Jump to content

Type keyword(s) to search

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

Pete Martell

By Pete Martell
in Supernatural

  • Reply
  • Start Topic

Recommended Posts

catrox14

catrox14

Update on the Jared tweeting a phone number thing.  Turns out that it was all silliness born of a random call to the phone they use as Dean's phone. Someone called Dean's phone and Jensen was like WTH so he answered it.  Person legit dialed a wrong number.  Then Jared decided it would be funny to tweet the number and see how many people called it. The shenanigans resulted in the burner phone having to be ditched because so many people tried to text and call they blew out the minutes on the plan. Apparently the prop master was not a happy camper. 

 

So my reporting was erroneous that it was Jared being...well Jared and it turns out that it was Jared....well being Jared..the prankster.  But Jensen was fully on board the shenanigans.  Here's the story from the boys from the SF con this past weekend.

 

  • Love 1
  • Replies 15.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • catrox14

    2815

  • Casseiopeia

    1851

  • gonzosgirrl

    1785

  • SueB

    612

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

BabySpinach
BabySpinach

If the roles were switched and it was Jensen who didn't know about the prequel, none of us would know either because Jensen doesn't air his dirty laundry out to the public. So, moot point. This issue

BabySpinach
BabySpinach

We've only gotten Jared's side of this, and we'll likely never get Jensen's because he probably won't respond publicly. I don't see any point in criticizing him for not telling Jared because we know n

Bergamot
Bergamot

Obviously there are two sides to the story, and we have only heard Jared's side. People who want to defend Jared are leaping to a lot of unwarranted assumptions and conclusions without really knowing

Posted Images

catrox14

catrox14

Fangasm ‏@FangasmSPN 3m3 minutes ago

.@Mark_Sheppard : wed love to have @mattbomer on the show. He's friends w @JensenAckles #toomuchprettyomg #houscon

0 replies 9 retweets 8 favorites

 

 

Um,okay. DO WANT. NOW PLEASE. And OMG. Jensen and Matt on the same show. Good lord the universe might implode from all the pretty.  

catrox14

catrox14

interesting tweets from the houston con today.  

F

angasm ‏@FangasmSPN 9m9 minutes ago

.@JensenAckles I would've liked to see demon dean longer. I've talked to the writers and they did too #houscon
0 replies 51 retweets 50 favorites

 

 

So does this bode that demon!Dean will come back.  And if the writers wanted demon!Dean around longer then who made the call to dismantle that so soon?

Demented Daisy

Demented Daisy

While not actually about Supernatural, I was reading 6 Terrifying Side Effects of Things You've Done Today and came across this little tidbit:

 

 

In short, if your idea of a fun Friday night is refreshing the thread you started on The Winchester Family Business to see if there are any replies to your theory that Sam and Dean aren't blood related, so it's not weird if they make out, you should probably stop doing that. If not for the sake of your heart, then for ours, because they are breaking for you.

 

 

 

We get no respect.  ;-)

  • Love 1
Pete Martell

Pete Martell

  • Author
(edited)

What an incredibly vacuous article that was. These are the same types of reporters who used to wonder why TWD hadn't killed more characters recently. And if they think SPN just recently started killing off characters, I have no idea what in the world they've been doing for a decade. 

 

I hope they never watched St. Elsewhere. They'd need smelling salts.

Edited by Pete Martell
  • Love 2
SueB

SueB

Not really a social media event with the cast...but William Shatner, as many of you know, live-tweeted Supernatural last night.  At one point he asked a question (to no one in particular) about how Dean got the phone in the basement.  I answered (as did tons of others). Surprisingly, he REPLIED TO ME.

 

Capt Kirk replied to me.  It was amazing and I am unabashedly fangirling over it.  

Then my twitter notifications blew up as about 100 people favorited or retweeted it.  Still happening 24 hrs later.  So there...that was my fifteen minutes of internet fame.  

