Wayward Sisters Spoilers and Speculations

[catrox14]

I don't know whether I'll watch the series premiere should it come to pass. I'll watch WS because it is an SPN episode regardless.

I'm definitely not against angst, I just prefer it to not be teen angst. I'm becoming indifferent to it because of the marketing. And what I feel right now is a shift in story from a focus on Jody and Donna to the teens, which I was hoping would be not the case. I'm getting a bit of a Riverdale vibe from the direction this might be headed, which is just not my cuppa.  I was hoping it was going to play out more like an extended Hibbing 911 because I loved the dynamic between the 4 grown adults. And watching two older women become actual friends.

I've preferred Donna to Jody which is not to say I don't enjoy Jody in general. I think she is a good character with a great backstory who I did not not enjoy at all in "Patience" and if that's the Jody we are getting henceforth, it's not a good development IMO. Now if they choose to explain what I think was a colder, less kind to her grieving not!son, Dean, is a result of some PTSD or something, given she was possessed, then Claire takes off on her, Mary tries to kill her, and then she follows Sam into a fight with the BMOL which had her murdering scores of other human beings,then  I'll buy it, and can forgive it. Unfortunately, they have yet to show that to be the case. I'm trying to somewhat open minded with Jody, but right now, the bloom is off that rose for me :( which really is disheartening.

I realize that Claire, Kaia, and Patience are older teens yet Claire still acts like she's 13 with her pouting about Patience wearing her shirt. Patience can't be older than 18. And before anyone says it, yes I know, Sam and Dean have angst out the ass, which for me is a different kind of angst. It's typical family angst set to the nth degree, which IMO is not the same as them being stuck being teenagers. Others will disagree with my interpretation of their family angst.

I care about Jody and Donna. I kind of care about Alex mostly because I like the actress well enough. And her back story is pretty tragic. I have tried to care about Claire but I find her unlikeable and not even in a love to dislike way. Maybe it's Kathryn, maybe it's how Claire is written and she plays it as written, IMO I find Claire has no nuance, no shading at all.  I was already annoyed with Claire, but I thought she moved past being petty about her living situation, and yet in the sneak peek, she was pissed that Patience was wearing her clothes when she's been living her out on the road, hunting which was her own damn choice and seeming to have come to good place with Jody and Alex. IMO that did nothing to endear to me what WS might be like if it's about teenagers fighting over clothes. Sidebar: I did wonder if maybe that's not really Claire. Maybe it's a shapeshifter or even Asmodeus for reasons. Or a possessed Claire. She just seemed like she really regressed and I don't know why Berens and Dabb would do that.

Alex, on the other hand, I think has a lot of shading and the actress infuses her with a likeability. I loved Young Mary. She was fantastic. She was 19, I think, made a horrible decision and really I should dislike her for that but I don't because IMO, Amy Gumenick, gave her layers in the performance that she was not a one note "badass" female. She was many things. Tough,  sweet, insecure and hopeful. Maybe that's why I like Donna so much. She's tough, sweet, insecure, funny, hopeful, given to occasional bitchiness but I'm good with all of that. I feel like Donna, thus far, to be, for me, the most relatable female in the show not named Ellen and Young Mary. I didn't dislike Jo. I liked Sarah a lot. I liked Jessica for what we saw of her. Resurrected!Mary, however, can fuck right off. Yes, she is also complicated and messed up, which is great but I do hold a grudge still for how she treated Dean and Sam in s12.

Kaia and Patience are not awful they are just boring.  I MUCH preferred Alicia and Max Banes to either Patience or Kaia. And Dabb fucked that all up.  I'm still so pissed about that SL. I thought maybe they could go to the spinoff but nah, I want them to stay in SPN and have that SL get picked up in some way. I just don't want Max to be a villain.

So I dunno, we'll see. I have mixed feelings on the matter, obviously. LOL

Edited January 16, 2018 by catrox14

[gonzosgirrl]

Jody I can accept as a hunter. She's a cop, she's been exposed to the life since S5, and they continued to establish her as part of the hunting community outside of Dean & Sam in Asa Fox. Donna, less so, but still - a sheriff and one who has been involved with the Supernatural since S9. But if they are going to try to sell me these young women as super capable, insta-hunters based solely on their girl!power, then no. It's probably going to appeal to their target audience, especially those who aren't currently SPN fans and don't know what the in-canon hunting life really is. But all it does for me is make me roll my eyes (at best) and a little angry at worst.

