SuperNormal: Public Appearances, Tweets, Media And Other Social Media Of The SPN Cast

[catrox14]

Just now, gonzosgirrl said:

And Dean has long since taken John down off his pedestal. I seriously wonder if any of them ever pay any attention to Dean's story line at all. Made me kind of angry, TBH.

It's certainly confusing. 

[catrox14]

OMG. If there isn't video of the boys hitting I'm gonna be pissed! My dream is to watch Jensen play a baseball player. Lordy!

 

[gonzosgirrl]

20 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

OMG. If there isn't video of the boys hitting I'm gonna be pissed! My dream is to watch Jensen play a baseball player. Lordy!

 

Awesome! Cool that it happened in my (sorta) city. Rogers Center, but for me it will always be the Skydome. I'm curious about the JDM tag though. ETA: @catrox14 they remake everything else, maybe they'll remake The Natural or Field of Dreams one day.

Edited October 9, 2017 by gonzosgirrl

[Casseiopeia]

1 hour ago, catrox14 said:

OMG. If there isn't video of the boys hitting I'm gonna be pissed! My dream is to watch Jensen play a baseball player. Lordy!

 

[catrox14]

19 minutes ago, Casseiopeia said:

Stephen Amell is either happy or jealous or both LOL

[catrox14]

nothing to see here. LOL oops

Edited October 9, 2017 by catrox14

[catrox14]

I'm fine. This is fine. Jensen why are you wearing eyeblack? LOL

But oh my gods.

 

[gonzosgirrl]

Jensen looks like he was born to be on the ball field. ♥

In other news... I did record both Misha's and Jim's panels as well. Jim got a roaring standing ovation (the only one of the con, as far as I recall) when he took the stage - in part I'm sure because he stepped up at the last minute (for the second time now) to replace Jeffrey Dean Morgan. He twice threw a little shade for it, too, which got a few oooohs and a whole lotta woots! People were not amused at the cancellation, especially those who missed him at the last one and bought Toronto tickets specifically to see him, only to be disappointed again. Everybody understood that this is the risk you take when buying any celebrity con tickets, but that doesn't really take the sting out of the disappointment.

Misha

 

Jim

[catrox14]

Misha's panel was great. LOL. I didn't care for Jim's TBH not sure why. Did JDM cancel because he was filming or what?

[gonzosgirrl]

21 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

Misha's panel was great. LOL. I didn't care for Jim's TBH not sure why. Did JDM cancel because he was filming or what?

Misha is a very good and entertaining story-teller, and he is very good at pushing the right buttons, lol (ie, dissing the Impala). I enjoy his panels a lot.

There were lots of rumors flying about why JDM cancelled, the most prevalent being that he was double-booked by his agent, and TWD had to take priority. But when Adam Malin (Creation guy) officially announced it from the stage, he said JDM was called onto set. Didn't know they filmed on Sundays, but that's what he said.

[Jeddah]

I think someone at Buzzfeed really likes Supernatural.

People Are Cackling About How This Teen Accidentally Scared The Shit Out Of Her Neighbor

This is too funny. It does look creepy.

[catrox14]

Interesting and sad commentary from Carina Mackenzie about being sexually harrassed by someone in the industry. I'm leaving this here because she says Jensen helped her the night she was being harrassed. Danneel and Jared were apparently there as well and Jensen took it upon himself to help her as she requested his help.

 

Edited October 10, 2017 by catrox14

[Aeryn13]

Considering how she used to bash him all over the place, I find it shocking that they are friends. Maybe it was after she stopped blogging about the show but that would still make me feel like trash, for someone to be so nice and supportive later then.   

[catrox14]

31 minutes ago, Aeryn13 said:

Considering how she used to bash him all over the place, I find it shocking that they are friends. Maybe it was after she stopped blogging about the show but that would still make me feel like trash, for someone to be so nice and supportive later then.   

Carina used to bash Jensen? I didn't know that. I just know she wrote for Zap2toIt and has written some TV episodes too. Maybe they aren't good friends but "working friends" you know? I'm more curious when that likely happened. If it was a few months ago was it Comic Con maybe? Or maybe the upfronts?

[catrox14]

55 minutes ago, Jeddah said:

I think someone at Buzzfeed really likes Supernatural.

People Are Cackling About How This Teen Accidentally Scared The Shit Out Of Her Neighbor

This is too funny. It does look creepy.