  • Love 8
AwesomO4000

AwesomO4000

I hope they never watched St. Elsewhere. They'd need smelling salts.

 

So true (and excellent show.) Or ER for that matter... They would've fainted from the helicopter of doom! . Or the death of Lucy (That was one of the more surprising/shocking deaths I remember from television.)

 

And why was that article trying to compare shows like The Walking Dead or Supernatural to shows like The Good Wife and Downton Abbey? I would say that's like comparing apples and oranges, but those are at least both fruits. To me that's more like comparing apples and hamburgers. Or hot wings. Even the reason for eating them is somewhat different.

  • Love 2
DittyDotDot

DittyDotDot

I thought the point was, whether it's a period show, a genre show or a comedy; writers should write deaths for story value not ratings and shock value. The ER helicopter of doom wasn't just killing a character simply because they felt like they needed to kill a character to be edgy, It actually had story value, IMO. It's the difference between killing off Jo and Ellen because it was supposed to be the last season and it was the mid-season finale after all; as opposed to the deaths John or Kevin who actually made story sense to me. In fact, of all the deaths on Supernatural, John's was one I felt had to happen for the story to work. I don't think the writer was necessarily worried about the quantity of the deaths, but was advocating for there to be some quality to it.

  • Love 1
AwesomO4000

AwesomO4000

(edited)

I can see that, but when it comes to genre shows, and especially something like The Walking Dead, the world the characters live in is generally more frought with the possibility of impending death. If only the redshirt characters died and/or every death had "meaning" to me that wouldn't be necessarily realistic within that world. Sometimes there just is "death from on high," because that's the way that world is. But I know that this could be just my opinion of it.

 

Of course even in a regular show, there is every once in a while a completely WTF was that? death... L.A. Law's elevator shaft of doom comes to mind, but for the most part it isn't expected that the world is dangerous enough that the audience would expect a main character to unexpectedly die. For me that's not the case with a world like The Walking Dead. Also it isn't as if the deaths are forgotten on that show - or Supernatural - they shape the characters and infer how they are going to react in the future whether that be that they become more hardened or they feel like they have to enjoy what moments they have left in whatever small way they can.

 

As for the ER helicopter death, it did get worked into the narrative, but it was so off the wall - don't get me wrong, in an awesome way - especially since he'd already gotten his arm chopped off by one (it was almost like the helicopter was coming back to finish the job mwah ha ha). But sometimes that's what I like about NBC shows... sometimes they are just willing to go there and somehow still make it work a lot of the time. For me that's been happening since Hill Street Blues, and strangely I can think of way more NBC dramas I'd watched for years than probably every other network combined... and even some shows I have loved from other networks sometimes have some relationship and/or start with an NBC show (for example NYPD Blue). So admittedly, I'm biased there.

 

As for Ellen and Jo... I don't know. Maybe the choice to kill them off was at first for shock value, but I thought that there was at least an effort, even if it was after the fact - and I can't say for sure that it was after the fact - to make their deaths plot relevant. For example, in my opinion, Jo's death especially was one of the factors that drove Dean to believe that perhaps he should maybe say "yes" to Michael after all. The Colt not working was one thing, but Jo and Ellen put an actual personal cost to Dean's mission. Dean still felt that he had to "save everyone" (as he mentioned in "Sam, Interrupted"), but with Jo's and Ellen's death in the back of his mind, he had a conflict, because here was a personal cost that he hadn't had in a little while at this point on the show, and I think that conflict was part of what was coming out in his dialogue with the "doctor" in "Sam, Interrupted." There was now added guilt and consequences to Dean's "save everyone" plan. So I thought that Jo's death especially was relevant to the plot, and had a lasting effect on Dean as we saw later in "Defending Your Life." It might have been different if their deaths hadn't ever been brought up again or I didn't think they influenced Dean's motivations in some way. But I actually thought that Jo and Ellen's death was one of the more well done and respectful send offs that the show has done, in my opinion. It was one of the few death scenes on this show that made me really cry and where the characters showed growth (Jo) and understandable motivation and lotalty (Ellen). But I definitely understand that miles vary here.