 

ETA: and I'm with @catrox14 as far as Jody goes. I didn't care for her attitude towards Dean in Patience, and if that's who she's going to be, then it's a definite 'no' from me. And maybe it shouldn't have any bearing on it, but I haven't enjoyed Kim and Briana at the cons for some time now, and Dabb & Berens' comments have grated on me as well, so that probably doesn't help give me the warm fuzzies about their show.

Edited January 16, 2018 by gonzosgirrl

[bethy]

8 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

but I haven't enjoyed Kim and Briana at the cons for some time now

I feel like a couple of folks have mentioned not being thrilled with them at cons. What’s bothering people about their behavior?

[gonzosgirrl]

 

This thread...

 

8 minutes ago, bethy said:

I feel like a couple of folks have mentioned not being thrilled with them at cons. What’s bothering people about their behavior?

Personal preference only, in my case. I find them way over the top.

[catrox14]

21 minutes ago, scribe95 said:

This is better.

"It's about damn time we get to see some strong badass women kicking ass and taking names".  Oh, show. Why do you do this?

It's stuff like this that annoys me about the promotion. They are acting like there has never been in all the existence of SPN any actual badass, strong female characters. Like this is BRAND NEW INFORMATION!

Guess it sucks to be all the female hunters that have appeared in the show be they dead or alive, i.e. Ellen, Jo, Eileen, Annie, Charlie, Dorothy, Deanna, Mary, and Gwen Campbell, the one in 4.2, Ezra Moore. What about the angels in female vessels that were kind of badass in their own way? Anna, Rachel, Fate, Raphael, Hannah, Naomi. What about the female villains like Meg, Ruby, Bela, Abaddon, Amara?

You're not helping me not kind of resent this a little bit, showrunners and PR people.

[Bobcatkitten]

True there have been strong women in SPN. But in bits and spurts. Nothing recurring and often dying. 

[Wayward Son]

2 minutes ago, scribe95 said:

True there have been strong women in SPN. But in bits and spurts. Nothing recurring and often dying. 

True. Every character that has been upgraded to regular for more than one season has been a man I.e. Castiel/Misha, Crowley/Mark S, Lucifer/Mark P and Jack / Alexander Calvert. Sorry but the shows continued refusal to give a woman such a role deserves to be called out on. 

[gonzosgirrl]

Eh. I was and am fine with it being a show about brothers/men without a 'regular' female character. IMO, every show doesn't have to be all things to all people.

[Wayward Son]

Just now, gonzosgirrl said:

Eh. I was and am fine with it being a show about brothers/men without a 'regular' female character. IMO, every show doesn't have to be all things to all people.

And you’re entitled to be OK with it but there are many that aren’t. So it is accurate to say that those who wanted in-depth focus on females within the SN verse are finally going to get it (assuming the show is picked up that is). 

[gonzosgirrl]

1 minute ago, Wayward Son said:

And you’re entitled to be OK with it but there are many that aren’t. So it is accurate to say that those who wanted in-depth focus on females within the SN verse are finally going to get it (assuming the show is picked up that is). 

And that is also fine - but they don't need to diss Supernatural to build up the spin-off, which 'it's about time' implies.

[catrox14]

15 minutes ago, scribe95 said:

True there have been strong women in SPN. But in bits and spurts. Nothing recurring and often dying. 

This show is still basically a two hander like XFiles so there was never going to be a true third lead. Castiel is the closest to a 3rd lead as it gets and even he is not in every episode. Charlie, Ellen, Jo, Mary, Amara, Meg, Ruby, Bela were all recurring roles with  arcs over full seasons. Oh I forgot about Rowena in that list.

My point though is not how often they appeared but more the way it makes it seem like this show didn't have any kickass female characters and it only counts now. It's the "It's about time" that rubs me the wrong way. Others may not be bothered by it, but it bothers me.

If they would have said, "It's great that all these great female characters are getting a chance to show what they can do in a broader way than is possible in SPN currently".  See how easy that is? It's not dismissing what went before.

Edited January 16, 2018 by catrox14

[Wayward Son]

5 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

If they would have said, "It's great that all these great female characters are getting a chance to show what they can do in a broader way than is possible in SPN currently".  See how easy that is? It's not dismissing what went before.

Maybe the sexist nature of what went before where white males are apparently the only ones worthy of being made regulars deserves to be dissed and called out on. 

