but it will be better than it was before because they have saved the show from itself"  

That's what I think they mean. That's what I think they believe they are doing with the spinoff whether it goes to series or not because it will now be infused with a broadened POV henceforth. 

[Pondlass1]

42 minutes ago, SueB said:

She's got 'rising stardust' on her.

 She's definitely the IT girl right now.  I just saw her in 3 Billboards Past Epping and she's Claire again - morose teenager. Same as she was in Little Big Lies.  She has a lucky knack for finding a quality project, tho - or her management does.  So I'm wondering if she'll spend much time with the WS girls.   However she seems a fun girl off camera, the Js liked her at lot .... if only they'd let some of that come through.

[ahrtee]

2 hours ago, SueB said:

Wow.  That's really offensive.  Surely you didn't mean to imply that this is how female hunters act?

From Kim Rhodes mouth: 'This is not Supernatural with women replacing men. Yes, the characters are female but the emphasis is on fully fleshed out individuals.' 

Do I think the CW might promote it as 'female hunters'?  Sure.  They're asshats who look at things superficially.  But no way will we be seeing "flip hair, apply lip gloss'.  You really don't have much of an appreciation for Rhodes, Brianna Buckmaster, or Robert Berens if that's what you think is coming.

Was there ANYTHING in any of Claire's past episodes, Alex's two episodes, Patience's episode, or Kaia's episode that was "flip hair, lip gloss"?  The answer is not a single scene.  

It's true "Bloodlines" was a CW product.  That's not what Wayward will be.  But your boiling down these women to such trivial characterizations is unsupported and offensive.

I'm not sure.  I seem to remember an interview not that long ago (and sorry, my memory is shot so I can't remember which/when) but I think it was from Kim, and it said something to the effect of having a stable home base will allow the girls to have things like relationships and having to deal with daily life.  That, to me, sounds a warning bell of overly beautiful teenage girls angsting over boys and school, with a sideline of badass hunters to make them "special".  I'm not saying they *won't* be good hunters, and I'm definitely not putting Kim and Brianna in that scenario, but I can see Berens or whoever adding that as a sop to the CW so it fits in better with their lineup, and I can definitely see the perfect makeup and hair*, even if they don't apply lip gloss onscreen.  Jody and Donna are going to be housemothers, but the emphasis will be on angsty teenage girls.  

That's not necessarily a prediction, but it *is* my fear.  

*and skimpy sexy clothing, not flannel!

Edited December 12, 2017 by ahrtee

[gonzosgirrl]

1 hour ago, SueB said:

Well that wasn't my intention.  I actually only skimmed most of the complaints about Berens because the gist was that his comments were coming out of the blue.  As I stated, I think the foundation is well laid.  You can have a different interpretation - but that's a different discussion.  The question was "What the hell is he talking about". That's the comment I reacted to.   

As for Beren's feelings on the show -- I think you are conflating 'broading out the POV of the show' and "save the show from itself".  Or not.  He's a writer. He could have many layers to his thoughts.  I certainly know he hated things like killing off Charlie.  But the mothership is doing very well in S13.  If there is no spinoff but we get more screentime of these Wayward Sisters, I'm okay with that too.  If the stories are good and the characters interesting, I'm good.  

I don't think it's conflating things when they were stated in the same sentence, with the ellipsis indicating the continuation of the thought. It seems we can agree that the foundation was laid, but we're pretty far apart on what was built upon it.

32 minutes ago, Pondlass1 said:

 She's definitely the IT girl right now.  I just saw her in 3 Billboards Past Epping and she's Claire again - morose teenager. Same as she was in Little Big Lies.  She has a lucky knack for finding a quality project, tho - or her management does.  So I'm wondering if she'll spend much time with the WS girls.   However she seems a fun girl off camera, the Js liked her at lot .... if only they'd let some of that come through.

This, so much. I would generally like to smack Claire upside her braid, but Kathryn was quite delightful at the two cons I attended where she was a guest. She's got a good head on her shoulders, and was down to earth, respectful and fun on stage.