They know what gets them clicks LOL.

That is really funny.

Edited October 10, 2017 by catrox14

[catrox14]

1 hour ago, gonzosgirrl said:

Misha is a very good and entertaining story-teller, and he is very good at pushing the right buttons, lol (ie, dissing the Impala). I enjoy his panels a lot.

There were lots of rumors flying about why JDM cancelled, the most prevalent being that he was double-booked by his agent, and TWD had to take priority. But when Adam Malin (Creation guy) officially announced it from the stage, he said JDM was called onto set. Didn't know they filmed on Sundays, but that's what he said.

Maybe they are making up for having to shut down filming in advance of Hurricane Irma, which may have thrown off their schedule for a few weeks. I dunno just speculating.

[RulerofallIsurvey]

I'm glad that Jensen was there and helped and supported this woman after that kind of harassment.  It's sad that this kind of thing still happens in the 21st century and that the perpetrators still get away with it.

LOL at that last comment about Jared though.  :)

[Aeryn13]

Quote

Carina used to bash Jensen?

She couldn`t write an article without getting snide digs in. That`s why those "my good friend Jensen" tweets made me go "whaaat?" I thought that agent guy she describes is a dick and I applaud Jensen for standing up against that but I still consider her a shit-ass friend if that`s what she claims to be. Don`t misunderstand me, I`m not saying she had sexual harassment coming but unrelated to that I`m kinda going "fuck that agent dick for this thing" and "fuck you for that other thing", you know?

On the other hand I find it weird that she didn`t approach Jared. By all accounts, she worshipped him so I buy that they were friends. And that comment about murder is clearly a joke. I mean, she is not saying Jared is actually unhinged and can`t be told stuff like that without committing physical violence. If someone told me they didn`t tell me something earlier because they actually thought I would fly off the handle, haha, I would be weirded out by the implication. Like, braintrust, that is not flattering. I think she meant to be funny but eh. Well, she can be awkward with awkward implications as a writer on the Originals, too.  

[sarvenaz]

On 10/9/2017 at 11:37 AM, gonzosgirrl said:

Yeah, I had to go back a few times to make sure I heard what I heard. He's talking about 9x23 - and I mean, it's an iconic Dean moment. I normally try to keep quiet when I'm recording*, but I couldn't help reacting. I know Jared is always Sam-centric, but this one really kind of blew my mind.

*I really don't know if I'll even post my Sam Smith panel vid, as my incredulity/ire reeeeeealy tested my self-restraint (and found it lacking). 

Really? What happened in the Sam Smith panel? 

[gonzosgirrl]

14 minutes ago, sarvenaz said:

Really? What happened in the Sam Smith panel? 

Nothing happened, per se, I just vehemently disagree with or dislike most of everything she said regarding Mary and Dean.

I did post it in the Mary Winchester thread and there is some discussion about it following.

http://forums.previously.tv/topic/54200-mary-winchester/?do=findComment&comment=3705393

Edited October 10, 2017 by gonzosgirrl

[catrox14]

I don't know what this publication is and I'm hoping it's some kind of aggregator or something but if this is what he said...oh boy. It does match up with his SDCC comments from a couple of years ago that got him in some hot water.

Here's why 'Supernatural' lacks a 'greater female presence'

https://www.metro.us/entertainment/tv/jared-padalecki-supernatural-season-13-premiere

Quote

What can you tell us about the possible “Supernatural” spin off, “Wayward Sisters” that was announced this summer?

JP: I hope we have a spin off, have more female characters and I hope that once that's done we can do a crossover. I love the Supernatural world. I have to confess that I have always been such a nerd that I have read like 40 Star Wars books, all the books of "Lord of the Rings,” of "Harry Potter,” I really love to immerse myself in other universes.

 

Quote

What about the criticism that “Supernatural” has received about not having enough female representation?

JP: I'm very biased when it comes to certain female characters from the 'Supernatural' world. I married one, for example. But I can say, I think one of the reasons why there is not a greater female presence in the show is because when Eric Kripke designed the series, he defined the tone where none of us wanted it to be about sex or to show our physical attributes. There were more important things to tell. We wanted to do a series about problems, dedication, brotherhood and loyalty.