Edited January 16, 2018 by Wayward Son

[catrox14]

1 minute ago, Wayward Son said:

Maybe the sexist nature of what went before deserves to be dissed and called out on. 

How does Jared's comment or whoever wrote it, equate to that? He didn't say anything about how the women were treated in the show.

[bozodegama]

Oy.  That spoiler for Wayward looks so stupid. The four 20 year old girls need to be totally badass right away.  Like no training and they shoot guns and flamethrowers.  Even Jo took awhile to be a hunter and she was more mature and tougher seeming than those 4.   I've never shot a gun (we don't do too much hunting in nyc) ) but it doesn't look that easy.  I thought it was going to be more magic and fantasy than hardcore hunting? I might just watch it to root for the bad guys if they have any cool bad guys.   

28 minutes ago, Wayward Son said:

True. Every character that has been upgraded to regular for more than one season has been a man I.e. Castiel/Misha, Crowley/Mark S, Lucifer/Mark P and Jack / Alexander Calvert. Sorry but the shows continued refusal to give a woman such a role deserves to be called out on. 

Abaddon was pretty bad ass and a really great villain.  . It took the Mark of Cain to kill her. So was Ellen.  They never should've killed her off.  But, yeah, they should've had a women regular a while ago.  I guess they didn't want romantic entanglements for the 2 guys.  

[catrox14]

8 minutes ago, bozodegama said:

Oy.  That spoiler for Wayward looks so stupid. The four 20 year old girls need to be totally badass right away.  Like no training and they shoot guns and flamethrowers.  Even Jo took awhile to be a hunter and she was more mature and tougher seeming than those 4.   I've never shot a gun (we don't do too much hunting in nyc) ) but it doesn't look that easy.  I thought it was going to be more magic and fantasy than hardcore hunting? I might just watch it to root for the bad guys if they have any cool bad guys.   

Abaddon was pretty bad ass and a really great villain.  . It took the Mark of Cain to kill her. So was Ellen.  They never should've killed her off.  But, yeah, they should've had a women regular a while ago.  I guess they didn't want romantic entanglements for the 2 guys.  

 

20 minutes ago, Wayward Son said:

Maybe the sexist nature of what went before where white males are apparently the only ones worthy of being made regulars deserves to be dissed and called out on. 

Okay. You changed your comment after I replied.

It's not sexist to not have a female series regular, which only means that SPN must be their first priority when taking work. It might actually benefit the actors to be recurring or guest vs regular. it. I get not liking the optics of  having 3 white male leads but that doesn't make it sexist casting.  SPN has female writers, female showrunner, female directors.

[Res]

53 minutes ago, Wayward Son said:

Maybe the sexist nature of what went before where white males are apparently the only ones worthy of being made regulars deserves to be dissed and called out on. 

I'm sorry but I'm a little confused. Are you calling SPN sexist because of their casting of the leads? If so, does that mean that Charmed was sexist as well since the main leads were all white females? And Buffy whose main powered characters were also white females, was that sexist? Because neither show was very nice to their male counterparts all the time and a lot of boyfriends, etc. were killed, etc.

Don't get me wrong. I loved both shows but they felt more organic about bringing new teenagers into dangerous situations as well as slowly adding members and training them up than what the spoilers are predicting for this show. And I do get the appeal for different people to want different leads in different shows. But I don't understand how calling a 13 yr running sexist when the leads were straight up advertised, known and have never implied, much less hinted, that it was going to change sexiest when the only additions to the leads were based on a very distinct popularity outcry in one case and the other is only a lead because the showrunner has a severely massive fanboy crush on the actor/character. Also, if that is a huge deal for some, hopefully they aren't watch something that offends them on that level. 

Personally, I really don't see the supposed sexism since I just watch the shows whose story lines appeal to me which this one did. I'm currently not planning to watch WS except from where they are taking episodes away from SPN for their set up but if I'm not planning on watch that but am going to continue watching SPN, does that make me sexist? Wait, was Xena sexiest, too? Isn't WS going to be sexist? Was Hercules the TV series sexist?!

Maybe I need to pay more attention to such political and social themes when I look at a show but I actually watch TV to relax and avoid such things. 

[Wayward Son]

11 minutes ago, Res said:

I'm sorry but I'm a little confused. Are you calling SPN sexist because of their casting of the leads? If so, does that mean that Charmed was sexist as well since the main leads were all white females? And Buffy whose main powered characters were also white females, was that sexist? Because neither show was very nice to their male counterparts all the time and a lot of boyfriends, etc. were killed, etc.