[bozodegama]

I'm really wary about Wayward Sisters.  I mean how are the six women going to beat up demons, vampires, angels (if they still exist), etc.  if Sam and Dean are always getting beaten up.  I know these girls have superpowers but they seem to be mostly mental powere (psychic, dreamwalker, whatever power claire novak has.)  Are the girls going to learn martial arts and become 12th degree black belts in the next few months.  Seems preposterous  Maybe Jack will join their club and kill alot the bad guys with what appears to be his superhuman, super angel , super demon ability.  Either way, it's going to be a stretch for me to believe.  They really need some men to help with the fighting or it will be hard to watch.  I mean, when Sam and Dean started, they would get their asses kicked regularly.  Still do. although there was an episode not this season where Sam and Dean and then Ketch killed like four demons, maybe more.  What happened to the demons and angels.  Did they suddenly get much weaker and less scary?   Ellen was a badass hunter but she had been doing it for a long time and Jo got killed rather quickly when she started hunting in Abandon All Hope.  They definitely need some masculine help or it's going to be a teenage girl soap opera.  Just my opinion and i've been watching the show from the start..

[catrox14]

1 hour ago, bozodegama said:

I'm really wary about Wayward Sisters.  I mean how are the six women going to beat up demons, vampires, angels (if they still exist), etc.

I honestly think this is a bait and switch thing. I think they can do it but I don't think they will be in that position to often.  I think it's going to be more of a family and fantasy drama that just happens to be set around this open rift and will be much more about the relationships of the girls and women and other people and the hunting will be the least important aspect of things. It can be argued that is the case with SPN as well but that story started because of deals with the devil essentially and really was a horror story for the family and it allowed them to build on the family drama aspect along with having horror/sci-fi and action with brawls etc. 

I still think it will be more like Torchwood wherein the creatures that came through their Rift were really there to serve as allegories to shed light on the Torchwood team and make political/social commentary. I think that  what will be the case here, thus the kind of hunting TFW does won't happen that much. But will be more of defending the Rift and looking for a way to close it. I think it will more of the fantastical stuff like the dreamwalking, spells, witchcraft, psychic powers, some occasional gun battles vs much down and dirty hand to hand combat on a regular basis.

I read an interesting thing that I can't find now wherein they are suggesting that the hooded person seen in the Kaia's visions is actually Kaia's dark side so her story will be fighting her dark side in her humanity more than about her being a hunter.

[nightwing877]

I would compare this show to Charmed, a show based on three witches who happen to be sisters navigating normal lives in one city. WS being based in one location and not a roadshow will give it a family feel. 

[catrox14]

Quote

http://www.tvguide.com/news/supernatural-wayward-sisters-spinoff-differences/

en Supernatural returns in January, the series will attempt to launch a new spin-off called Wayward Sisters, featuring a group of characters that longtime fans will recognize.

The backdoor pilot, titled "Wayward Sisters" and scheduled for Jan. 18, will see Kim Rhodes reprise her role as Jodi Mills, the ass-kicking sheriff we first met back in Season 5. With Sam (Jared Padalecki) and Dean (Jensen Ackles) trapped in an unknown world, she and a ragtag crew that includes a psychic and a teen who can travel between worlds will come to their rescue.

If the potential spin-off moves forward, Rhodes will then team up with Sheriff Donna Hanscum (Briana Buckmaster), who first appeared in Season 9, to train said psychic and dreamwalker along with other young women orphaned by supernatural forces to fight the evil creatures lurking about in Sioux Falls, South Dakota.

This marks Supernatural's second attempt at launching a spin-off following the failure of the Chicago-based Supernatural: Bloodlines. Despite being created by Andrew Dabb, who serves as an executive producer on Supernatural, it was not picked up to series after its backdoor pilot aired during Season 9. According to Dabb, several factors contributed to the potential show's quick demise, and those lessons are being applied to Wayward Sisters.

Here's Your First Look at the Supernatural Spin-Off Wayward Sisters

"I think the biggest problem for us was, number one, timing," he told TV Guide. "Our idea in hindsight was probably a little too similar to The Originals." The Vampire Diaries spin-off, which launched the previous year, also centered around the conflict between humans and supernatural creatures like werewolves and vampires living in the same city. It didn't help that one of the stars of Bloodlines was Nathaniel Buzolic, who played Kol Mikaelson on both TVD and The Originals.

Similarities aside, there's another reason fans never latched onto the new series: It was too different from Supernatural. "We wanted to do something set in the Supernatural world but very unlike Supernatural," Dabb explained. "At that point, Supernatural [was] going strong. We didn't know when it was ending but it certainly didn't feel like it was on its way out and so we were really worried about taking any elements from the show."**

Bloodlines was also anchored by relatively unfamiliar characters who were all introduced in Supernatural's Season 9, and that wasn't enough time for viewers to get attached enough to tune in for the self-titled backdoor pilot, let alone a potential spin-off. Wayward Sisters, on the other hand, looks to walk a different path and will serve up a group of people we've already met.