This implies that women are only there to be sex objects, love interests, etc etc. I hope something was misunderstood or this is out of context in some way. He's disregarding all the roles for women in the show like cops, attorneys, other hunters, family friends, etc. He's also seeming to be saying that he and Jensen have never taken off their shirts nor had racy sex scenes but they both did, under Kripke's eye. What is this?? I don't get it.

Edited October 11, 2017 by catrox14

[SueB]

23 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

I don't know what this publication is and I'm hoping it's some kind of aggregator or something but if this is what he said...oh boy. It does match up with his SDCC comments from a couple of years ago that got him in some hot water.

Here's why 'Supernatural' lacks a 'greater female presence'

https://www.metro.us/entertainment/tv/jared-padalecki-supernatural-season-13-premiere

 

This implies that women are only there to be sex objects, love interests, etc etc. I hope something was misunderstood or this is out of context in some way. He's disregarding all the roles for women in the show like cops, attorneys, other hunters, family friends, etc. He's also seeming to be saying that he and Jensen have never taken off their shirts nor had racy sex scenes but they both did, under Kripke's eye. What is this?? I don't get it.

I'm going to guess that JP is thinking about how the network tried to force love interests into the show in S2 and S3. And it didn't fly with fans.  In fact it seems EVERY woman who is in the age and orientation range of 'romance' immediately is paired up online in fan theories.  That's not the show, that's the fans making these stereotypes.  So what did they do to increase female presence?  We have Jodi who is older, Charlie who is gay, Donna (who is neither but was also given a partially comic role), Rowena who is evil, and Claire/Alex who are jailbait.

I love strong female characters on Supernatural. I think the biggest  gender mistake they ever made was Charlie's death.  I think they know that. 

As for eye candy, it's pretty limited IMO. We've definitely had a few fan service scenes but it's not in the same weight classs as say 'Arrow' when it comes to shirtless moments. 

 

Bottom line: the show premise was two brothers.  Any characters who come in (male or female) are there for a relationship (of any kind) with the boys.  External forces drove love interest roles or potential love interest backlash for any female who got into 'datable' demographics.  The show has finally found a way to get strong women on the show although they really screwed the pooch with Charlie's death. I don't think Jared's comments are out of line at all. 

[catrox14]

6 minutes ago, SueB said:

Bottom line: the show premise was two brothers.  Any characters who come in (male or female) are there for a relationship (of any kind) with the boys.  External forces drove love interest roles or potential love interest backlash for any female who got into 'datable' demographics.  The show has finally found a way to get strong women on the show although they really screwed the pooch with Charlie's death. I don't think Jared's comments are out of line at all. 

Eh, like I said, he said similar things at comic con and frankly, I'm disinclined to blame fandom for the decisions the show makes WRT to how it deals with female characters. Neither he nor Jensen have any trouble snarking with fans at cons about fans rejecting love interests, so if his point was fandom rejecting love interest he could have said that. Besides even in s1,2 and 3 they had many good female characters who were not love interests. So for me, I'm not really cool with what he said, but we can agree to disagree.

[catrox14]

[Jeddah]

5 hours ago, catrox14 said:

Eh, like I said, he said similar things at comic con and frankly, I'm disinclined to blame fandom for the decisions the show makes WRT to how it deals with female characters. Neither he nor Jensen have any trouble snarking with fans at cons about fans rejecting love interests, so if his point was fandom rejecting love interest he could have said that. Besides even in s1,2 and 3 they had many good female characters who were not love interests. So for me, I'm not really cool with what he said, but we can agree to disagree.

I agree. I know Jared’s not writing the show or running the show, so I don’t blame him for what I see as gender issues on the show. However, yikes, he could have had a way more diplomatic answer to that. To me, what he said implies that he doesn’t see a place for women on a show about “problems, dedication, brotherhood, and loyalty” because they are only there to have sex and look pretty.

ETA: I really can’t think of a generous way to interpret the content of what he said, but I will say that everyone says something at some point that does not come out right or implies something they don’t intend. I will give Jared the benefit of the doubt on that.

Edited October 11, 2017 by Jeddah

[RulerofallIsurvey]

2 hours ago, Jeddah said:

 To me, what he said implies that he doesn’t see a place for women on a show about “problems, dedication, brotherhood, and loyalty” because they are only there to have sex and look pretty.

ETA: I really can’t think of a generous way to interpret the content of what he said, but I will say that everyone says something at some point that does not come out right or implies something they don’t intend. I will give Jared the benefit of the doubt on that.