I'm taking this to the Supernatural Smackdown thread.

[gonzosgirrl]

It will be interesting to follow along with this. IMO, this will be a preview of what the tone of the 'talk' about Wayward Sisters will be. I'm guessing 'uber-badass wayward af women' and 'oh, aren't Jensen/Dean and Jared/Sam so so pretty (and in Dean's case, so so dumb)!??!' Could be wrong. Doubt I am.

ETA: It is today she is doing the Instagram thing, not tomorrow. My bad!

Edited January 17, 2018 by gonzosgirrl

[ILoveReading]

3 hours ago, gonzosgirrl said:

It will be interesting to follow along with this. IMO, this will be a preview of what the tone of the 'talk' about Wayward Sisters will be. I'm guessing 'uber-badass wayward af women' and 'oh, aren't Jensen/Dean and Jared/Sam so so pretty (and in Dean's case, so so dumb)!??!' Could be wrong. Doubt I am.

I don't except Sam or (especially) Dean to factor into this much.  Other than to sing the girls praises.

[gonzosgirrl]

24 minutes ago, ILoveReading said:

I don't except Sam or (especially) Dean to factor into this much.  Other than to sing the girls praises.

I'm talking about the tweeting.

[gonzosgirrl]

My mistake - she is doing the Instagram thing today (right now). I thought it was during the episode tomorrow.

[gonzosgirrl]

This is why I say, unless the pilot is absolute crap, the spin-off is a done deal. The optics for CW not giving it a shot at this point would just be too bad.

http://tvline.com/2018/01/17/supernatural-spinoff-wayward-sisters-spoilers-briana-buckmaster-katherine-ramdeen/

[catrox14]

9 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

This is why I say, unless the pilot is absolute crap, the spin-off is a done deal. The optics for CW not giving it a shot at this point would just be too bad.

http://tvline.com/2018/01/17/supernatural-spinoff-wayward-sisters-spoilers-briana-buckmaster-katherine-ramdeen/

Quote

“Now is the time that television and movies are discovering that a lot of women want to have their stories told by women, [and] they want to have their voices heard,” Briana Buckmaster, who plays Jody’s friend/ally Sheriff Donna Hanscum, says. “This is an opportunity that Supernatural and The CW is giving to all of us as a viewership and a fandom.”

I don't get this. It's being written by men as in Dabb and Berens. So is this implying that they will hire female writers to speak for the characters?

Quote

But the episode is not about propping up Dean and Sam. “The women in the pilot are not there to solely serve the Winchesters, or to serve any men. They’re there to help others and save themselves,” Buckmaster says. “That’s an exciting opportunity for viewers to see six regular women from all walks of life learning to save themselves and be their own heroes.”

Erm what? How could it possibly be about propping Dean and Sam when they are off the board and are needing saving? What does this even mean? I mean isn't it that Dean and Sam being off the board is propping the WS. I am so confused and puzzled by this article.

[gonzosgirrl]

1 hour ago, catrox14 said:

I don't get this. It's being written by men as in Dabb and Berens. So is this implying that they will hire female writers to speak for the characters?

Erm what? How could it possibly be about propping Dean and Sam when they are off the board and are needing saving? What does this even mean? I mean isn't it that Dean and Sam being off the board is propping the WS. I am so confused and puzzled by this article.

I have a feeling what these women want it to be, and what Dabb and Berens gives them, aren't necessarily gonna be the same thing.  Except for the dumbing down of Dean and Sam. If anything they will prop the women up, not the other way around.  

I know it's not their intention, but pretty much every word I read about this project turns me off it more. 

ETA That is a great point about this revolutionary story about women, told by women, being written by men. Especially considering how this team completely ruined Mary Winchester, the most iconic SPN woman of them all. 

Edited January 17, 2018 by gonzosgirrl

[Res]

3 hours ago, catrox14 said:

I am so confused and puzzled by this article.

So you are confuzzled? (That's what my son says all the time. Lol)

[catrox14]

7 minutes ago, Res said:

So you are confuzzled? (That's what my son says all the time. Lol)

It would seem so, LOL

[catrox14]

How Supernatural's All-Female Spinoff, Wayward Sisters, Was Born

From fandom to canon: how six characters and thousands of fans willed a new show into existence.

http://www.elle.com/culture/movies-tv/a15171522/wayward-sisters-supernatural-spinoff/

[ILoveReading]

Apparently, bloggers were given a prescreening so I imagine there will be a ton more articles tomorrow.