Alongside Jodi and Donna, other familiar faces set to join Wayward's all-women demon-wrecking crew include Claire (Kathryn Love Newton), the daughter of Castiel's (Misha Collins) human vessel Jimmy Novak, and Patience Turner (Clark Backo), the psychic granddaughter of Missouri Moseley (Loretta Devine). Newcomer Kaia (Yadira Guevara-Prip), the inexperienced dreamwalker Jack (Alexander Calvert) enlists to help find Mary Winchester (Samantha Smith), will also play a key role in putting the pieces together for the potential spin-off in the upcoming backdoor pilot.

Supernatural Bosses Tease "Big" Danger Ahead for Sam and Dean

And since Supernatural has become more of an ensemble show, Dabb says the timing couldn't be better for him to take these previously introduced characters and send them off on their own adventures. "We have a lot more supporting characters to the point where taking Jodi away from the core Supernatural show gets us a loss but it's not the loss it would have been in Season 9."

While Bloodlines dropped you in the middle of a different show, he says Wayward "feels more like an outgrowth of Supernatural" which, in turn, makes it a more viable series. "It's got not just an episode of history behind it," he added. "In the case of Jodi, it's got almost 10 years of history behind i

**. Hmmm. 

This sounds to me like Dabb knows when SPN is going to end. And I'll be it's sooner than we think.

***Dabb sees SPN as an ensemble piece now. When did that happen?? And if it is where the fuck is Castiel? This is pretty weird. I think this goes my suspicion that Dabb is actually prepping the mothership to change a lot if the spinoff fails. 

[bozodegama]

So if I understand this correctly, the rift stays open and monsters are transported. Into the podunk town of Sioux Falls South Dakota where the wayward millennial  sisters battle them with magic and psychic/dream powers.  I don’t know.  I really hope they write good scripts cause they’re going to need it.  Or this show just isn’t going to last long.  If they can’t get me excited about the show (huge fan of spn from day 1, I’m constantly asking my two millennial daughters to watch the show but they never do);  they are in trouble.  But I’ll wait and see. 

[ILoveReading]

I was thinking of Berens/Dabb saying that in episode 11 the focus returns squarely to Sam and Dean. 

The last spoiler says that episode 11 is Donna centric and basically her set up to join Wayward.

They like to contradict themselves.

[gonzosgirrl]

20 minutes ago, ILoveReading said:

I was thinking of Berens/Dabb saying that in episode 11 the focus returns squarely to Sam and Dean. 

The last spoiler says that episode 11 is Donna centric and basically her set up to join Wayward.

They like to contradict talk out of their asses themselves.

Fixed it for you. :)

It seems to me that they tailor their answers to whatever group they are trying to attract/appease at the moment they speak.

That line @catrox14 bolded above does seem to imply they know something about the ending date that they didn't know in S9. I wonder if he will 'explain' that as eloquently as they 'explained' the 'save the show from itself' blurb. (ie, not at all)

[Pondlass1]

There's no doubt the target audience is teenage girls.  It could succeed if they go with a  "Buffy type" series (Buffy fans will know what I mean).  If it's too lightweight with predictable rebelling against authority and lots of witchcraft and goth, I honestly can't see it being a success.  Bin there, done that type of thing.

I wish the show well.  I'm not the demo they're aiming at... but I'll give it a chance.  Will Supernatural move to 9pm and WS air at 8pm if picked up? That's one bonus.  

[DittyDotDot]

45 minutes ago, Pondlass1 said:

Will Supernatural move to 9pm and WS air at 8pm if picked up? That's one bonus.  

I don't know. If it were me, I'd try to break the shows up so each stands on their own without the other. I'm not sure exactly what I'd pair Wayward with yet since I haven't actually seen it, but maybe iZombie would be a good pairing?

[Casseiopeia]

 Bloodlines failed because it sucked.  The script was awful and the acting was worse.  The lesson should be write a compelling script with exceptional actors.  So far I haven't seen any evidence of either for Wayward Sisters.

If the J's were unsuccessful in negotiating shorter seasons then mid season 14 will probably be the end.