I didn't get that at all.  I don't think it implied it's because 'women are only there to have sex and look pretty' I think that's because, as @SueB pointed out, every time there is a woman of relatively the same age and single status, fans either start shipping it or hating on that character.  Look at Eileen.  Even if it's not a woman, it happens - as with Cas.  Then there were the complaints I read a few seasons ago about the show dialing back the 'destiel' moments and the outrage every time Jensen says in a con that Dean is not gay or bi.  Geez - it's a catch-22 situation, I think.  

As for how politically correct Jared said what he did: I also think that it was very politically correct and certainly diplomatic enough.  But there are going to be people who want to find fault with with anything if it's not the particular answer they want, so it probably didn't matter how he said it or what he said.  

[Jeddah]

13 minutes ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

As for how politically correct Jared said what he did: I also think that it was very politically correct and certainly diplomatic enough.  But there are going to be people who want to find fault with with anything if it's not the particular answer they want, so it probably didn't matter how he said it or what he said.  

I don’t know if you meant this part just at me or in general, but I certainly don’t find fault with everything. I think I’ve been very positive about this show. We’re not all going to agree. We don't all interpret things the same way. Talking about female representation and pointing out when I think something came across badly doesn’t mean I’m finding fault with everything or that I would have been critical no matter what Jared said. 

If I was on an interview panel at my job and someone said they don’t think we need to worry about having more women in our company because they don’t want our workplace to be about sex or physical attributes, I would think that was really inappropriate. Had the question been about love interests, his answer would be fine. But it was about female representation on the show in general. If he meant that fans don’t give female characters a chance he could have said that, and I would have agreed wholeheartedly. But he says this is how it’s been ever since Kripke created the show, before there even were fans.

[DittyDotDot]

11 hours ago, catrox14 said:

I don't know what this publication is and I'm hoping it's some kind of aggregator or something but if this is what he said...oh boy. It does match up with his SDCC comments from a couple of years ago that got him in some hot water.

Here's why 'Supernatural' lacks a 'greater female presence'

https://www.metro.us/entertainment/tv/jared-padalecki-supernatural-season-13-premiere

 

This implies that women are only there to be sex objects, love interests, etc etc. I hope something was misunderstood or this is out of context in some way. He's disregarding all the roles for women in the show like cops, attorneys, other hunters, family friends, etc. He's also seeming to be saying that he and Jensen have never taken off their shirts nor had racy sex scenes but they both did, under Kripke's eye. What is this?? I don't get it.

IMO, Jared was trying to say this is a show about two guys on the road so it's hard to incorporate a huge cast of characters--and then I think he went on a tangent of sorts, which is Jared's want at times. I also think he may have assumed the question wasn't about just female characters in general, but was being asked why they don't have love interests more on the show. That's not what I think the question was about, but based on Jared's answer, I think it might have been what Jared was thinking.

However, even if he didn't misunderstand the question or go on a tangent, he did say it was possibly one reason, not the only reason.

ETA: Just to be clear, I agree there were a lot better ways to answer it, but I it read to me as one of Jared's sort of incoherent-stream-of-thoughts answers.

Edited October 11, 2017 by DittyDotDot

[RulerofallIsurvey]

35 minutes ago, Jeddah said:

I don’t know if you meant this part just at me or in general, but I certainly don’t find fault with everything.

Oh, no no no.  I certainly didn't mean to direct that at you.  It was just in general, but I realize how it looked like that since I quoted you.  Sorry!

Edited October 11, 2017 by RulerofallIsurvey

[DittyDotDot]

BTW, I thought that was a weird article. It appears to be from when they had them sitting in that prop room answering question a few weeks ago--I remember Jensen saying something about still being excited to talk about their jobs 13 years later--but we didn't get Jensen's answers to any of the questions about female characters or the spin off. It seems like they just snipped the parts that would support their headline. Which may be accurate or may be out of context, it's hard to tell from what they gave us.

Edited October 11, 2017 by DittyDotDot

[Jeddah]

20 minutes ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

Oh, no no no.  I certainly didn't mean to direct that at you.  It was just in general, but I realize how it looked like that since I quoted you.  Sorry!