Edited by AwesomO4000
  • Love 2
rue721

rue721

As for the ER helicopter death, it did get worked into the narrative, but it was so off the wall - don't get me wrong, in an awesome way - especially since he'd already gotten his arm chopped off by one (it was almost like the helicopter was coming back to finish the job mwah ha ha).

 

This made me laugh so hard.

 

"Never wound what you can't kill!"

                                       -- The Helicopter

 

From the article:

 

“I think we’ve gotten to the end of the road with the pendulum,” agrees Kerry Ehrin, executive producer of “Bates Motel.” She says she’s had to push back against exploiting the serial killer aspect of the show. “When you’re telling a psychological thriller, holding on to that power is the tension. In storytelling terms, it’s letting the genie out of the bottle.”

 

Hopefully this means that Dylan doesn't get killed off!

Though he actually has a higher body count than Norman does at this point, I think? Or maybe they're neck and neck. There were about ten million shootouts last season anyway, so it's kind of rich for Ehrin to be saying that fictional character body counts have gotten too high...but eh, all the people killed on Bates Motel last season were part of the drug cartels, iIrc, so I don't really care. To be perfectly honest.

 

I don't really think there are too many deaths on Supernatural as a general rule, or that deaths are supposed to be especially shocking even. If anything, I think that there have been too many *resurrections* and they've gotten a little cheap/stale because of it.

 

When I get irritated with the deaths on Supernatural, it's mostly because I feel like the show will stumble onto an interesting character or conflict or storyline, and instead of actually telling that story, they'll just kill off the character and move onto the next thing. They sometimes treat killing off characters like a Get Out of Jail Free card.

 

Tbh I even felt like that about Samuel, even though I had no use for him overall and didn't want to see yet another grumpy old man on SPN anyway. As soon as he got pissed off because he was trying to bring Mary back from the dead and felt that Dean and Sam were getting in the way of that, I knew he was a goner. I thought that was one of the more interesting storylines/conflicts they could have given him, so obviously they were going to throw away the character and his SL/conflict after that. 

  • Love 1
DittyDotDot

DittyDotDot

(edited)
AwesomO4000, on 13 Feb 2015 - 01:07 AM, said:

I can see that, but when it comes to genre shows, and especially something like The Walking Dead, the world the characters live in is generally more frought with the possibility of impending death. If only the redshirt characters died and/or every death had "meaning" to me that wouldn't be necessarily realistic within that world. Sometimes there just is "death from on high," because that's the way that world is. But I know that this could be just my opinion of it.

 

I don't think the author of the article is saying shows shouldn't have high-stakes deaths, IMO, the author is challenging shows to find a way to use those high-stakes deaths to tell better story rather than just killing someone so you can say you kill people. Again, it's not about the quantity but the quality. It really doesn't matter what type of show you're doing, but if you want to actually challenge the viewer's expectations you need to do more than just kill a "safe" character once in a while since that has become the expected.

 

Personally, I have no issue with all the death on Supernatural, but I do think they've fallen into this trap quite frequently and have since around S5. To me, Ellen and Jo wasn't all that unexpected and nothing unexpected was born out of it either. Other than Bobby, I don't think they've had an actual unexpected death since they sent Dean to Hell. I'd say the only real "safe" characters on Supernatural are Sam and Dean--actually, Cass and Crowley now have contractual "safeness" too--so I fully expect anyone else could die at anytime. That's the expected part of Supernatural: anyone who gets sucked into the Winchester's orbit generally dies. But they once did kill the most "safe" characters and used the deaths to tell better story rather than it just being about telling the audience that no one is safe. So, they challenged my expectations by taking the unexpected and made something even more unexpected out of it.