These interviews with Dabb and Berens are just flat out depressing.

[catrox14]

2 hours ago, DittyDotDot said:

I don't know. If it were me, I'd try to break the shows up so each stands on their own without the other. I'm not sure exactly what I'd pair Wayward with yet since I haven't actually seen it, but maybe iZombie would be a good pairing?

I'd put Wayward ahead of SPN on Thursdays and see how it fares. Riverdale seems like a good pairing or behind Supergirl. They could put it ahead of LoT

[SueB]

2 hours ago, Casseiopeia said:

These interviews with Dabb and Berens are just flat out depressing.

As a fan of the Wayward spinoff concept, I'm thrilled. I think that if ANYTHING can be spun-off Supernatural, this is it.  And I think they know that.  So, IMO, they are going full court press on giving this spin-off the best chance it can possibly have.  

For me, it's clear that they are trying to get traction on Wayward.  So, if people think they are 'dissing' the mothership because of Wayward press, I think that's the wrong read.  Look at the GLORIOUS (yes, it deserves all caps because it was GLORIOUS) Comic Con extravaganza they put on.  And they've been on the cover of Entertainment Weekly (with four special collectors editions).  Both Jensen and Jared have gotten TV interviews this season -- that hasn't happened since they Jensen said at a recent Con that it seems like they became an "overnight success after 13 years".  So, I think the boys, at least, are appreciative of the press efforts by WB for Supernatural, itself.  But they also LIKE Wayward as a concept and want to see it succeed.  They are bummed that filming will NOT be in Vancouver so the potential for cross-over is less.  But they like the characters and the actors and want to see it succeed.  

So, if you are just not interested in Wayward - that's your business.  If you think Wayward is detracting from Supernatural, I think that's not intentional but simply a byproduct of what they are doing. I think the "new shiny" is just trying to get a slot on the fall schedule and they are emphasizing it right now as an "in addition to" not 'a replacement for'.

Both Kim and Briana have been clear the story is about complex characters that hopefully are worthy of our time investment.  I joked "it passes the Bechtdal test" and I think the response was along the lines "in just about every scene". It's definitely going to empower these women. It undoubtedly will piss off those who think the empowerment hasn't been earned.  They went through MONTHS of stunt training for them.  They are on break from that training now but if the show gets picked up, that training will be right back in the front lines.  I think it's fair to say the emphasis on 'kick-ass' is because it's an action show and they want to have sufficient cool factor to keep the audience.  But it's NOT where you could take Jody's character and it could be named "James" and the actions/dialog would be the same.  Jody Mills has ALWAYS been (IMO) the right mix of BadAss Sheriff and realistic portrayal of female.  It's the realistic female part that I particularly like.  Same with Donna.  She brings the funny but she's always been able to shift to serious and make it totally believable.  Claire is a little too "tough guy" sometimes for me, but I chalk that up to bratty teen-itis.  Shes in her early 20's now. I'm hoping that chip on her shoulder has improved.  Alex has inner steel. I can definitely see her shooting someone if she has to.  Patience doesn't seem like the shoot-em up kind but her background athletics makes her suitable for developing into a fighter.  Kaia seems very tough due to school of hard knocks. Plus she's LIVED through those AU nightmares.  Which means she's literally been fighting monsters all her life.  She's a survivor of over a decade of monster fighting.  Not the same thing as going out to HUNT them, but I bet she's both tough and clever.  So, for them to become the BadAss Hunters they need to be, they have to be shown doing some training.  One does not simply learn how to become a weapons expert.  It takes training.  We were given a full backstory in the Pilot that says the boys were trained by their Marine fighter for at least 12-15 years for Sam and two decades for Dean.  I expect Jody and Donna to have skills.  Claire will feel overcapable because she's been hunting on her own for a year.  Now she's not dead -- which means she's learned something since Ladies Drink Free -- but we'll see if she's still cocky.  I expect so.  The rest will bring some natural talent and instincts and progress IF the show progresses.  I expect this Pilot to have more cool-factor than a routine episode because they are in 'sales' mode.  So that will be a bit annoying but I can accept that as well.

[Casseiopeia]

2 hours ago, SueB said:

They went through MONTHS of stunt training for them.