I wasn’t sure! No hard feelings. Maybe you are right, and I read too much into things. ;)

[ahrtee]

2 hours ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

I didn't get that at all.  I don't think it implied it's because 'women are only there to have sex and look pretty' I think that's because, as @SueB pointed out, every time there is a woman of relatively the same age and single status, fans either start shipping it or hating on that character.  Look at Eileen.  Even if it's not a woman, it happens - as with Cas.  Then there were the complaints I read a few seasons ago about the show dialing back the 'destiel' moments and the outrage every time Jensen says in a con that Dean is not gay or bi.  Geez - it's a catch-22 situation, I think.  

But TPTB don't seem to mind shipping (or "hating on a character,") and it doesn't stop them from writing young sexy women in all the time.  AFAIK, the only reason they dialed back the Destiel moments was because of the accusations of queer-baiting (and that Jensen was uncomfortable with it.)  There have been ships for pretty much everyone, including Jody and Donna and others that @SueB identified as "inappropriate," not counting Eileen, who it appeared strongly that they *were* pushing as a potential love interest.  So I don't think that argument holds water.

Having said that, I also agree with those who said that Jared wasn't intending to say anything against women on the show other than specifically love interests, but that he often doesn't think before he speaks--or at least, doesn't realize how something he's saying sounds to others, especially fans who parse every single syllable.

But I do think the show has a problem with women, and it's of their own making.  It's that they can't seem to come up with an intelligent, interesting female character anywhere in the range of "age appropriate" who isn't either drop-dead gorgeous and sexy, comic relief, or otherwise "off limits," like gay or already married.   They do seem to deliberately make any women the boys have any kind of contact with *look* like they're "only there to save sex and look pretty."  And that's a casting and makeup choice, not necessarily a writing one.   

ETA: To be fair, SPN is better than most TV shows at having more "real-looking" young female characters, but generally not in continuing roles.  JMO.

Edited October 11, 2017 by ahrtee
To be fair...

[RulerofallIsurvey]

23 minutes ago, Jeddah said:

I wasn’t sure! No hard feelings. Maybe you are right, and I read too much into things. ;)

Well... (maybe this should go in bitch/jerk.  I'm not trying to start anything, but I won't be surprised if this gets removed) it's just that I've noticed it seems that people tend to be harder on JP for his actions and words than JA, for whatever reason.  ::shrug::

[ahrtee]

17 minutes ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

Well... (maybe this should go in bitch/jerk.  I'm not trying to start anything, but I won't be surprised if this gets removed) it's just that I've noticed it seems that people tend to be harder on JP for his actions and words than JA, for whatever reason.  ::shrug::

JMO, but it seems to me that JA tends to think more before he speaks.  That's the main difference--JP tends to answer quickly and say things off the top of his head, and thus can say things that can be taken wrong (or things that he wouldn't have said/done if he'd thought them through first, like his Twitter attacks on waitstaff.)  I don't think people are harder on him, just that he gives them more ammunition.  

[RulerofallIsurvey]

9 minutes ago, ahrtee said:

JMO, but it seems to me that JA tends to think more before he speaks.  That's the main difference--JP tends to answer quickly and say things off the top of his head, and thus can say things that can be taken wrong (or things that he wouldn't have said/done if he'd thought them through first, like his Twitter attacks on waitstaff.)  I don't think people are harder on him, just that he gives them more ammunition.  

I think you're right that JA tends to be more...introspective?...before he answers.  But I also think it has a lot to do with how people interpret and react to what JP says and/or does and not only what is said or done.  

[gonzosgirrl]

I haven't read the article yet so there MAY BE SPOILERS, but this may be my new fav pic ever, lol. Only including the link b/c photo credit.

Link here... DO NOT CLICK IF YOU AVOID SPOILERS.

ETA: Oh dear God, help me.

 

 

Edited October 11, 2017 by gonzosgirrl

[catrox14]

Even if the writer has an agenda,  that doesn't change that JP said what he said and doesn't change that JP made a similar comment in 2014.

1 minute ago, gonzosgirrl said:

I haven't read the article yet so there MAY BE SPOILERS, but this may be my new fav pic ever, lol. Only including the link b/c photo credit.

Link here... DO NOT CLICK IF YOU AVOID SPOILERS.

Spoiler

Okay that is the same jacket Misha was wearing that he posted that he wasn't supposed to post. HMMMMMM

[gonzosgirrl]

4 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

Even if the writer has an agenda,  that doesn't change that JP said what he said and doesn't change that JP made a similar comment in 2014.