Edited by DittyDotDot
  • Love 2
AwesomO4000

AwesomO4000

(edited)

I don't think the author of the article is saying shows shouldn't have high-stakes deaths, IMO, the author is challenging shows to find a way to use those high-stakes deaths to tell better story rather than just killing someone so you can say you kill people. Again, it's not about the quantity but the quality. It really doesn't matter what type of show you're doing, but if you want to actually challenge the viewer's expectations you need to do more than just kill a "safe" character once in a while since that has become the expected.

 

But for me, I think that sometimes the big, meaningful death has also at times become expected, and my argument was that in some genre shows, having that kind of death each time might be unrealistic (see more on this below *). And sometimes I wonder if that is also fair to the show writers. We, as the audience might feel obligated to get a meaningful death when it comes to a character we love, but there might be different definitions to what is a meaningful death or character arc (although some death is just random and a dissapointment). I think one example for me might be Gul Dukat from Star Trek Deep Space Nine. I remember thinking that what happened to his charcater made a kind of sense based on how he'd been presented, and even if not, he was not a character (to me) deserving of some noble scarifice or death. So I was surprised to see commentary later on that some fans were very angry/disappointed that the character didn't get some big, redemptive storyline and even end up in a relationship with Kira, and why didn't she grow to love him. I was suprised, because for me, no just no. So sometimes I guess there is just no way to please everyone. And I know even I'm guilty of this when it comes to Sam and Dean, so big pot-pointing-to-the kettle me, but I'm acknowledging it.

 

* But especially in a world where there are monsters everywhere - sometimes both the undead and the human kind of monster - to me it seems realistic that sometimes death just happens (which is what I meant by "death from on high" **) I understand what the article was trying to say, but for me, the "meaningful death" can sometimes be just as forced as a random death, and a random death doesn't always have to mean a death for death's sake, especially in a show where death is more likely to happen, or even that a death just for death's sake would even be out of place in certain kind of shows. For example, even though I haven't personally seen any of the Final Destination movie series that has been talked about here, I'm thinking that death for death's sake is kind of the point for that venue. Non-death in that case, while unexpected, would be - I'm guessing - also not what's supposed to happen there and be seen as a cop out or would be the forced outcome / thing that didn't seem to fit. So I guess kind of feel the same about a world like Walking Dead's venue. That if the all the main characters have only big, meaningful deaths, then this just wouldn't seem realistic and would feel like the writers were forcing "meaning" into a world where sometimes there just naturally isn't any meaning. And in a way, I think that's what the flu plot was trying to show - that even in a world full of zombies, sometimes something mundane like the flu can be just as deadly when access to medicine is restricted or difficult.

 

Now I'm not arguing that the shows we're talking about always do their deaths well. I'm just saying that the argument that death in a show should always be "meaningful" and not just death for the sake of shock is, for some genres, maybe an unfair argument. To me the type of show does make a difference. And I should clarify that it isn't just genre shows I think this applies to. For example, if there was a television show about organized crime or rival drug dealers or something I would expect some potential random death and/or death for death's sake there as well, because that would be the type of world / venue the show was set in.

 

 

** Sorry, that is one of my hubby's and my cultural references which has become a sort of morose/dark humor thing shorthand, and I forget that it likely needs explanation. It's a reference to Mystery Science Theater in that case random, flying (fake) planes which were supposed to be scary portents of death from above.

Edited by AwesomO4000
  • Love 1
DittyDotDot

DittyDotDot

But for me, I think that sometimes the big, meaningful death has also at times become expected, and my argument was that in some genre shows, having that kind of death each time might be unrealistic (see more on this below *). And sometimes I wonder if that is also fair to a show writers. We, as the audience might feel obligated to get a meaningful death when it comes to a character we love, but there might be different definitions to what is a meaningful death or character arc (although some death is just random and a dissapointment).

 

I'm sorry, I think we're talking two different things here. The author specifically cited shows, like Homeland, that used the deaths of their major characters as jumping off points for pushing their story into unexpected areas.