Edited January 18, 2018 by ILoveReading

[gonzosgirrl]

23 minutes ago, ILoveReading said:

Apparently, bloggers were given a prescreening so I imagine there will be a ton more articles tomorrow.

I would pay money to know if this is what Clarissa blind-tweeted about earlier today.

[ILoveReading]

1 minute ago, gonzosgirrl said:

I would pay money to know if this is what Clarissa blind-tweeted about earlier today.

I'm curious too. 

Because that scene where patience says she never held a gun before and Donna just hands it to her and suddenly she's a perfect shot made me cringe.

[catrox14]

8 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

I would pay money to know if this is what Clarissa blind-tweeted about earlier today.

This one?

[gonzosgirrl]

Just now, catrox14 said:

This one?

Yes. There are only a few shows she tweets about and SPN is one of them.

[catrox14]

3 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

Yes. There are only a few shows she tweets about and SPN is one of them.

Oh my

[gonzosgirrl]

5 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

Oh my

There is no evidence at all that she's talking about WS. I do find it kind of strange that she hasn't tweeted about the show's return at all though, other than to tweet her site's version of the Jensen/Jared/Briana interview

[catrox14]

 

Jody about Donna:  She's killed a lot of vampires. 

Donna: Well, that's what I do

Me: She has?  Since when? Does she kill a lot of them between doing her sheriffing?

Sigh.

[Wayward Son]

Stupid post is stupid. Please ignore LOL

Edited January 18, 2018 by Wayward Son

[DittyDotDot]

6 hours ago, catrox14 said:

Jody about Donna:  She's killed a lot of vampires. 

Donna: Well, that's what I do

Me: She has?  Since when? Does she kill a lot of them between doing her sheriffing?

Sigh.

Actually the line was: "Well, I do what I do."

[ILoveReading]

So Donna carries around a hunting kit now?  Does she even sheriff anymore?

[catrox14]

22 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said:

;Actually the line was: "Well, I do what I do."

I didn't put any of it in quotes as I was parephrasing. The specific quote, doesn't actually change anything here which is the new information that claims Donna has killed A LOT of vampires, which is the part I'm mocking.

[Wayward Son]

12 minutes ago, ILoveReading said:

So Donna carries around a hunting kit now?  Does she even sheriff anymore?

I don’t think the two necessarily exclude one another. She could feasibly be a part time hunter who generally deals with problems that come up within her area, or reasonably close nearby ones, rather than actively travelling like Sam and Dean do. We’ve seen several instances of hunters, including Mary’s parents, who do it alongside living a normal life. 

[DittyDotDot]

13 minutes ago, ILoveReading said:

So Donna carries around a hunting kit now?  Does she even sheriff anymore?

Why wouldn't she? She's known about the supernatural for three years now and as an experienced law enforcement officer, I would expect nothing less. She should be prepared to handle anything she runs across in the course of her sheriffing.

3 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

I didn't put any of it in quotes as I was parephrasing. The specific quote, doesn't actually change anything here which is the new information that claims Donna has killed A LOT of vampires, which is the part I'm mocking.

Yes, I was just clarifying.

Personally, I don't see why Donna couldn't have killed a LOT of vampires. She's been in the know for years now maybe vampires are a nuisance problem in her neck of the woods? Her very first "hunt" was vampires in her neck of the woods. ::shrugs::

[gonzosgirrl]

11 minutes ago, Wayward Son said:

I don’t think the two necessarily exclude one another. She could feasibly be a part time hunter who generally deals with problems that come up within her area, or reasonably close nearby ones, rather than actively travelling like Sam and Dean do. We’ve seen several instances of hunters, including Mary’s parents, who do it alongside living a normal life. 

I don't have any issues with Jody and Donna both being part-time hunters in addition to being law-enforcement. Honestly, I'd expect two people who were capable enough to become a sheriff, to be prepared for monsters, once they learned of their existence. Alex and Claire have both been exposed to the supernatural for a long time now, so again, I expect them to have learned how to defend themselves, and what kills what, etc. But Patience and Kaia? I won't accept them just jumping in with both feet, handling weapons like an old pro, no fear, etc. I guess we'll see tonight whether or not Dabb can resist the uber-teen/super-woman tripe - he certainly didn't with Mary.