  Reveal hidden contents

Okay that is the same jacket Misha was wearing that he posted that he wasn't supposed to post. HMMMMMM

Look up ^^^^^^

[Casseiopeia]

[catrox14]

Oh FFS. Jensen with a kitten. That is a great photo. The video inside that link is super spoilery and the boys look amazing

[Aeryn13]

Who picked out the colors of the jackets? I would have prefered them all in classy black tuxes. The one on Jensen is iffy but the one poor Misha is saddled with is god-awful. Sorry, stuff like that completely ruins a photoshoot for me. 

Also, nothing new spoiler-wise in the article so it`s relatively safe if one knows the basics.

[gonzosgirrl]

5 minutes ago, Aeryn13 said:

Who picked out the colors of the jackets? I would have prefered them all in classy black tuxes. The one on Jensen is iffy but the one poor Misha is saddled with is god-awful. Sorry, stuff like that completely ruins a photoshoot for me. 

Also, nothing new spoiler-wise in the article so it`s relatively safe if one knows the basics.

I love everything about it - everything. It just makes me grin.

And this? This just makes me.....

 

[DittyDotDot]

25 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

Even if the writer has an agenda,  that doesn't change that JP said what he said and doesn't change that JP made a similar comment in 2014.

I wasn't trying to suggest Jared didn't say it, but context might make it mean something different. The way it was presented, it appears that the question was asked and Jared quickly answered, but we don't know if his response was following some other commentary about the lack of romantic relationships. That's always the problem with these types of articles, we don't know what was being said by the other people in the room that could be influencing these comments.

However, I was just commenting that the article seemed to be weird to me in general more than anything though.

Edited October 11, 2017 by DittyDotDot

[catrox14]

1 minute ago, DittyDotDot said:

 

However, I was just commenting that the article seemed to be weird to me in general more than anything though.

I mentioned the weirdness of the article in my first post. It makes me wonder if that was a lift from Jared's comments in 2014.

15 minutes ago, Aeryn13 said:

Who picked out the colors of the jackets? I would have prefered them all in classy black tuxes. The one on Jensen is iffy but the one poor Misha is saddled with is god-awful. Sorry, stuff like that completely ruins a photoshoot for me. 

Also, nothing new spoiler-wise in the article so it`s relatively safe if one knows the basics.

Rumor has it that Misha's was a Dolce and Gabbana coat and I suspect the boys are also wearing Dolce and Gabbana. I would have actually swapped the coats for them. I would have put Jensen in the flowered coat, Misha in the reddish coat and Jared in the black. But I loved them all.

[gonzosgirrl]

I wonder what is up with all the Entertainment Weekly love? A special issue, a subscriber's only cover and the three individual covers available in stores? And a daytime tv appearance for Jensen, Kimmel for Jared. Seems like maybe WB/CW is really throwing down with some PR this season. I hate to say it gives me going-out-with-a-bang vibes, but....

[RulerofallIsurvey]

39 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

I haven't read the article yet so there MAY BE SPOILERS, but this may be my new fav pic ever, lol. Only including the link b/c photo credit.

Link here... DO NOT CLICK IF YOU AVOID SPOILERS.

I want those adorable little balls of fluff.  

And the kittens too.  ;)

[Jeddah]

11 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

I wonder what is up with all the Entertainment Weekly love? A special issue, a subscriber's only cover and the three individual covers available in stores? And a daytime tv appearance for Jensen, Kimmel for Jared. Seems like maybe WB/CW is really throwing down with some PR this season. I hate to say it gives me going-out-with-a-bang vibes, but....

The Riverdale cast seems to be popping up on talk shows and in magazines too. Maybe the CW is just getting better at marketing.

[Wayward Son]

Not only is Misha finally on the cover, but he even got his own cover! :D

 

I loved the video, Jensen and Jared outfits were great, Misha’s wasn’t as great IMO but I’m too happy he finally got on the cover to be grumpy about that xD

[catrox14]

43 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

I love everything about it - everything. It just makes me grin.

And this? This just makes me.....

 

How dare you, Sir? How dare you personally attack me with a kitten and a look that it is most decidedly hot. JFC.

[Aeryn13]

Quote

I would have put Jensen in the flowered coat

See, and I would have burned the flowered coat. It`s just super-ugly to me and therefore impossible to suit anyone. Purple, I side-eye most of the time. Unless it is someone on their way to their coronation. 

But the cover with the leather jacket? Hell yes. THAT works for me.