 

I fully expected Jo and Ellen's death to be a source of motivation for the rest of the season, which kinda made their deaths mundane to me in the end. There actually wasn't anything surprising about what happened to them, IMO. Another example would be Dean's death at the end of last season. I think TPTB did it because they thought they'd shock everyone with Dean turning into a demon--which shocked hardly anyone in the end--but, IMO, they didn't capitalize on Demon Dean to bring around anything unexpected from that death (they did get a good bro moment and a Crowley monologue milked out of it though). I think most of us expected Demon Dean to not be very demonic and would most likely be cured early in the season so they could go back to hunting things like always. So, IMO, it was kinda pointless to even try and shock everyone in the end.

 

On the other side of the coin, I'd say Sam's death at the end of S2 and Dean's death at the end of S3 were very good uses of high-stakes deaths to push the story in an unexpected direction. Of course we all knew that Sam nor Dean would stay dead, but the how and why and what it led to was rather unexpected to me. I'd also say that Bobby's death was used expectantly. Of course Bobby's death would push the boys to start full-on hunting the leviathans--that part was what was expected--but what wasn't expected was that Bobby was a ghost so my expectations were subverted even if I didn't care much for the storyline myself. Even though Kevin's death wasn't unexpected, IMO, it did lead to us learning about the veil being messed up. Again, I haven't really cared much for how they've handled the storyline, but at least something unexpected came out of it.

 

I'm not talking about having a meaningful and poignant death for a character because I like them and what not. Nor am I suggesting they make a big show of each and every death. I'm just saying if they actually want to subvert the audiences expectations, they need to find a way to use those deaths in unexpected ways.

  • Love 3
supposebly

supposebly

(edited)

 

I'm not talking about having a meaningful and poignant death for a character because I like them and what not. Nor am I suggesting they make a big show of each and every death. I'm just saying if they actually want to subvert the audiences expectations, they need to find a way to use those deaths in unexpected ways.

 

Taking my reply to the Bitterness thread.

Edited by supposebly
  • Love 1
AwesomO4000

AwesomO4000

I'm sorry, I think we're talking two different things here. The author specifically cited shows, like Homeland, that used the deaths of their major characters as jumping off points for pushing their story into unexpected areas.

 

I don't think maybe we're talking about two different things so much as we are miscommunicating on degree and/or author (of the article) intent? I'll also have to admit that I am at a disadvantage, because I don't watch any of the other shows cited in the article (Homeland, The Good Wife, Downton Abbey, or Scandal), so I can mainly just go by what's being said about The Walking Dead and related shows. And in that case, I either don't understand the author of the article's message or I think she has somewhat missed the point.

 

The author has the quote from The Walking Dead executive producer(s) explaining how the deaths are not just deaths but have a purpose in the story - which I agree with there, and I'll give an example of why I agree in a moment - but then she says this...

 

But no sooner do new characters get introduced than they get killed off. There’s little point in investing in them or rooting for their survival. Actors might as well file for unemployment when they get the call from their agent with the “good news” that they’ve been cast in “The Walking Dead.”

 

So is she complaining about the deaths because there are too many or because they are random? Because that's where I'm saying that in this type of show, it's an unfair comparison. And I'll explain with my example. I'll use The Walking Dead's Carl as the example. When Carl pretty much blew that other kid away when the kid was going to surrender, maybe I'm naive, but I entirely did not expect that. And I completely did not expect that when his dad, Rick, called him out on it that Carl's explanation for why he did it, based on what he had seen and lived through... would actually make a weird sort of sense (I don't think Rick was expecting it either, since he seemed just as dumbfounded as I was). I was somewhat horrified, but was interested in how Carl was going to come back from this as a character. But none of that would have made much sense if there hadn't been all of the myriad of "death from on high" deaths and betrayal deaths that had ocured previously. And many of the characters' stories and what they do on The Walking Dead are related to and based on the previous deaths and events, and for quite a few of them - like Carl... and Carol (which was also a big surprise to me *) only made sense in retrospect because of what went before.