I suppose it depends on how their ninja skills are introduced.  If they suddenly have all of these fighting skills it wouldn't make any sense.  Patience and Alex haven't shown any ability to fight. Claire has been overpowered pretty easily in her episodes and we don't know a lot about Kaia's skills other than she had a great right hook to Jack's head.  Jody has been pretty consistently beat up in most of her episodes.  I have yet to see Donna in action.  

I don't think I have ever said I want the spin off to fail.    If WS doesn't succeed I don't believe that the producers, the CW or WB will ever try another spin off.  I don't think it will detract from SPN.  WS isn't the show for me but I am not the target audience.  I hope it does find an audience outside of SPN if it doesn't I can't see it getting picked up.

I have issues with some of the statements from Dabb and Berens regarding Supernatural.  Hence my depression.

[catrox14]

26 minutes ago, Casseiopeia said:

I suppose it depends on how their ninja skills are introduced.  If they suddenly have all of these fighting skills it wouldn't make any sense.  Patience and Alex haven't shown any ability to fight. Claire has been overpowered pretty easily in her episodes and we don't know a lot about Kaia's skills other than she had a great right hook to Jack's head.  Jody has been pretty consistently beat up in most of her episodes.  I have yet to see Donna in action.  

I don't think I have ever said I want the spin off to fail.    If WS doesn't succeed I don't believe that the producers, the CW or WB will ever try another spin off.  I don't think it will detract from SPN.  WS isn't the show for me but I am not the target audience.  I hope it does find an audience outside of SPN if it doesn't I can't see it getting picked up.

I have issues with some of the statements from Dabb and Berens regarding Supernatural.  Hence my depression.

The actors may have gone through months of  stunt training so they will look competent on screen, but thus far only Jody, Donna and probably Claire have any gun or fighting skills. Nor have the girls been introduced as having grown up in the life and being taught the skills like the boys. And let's be real, being blue collar guys that lived on the road and Dean, in particular, probably had a number of regular ole bar brawls to sharpen their street fighting skills. 

Even with Jody and Donna training them on basics, that is vastly different than doing it when you are facing people and monsters who are literally trying to kill you. I fully expect a montage that shows them learning this stuff over a couple of months or I'll just roll my eyes right out of my head.

[Casseiopeia]

4 hours ago, catrox14 said:

The actors may have gone through months of  stunt training so they will look competent on screen, but thus far only Jody, Donna and probably Claire have any gun or fighting skills. Nor have the girls been introduced as having grown up in the life and being taught the skills like the boys. And let's be real, being blue collar guys that lived on the road and Dean, in particular, probably had a number of regular ole bar brawls to sharpen their street fighting skills. 

Even with Jody and Donna training them on basics, that is vastly different than doing it when you are facing people and monsters who are literally trying to kill you. I fully expect a montage that shows them learning this stuff over a couple of months or I'll just roll my eyes right out of my head.

It's funny I just watched the pilot last night.  One of Sam's iconic lines was "Dean we were raised like warriors".  Sam was 22 and Dean 26.  Sam and presumably  Dean has handled all manner of weapons since they were at least 9 years old.  Almost every moment of their lives was immersed in fighting the Supernatural, learning from not only John, but Caleb, Father Murphy and Bobby as well.  All seasoned hunters with specialty skills from researching lore to weapons of all kinds (including a grenade launcher).   Not even Jody and Claire have that kind of history. Kaia is the only one that has any history of surviving an AU.   I hope they don't try to show these teenage girls learning how to be "warriors" on the same level as the Winchesters in a few short months.  I also hope they infuse tons of humor into the scripts.  To me it screams comedy.

Edited December 16, 2017 by Casseiopeia

[ILoveReading]

I think what bothers me about this isn't so much that they are amateurs its that they are teenagers. 

Sam and Dean were never given a choice.  They had hunting forced onto them when they were kids.  Sam had a demon stalking him so the life was always going to come after him.   They didn't really have options.

These girls have choices.  They have a support system.  That support system seems to want to push them towards the hunting life.  Patience is pyschic but she doesn't necessary have to be a hunter.   She can embrace her gift and use it to help others.  (ex, helping police find missing kids).  If Claire wants to hunt, fine but it seems like Alex wants nothing to do with it.   Kaia seems to stuck between a rock and a hard place with the dream walking, but again that doesn't really need to translate to actively hunting. 

Despite having options it seems like the show wants ignore this for "girl power hunters"

It seems to me Jody and Donna's advice should be "Dean isn't wrong.  Hunting can lead to a life of pain, but the show wants to seem to ingore this.  Jody is the wise female, and Dean is just the male muscle. 