Edited January 18, 2018 by gonzosgirrl
Patience/Clark, not the same :)

[Wayward Son]

3 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said:

Why wouldn't she? She's known about the supernatural for three years now and as an experienced law enforcement officer, I would expect nothing less. She should be prepared to handle anything she runs across in the course of her sheriffing.

Yes, I was just clarifying.

Personally, I don't see why Donna couldn't have killed a LOT of vampires. She's been in the know for years now maybe vampires are a nuisance problem in her neck of the woods? Her very first "hunt" was vampires in her neck of the woods. ::shrugs::

Agreed with all this! 

 

Plus, IIRC we haven’t seen her in two years ((Plush was her last episode) so they are pretty free to say she has been hunting actively on the side without contradicting established canon. 

1 minute ago, gonzosgirrl said:

I don't have any issues with Jody and Donna both being part-time hunters in addition to being law-enforcement. Honestly, I'd expect two people who were capable enough to become a sheriff, to be prepared for monsters, once they learned of their existence. Alex and Claire have both been exposed to the supernatural for a long time now, so again, I expect them to have learned how to defend themselves, and what kills what, etc. But Clark and Kaia? I won't accept them just jumping in with both feet, handling weapons like an old pro, no fear, etc. I guess we'll see tonight whether or not Dabb can resist the uber-teen/super-woman tripe - he certainly didn't with Mary.

Fair enough re Patience and Kaia. I was responding to @ILoveReading comment about Donna in particular :)

[gonzosgirrl]

2 minutes ago, Wayward Son said:

Fair enough re Patience and Kaia. I was responding to @ILoveReading comment about Donna in particular :)

Me too :) I was just continuing the train of thought.

Edited January 18, 2018 by gonzosgirrl

[Wayward Son]

3 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

Me too :) I was just continuing the train of thought.

 Coincidentally I am in the process of rewatching The Bad Place. I actually think they could feasibly make Kaia a decent hunter. We know she has been spending years going to the bad place every night via her dreams. What we don’t know is; is she there the whole night? She can be hurt while there so does she have a physical body rather than just viewing things? And if so does that mean she has had to learn to survive in that environment which would build skills that could be transferred to hunting. I’m not saying they will go this route just that at this point it is possible. I totally agree Patience should be next to useless though.  

[DittyDotDot]

1 minute ago, Wayward Son said:

Plus, IIRC we haven’t seen her in two years ((Plush was her last episode) so they are pretty free to say she has been hunting actively on the side without contradicting established canon. 

I actually suspect she's been walking a fine line in her job for a while now. I wonder if that's how they're going to get her to Sioux Falls--in conjunction with the requisite loosing of a family member.

5 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

But Patience and Kaia? I won't accept them just jumping in with both feet, handling weapons like an old pro, no fear, etc.

I agree that Patience and Kaia need to have that learning curve. And, I fully expect it. Why bring in these inexperienced characters if you're not going to mine their inexperience for story? 

[gonzosgirrl]

7 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said:

 

I agree that Patience and Kaia need to have that learning curve. And, I fully expect it. Why bring in these inexperienced characters if you're not going to mine their inexperience for story? 

Because it's Dabb?

[Bobcatkitten]

The smart way to go with Patience and Kaia is to have some slayer-training-like scenes in season 1. They have special abilities but no exposure to the Supernatural world. So let's see weapons training, fight training, lore research. Could be an ongoing arc that would provide some great stuff. 

[gonzosgirrl]

LOL @ this image that's making the rounds. It's a pretty fair representation of what we've seen from these characters thus far:

 

Donna - is that a jelly donut I see?

Jody - you are all giving me a headache

Alex - nothing fazes me

Kaia - bitch, please

Claire - what are you looking at?

Patience - W.T.F.??!!

[ILoveReading]

From what we've seen of Donna if she comes up against something Supernatural she calls Sam and Dean. 

How many Vampires have we seen her kill?  One?

She might have the basic skills but there is a big difference between between just taking care of what comes along and actively seeking out cases.  We haven't even really seen her do that without calling in Sam and Dean.

It just feels like another retcon, like they did with Missouri when the show tried to claim she was hunter.  I know we don't see them every week or what they do all the time, but Donna actively seeking out cases or Jody doesn't feel organic. 

Edited January 18, 2018 by ILoveReading