 

So if The Walking Dead is using the deaths as a jumping off point for some interesting and often unexpected character arcs - and in my opinion they are ** - then the complaint the author is making about the body count, to me, is coming across as just a complaint about the body count and/or that they are killing off main characters for no reason, and she seems to be saying that shows like The Walking Dead should make an impact on the plot with maybe a smaller number of but significant / meaningful somehow deaths, because deaths in general become less meaningful somehow when there are more. And I'm saying that in certain types of shows I disagree with that assessment. That sometimes the large number of deaths, the randomness of them, etc. do have a legitimate and sometimes unexpected impact on the characters - as I personally think they do on The Walking Dead - and that she somewhat missed that point, because she was trying to judge shows like that by "normal" show standards. ***

 

* The first deaths, not the killing of Lizzie, because "zombies are our friends, and I'll make my sister a zombie to prove that to you" girl had to go for everyone's sake, and Carol's character would be the logical one to take that bullet (or give it as the case may be) based on her previous character arc.

** And according to the quote from the executive producers that is their intent as well.

*** This quote also makes me tink that maybe the author missed the point:

Stop me if you’ve heard this one before: A beloved character on “The Walking Dead” gets bitten by a zombie, staggers around for the length of an episode while his friends try to save him, and ultimately succumbs to his wounds.

 

Because actually that hardly ever happened on the show that I recall. I'm trying to recall if it ever has happened that way before. There have been lingering sicknesses from the flu, prolonged deaths due to human inflicted wounds, and various deaths from on high, but usually most people are put out of their misery immediately if it's imminent that they are going to turn.

 

 

I fully expected Jo and Ellen's death to be a source of motivation for the rest of the season, which kinda made their deaths mundane to me in the end. There actually wasn't anything surprising about what happened to them, IMO.

 

I personally wasn't expecting their deaths, and though I did then expect their deaths to be motivation for Dean, I didn't expect what that motivation was going to be. I myself, was surprised by the 180 degree turn around in Dean's strategy and thinking, when before he'd strictly been "we have to save everybody" so that at least partial contribution from their death, to me, was unexpected.

 

Another example would be Dean's death at the end of last season. I think TPTB did it because they thought they'd shock everyone with Dean turning into a demon--which shocked hardly anyone in the end--but, IMO, they didn't capitalize on Demon Dean to bring around anything unexpected from that death (they did get a good bro moment and a Crowley monologue milked out of it though). I think most of us expected Demon Dean to not be very demonic and would most likely be cured early in the season so they could go back to hunting things like always. So, IMO, it was kinda pointless to even try and shock everyone in the end.

 

I'm not sure that this story is entirely finished yet, and even if the demon part of it is, the impact on Dean may not be and may inform what he might do in the future, so I'm going to wait for the entire arc to be over before I decided what I think of it entirely. I still have some hope that something unexpected will hapen and the even slimmer hope that Sam gets to do something good in regards to the resolution. That to me would be a pleasant surprise.

 

I'm not talking about having a meaningful and poignant death for a character because I like them and what not. Nor am I suggesting they make a big show of each and every death. I'm just saying if they actually want to subvert the audiences expectations, they need to find a way to use those deaths in unexpected ways.

 

I can agree with that to an extent, but what I am disagreeing with is that an audiences' expectations need to be subverted in order for what comes from a death to be unexpected. Just because death is expected on The Walking Dead, doesn't mean - to me - that what happens to the characters because of those deaths is expected. Often I'm completely surprised by what happens next even as I know, yup, that character isn't going to make it. And as I mentioned above, that seemed to be the message the author was giving (in my opinion anyway), since her premise as I interpreted it: that since deaths are "expected" and mundane on shows like The Walking Dead, they are not really necessary for the plot or are just lazy plot contrivances and/or no real plot development comes from them - wasn't gelling for me.