If the show gets picked up it may explore these issues further but it once again shows me that the show is really changing hunting from a cold hard life to a magical quest and all you really need is an app and an attitude to be successful.

Edited December 18, 2017 by ILoveReading

[DittyDotDot]

14 minutes ago, ILoveReading said:

I think what bothers me about this isn't so much that they are amateurs its that they are teenagers. 

Sam and Dean were never given a choice.  They had hunting forced onto them when they were kids.  Sam had a demon stalking him so the life was always going to come after him.   They didn't really have options.

These girls have choices.  They have a support system.  That support system seems to want to push them towards the hunting life.  Patience is pyschic but she doesn't necessary have to be a hunter.   She can embrace her gift and use it to help others.  (ex, helping police find missing kids).  If Claire wants to hunt, fine but it seems like Alex wants nothing to do with it.   Kaia seems to stuck between a rock and a hard place with the dream walking, but again that doesn't really need to translate to actively hunting. 

Despite having options it seems like the show wants ignore this for "girl power hunters"

It seems to me Jody and Donna's advice should be "Dean isn't wrong.  Hunting can lead to a life of pain, but the show wants to seem to ingore this.  Jody is the wise female, and Dean is just the male muscle. 

If the show gets picked up it may explore these issues further but it once again shows me that the show is really changing hunting from a cold hard life to a magical quest and all you really need is an app and an attitude to be successful.

I think they're purposely setting it up to be entirely different from Sam and Dean's experience, but I don't think it will make it a magical quest in comparison.  Even though Sam and Dean didn't have choices as kids, they have choices now and they choose to hunt. And, IMO, they have had choices since the show began, but just chose to keep hunting for various reasons--and I think that's the same for these characters too.

However, I'm not sure the show is going to have them actively hunting as much as just cleaning up messes each week. For me it's not that the girls are choosing hunting or not hunting, but just happen to be living in a town where stuff happens and they find they can't ignore it. They're not going to be traditional hunters searching for a case, but I think the cases are going to find them and they'll just do the best to deal with them as they come. But, I expect them to be living regular lives, more or less. Patience will probably go to the local college; I'm not sure how old Kaia is supposed to be, but maybe she's still in high school; Alex will stay in nursing school and probably provide medical support for them more than anything; And, I wouldn't be surprised if Claire doesn't continue to actively hunt only returning home every now and again.

[Whimsy]

I feel like you are misunderstanding the purpose of this thread.  It is ONLY to talk about spoilers (which include storylines, casting, etc) and speculation resulting from those spoilers for the spin off.  It is NOT to rehash past episodes of Supernatural, even if those episodes were featuring some of the same characters.  Major cleaning up happening in this thread.  If it's gone, it's not a spoiler or speculation discussion.

[RulerofallIsurvey]

On 12/15/2017 at 10:27 AM, Pondlass1 said:

There's no doubt the target audience is teenage girls.  It could succeed if they go with a  "Buffy type" series (Buffy fans will know what I mean).  If it's too lightweight with predictable rebelling against authority and lots of witchcraft and goth, I honestly can't see it being a success.  Bin there, done that type of thing.

Maybe.  But there's a whole other generation of young-er-ish viewers out there who probably never watched Buffy to whom that might really appeal.  ::shrug::

[SueB]

I think their target audience is the SPNFamily.  If they skew a little younger because of the casting, that's okay. But they want to be part of the #Supernatural universe.  They have a different mission than Sam & Dean. It's not "Saving People, Hunting Things, the Family Business".  It'll be more like "Keeping People Safe from a Multi-verse of Monsters".  Which allows them to stay in one place.  

[bozodegama]

Does anyone know if they've talked about what kind of music they're going to have on Wayward Sisters if it's picked up?  I'm gonna be pissed if it isn't classic rock.  I realize they can't do a lot of Seger, Zeppelin, Hendrix etc..  That's kind of a Dean thing (Dean likes Seger more than anyone I know).  But I don't think i can deal with a lot (or any) of hip hop or diva music.  I think that might appeal to the young women audience they're trying to reach but not to a baby boomer like me. I really don't care if they go with softer rock, like playing Fleetwood Mac's Landslide, Joan Jett would be cool (Reputation would be a good song for Claire or Kaia), even the Dixie Chicks. But please no hip hop.