  • Love 2
DittyDotDot

DittyDotDot

I don't think maybe we're talking about two different things so much as we are miscommunicating on degree and/or author (of the article) intent? I'll also have to admit that I am at a disadvantage, because I don't watch any of the other shows cited in the article (Homeland, The Good Wife, Downton Abbey, or Scandal), so I can mainly just go by what's being said about The Walking Dead and related shows. And in that case, I either don't understand the author of the article's message or I think she has somewhat missed the point.

 

[...]

 

So is she complaining about the deaths because there are too many or because they are random? Because that's where I'm saying that in this type of show, it's an unfair comparison.

 

I only watched the first season of The Walking Dead, so I can't really respond to your comments about that show. I do watch both Homeland and The Good Wife. My impression wasn't that she was wasn't saying there were too many deaths, per se, but due to the current climate of TV she's desensitized to most of these "shocking" deaths. I got the impression she was challenging TV to find a new way to try and subvert viewers expectations because the current one seems overdone, in her mind. I don't think she was comparing the shows, per se, but using different shows--some that have done it successfully and some that haven't, in her opinion--to illustrate her points about TV in general.

 

My takeaway from the article was: maybe TV has gone too far in trying to continually one-up itself and possibly shows could look for a little more variety in their storytelling tactics.

  • Love 2
AwesomO4000

AwesomO4000

Ah, okay, well, for me in that case, the author maybe just used the wrong show to illustrate her point, in my opinion. Because, for me, many of the character arcs - and the show currently, to me, is more about character arcs than a straight storyline per se - wouldn't make as much sense without all of the deaths and the life and death pressure of having to make a decision - often very quickly - on whether or not someone is to be trusted or not trusted. And that is really in my opinion illustrated on the show via the character deaths, and so taking those away would take away that immediacy and the reasoning of why would someone make that potentially questionable judgment call? And the answer would be that under normal circumstances they likely wouldn't have made that judgement call, but the world of The Walking Dead is not normal, and a mistake may not be just a mistake, it could mean you - or a loved one - dies because you made a mistake, even if that mistake is something as small as trying to help a stranger in need.

 

Warning: below are post season 1 The Walking Dead spoilers, though they really only affect a small episode arc. Though they do illustrate my point well...

 

That incidence I mentioned about the young girl (Lizzie) who thought zombies were their friends was a particulary chilling example, because the adults tried to give her the benefit of the doubt... and in the end, it ended up costing her sister her life, because Lizzie killed her sister so she would become a zombie * to "prove" that zombies were just "another state of being" rather than undead monsters (and she had plans to turn the baby, too). Lesson learned too late that sometimes the world they live in just causes some people - and especially the children - to fold under the pressure. And that even with children, they have to watch for the warning signs of such a consequence. And again, for me, such a story wouldn't make as much sense in a "normal" world without the pressures of death and danger all around them and even the potential sad message that death is cheap and expected (or in Lizzie's warped interpretation, "just another state of being".) I understand that miles may vary there, though.

 

So maybe I'm not objecting to the message so much as the show the author used to illustrate the message, since I think it might be an exception to what she was trying to illustrate: i.e. that some of the stuff that does happen - especially with the "bad guys" - happens because life in The Walking Dead is "cheap" in a way (or maybe death is common). (Though ironically, it makes life in some ways more valuable, because it can be lost so quickly). That show is weird that way.

 

 

* A post-season 1 development is that even people dying from natural consequences become zombies after they die unless their brain is taken out of commision.

catrox14

catrox14

Jensen designed a shirt for Represent.com. Not sure of the charity proceeds will go to. He set a goal of selling 1000 t-shirts by Feb 27. Apparently that goal was surpassed in 3 hours and so many people were trying to order it crashed the Represent website.

https://twitter.com/JensenAckles/status/566387314113265665

  • Love 1
catrox14

catrox14

Oh man. Jensen just made fandom lose their minds.

 

At the cons, they have Karoake night with usually Rob Benedict, Richard Speight, Matt Cohen etc and they do a little concert and sing karoake with fans...

 

Jensen and Jared look like they are going to partake of those festivities for the first time. 

 

https://twitter.com/JensenAckles/status/568191034443694080/photo/1

  • Love 1
catrox14

catrox14

Seriously. I would too.  It's kind of crazy. I live in San Diego and I've never been to comic con but they also don't have the same kinds of conventions that SPN does.  But man, karoake night with J2?  I would totally do that. 

 

Jensen sure has embraced all this when just a few years ago he didn't like cons, he felt uncomfortable, he would never sing even though he can sing and now he's willing to karoake with the fans.  That's pretty great.  I'm sure the extra paycheck doesn't hurt but still.

7kstar

7kstar

Holy. Crap. I've never realty considered going to a con before, but that, right there, that's an opportunity that would be hard to resist.

IA...I would love to sing with Jensen...but of course I couldn't audition to sing with Keith Urban cause I lost my voice...but I've been thinking I would like to see the 2J's before they left Supernatural...just not sure I can afford it or could get the time off.  Darn reality!  :(

catrox14

catrox14

(edited)

Oh come on. No one should be this cute when stuck on the tarmac in the snow.  Plus he just wants to get home to see his baby girl dawwwwww...gah, this guy is killing me.

 

@AmericanAir I know it's crazy #DFWsnow I'm just excited 2see my baby girl! Man freaking out next 2 me isn't helping
https://twitter.com/JensenAckles/status/571432919580803072B-4i3-YUcAA74gR.jpg

I really hope the guy freaking out next to him is like Jared...LOL

 

And then he follows it up by thanking the flight crew. 

 

Jensen Ackles @JensenAckles  ·  40m 40 minutes ago

To the flight crew of @AmericanAir #282... You were all stellar. Thanks for taking care of us. #OldManWinter

Edited by catrox14
  • Love 1
cassandle

cassandle

(edited)

Oh man. Jensen just made fandom lose their minds.

 

At the cons, they have Karoake night with usually Rob Benedict, Richard Speight, Matt Cohen etc and they do a little concert and sing karoake with fans...

 

Jensen and Jared look like they are going to partake of those festivities for the first time. 

 

https://twitter.com/JensenAckles/status/568191034443694080/photo/1

 

This is the con I went to and had I known about this, I would have gone that night.  But I don't know if they ever made it on stage--judging by the talk I was overhearing the boys stayed backstage the whole time.  But I could be wrong--I'd really rather not know what I missed.

 

To anyone thinking about going I recommend it.  If I had to do it over again I don't think I'd splurge for the priciest package though--all I got this time was the Jensen photo and the general admission.  Maybe I'd get a Jared photo next time but probably not the whole weekend gold package.  At least for the con in Phoenix there wasn't a whole lot going on other than photo taking and the Q&A with the boys.  Other than that it was a lot of killing time in the hotel bar.  

 

But it was definitely worth the money for the photo with Jensen even though the whole thing happens SO FAST.  It was hi, photo, thanks, next.  And while other girls (because of course it was all girls) were braver and managed to talk a little to him I was way too shy and didn't want to be a pest.  And it didn't help that he was seriously beautiful (whoever here told me it was like looking into the sun was spot on).  So in my photo Jensen is smiling and crazy handsome while I look a little afraid and timid (but at least I'm not blinking or drooling or anything weird).  And funnily I don't remember having my picture taken at all but I distinctly remember having my hand on his back and thinking that the flannel shirt he was wearing was weirdly scratchy and I wondered why he was wearing such an un-soft shirt.  Why that was going through my mind when I was standing with Jensen Ackles' arm around me, I don't know.  Anyhoo, other girls were getting all sorts of crazy poses out of him (and he seemed happy to oblige).  He posed with one girl prom-style, another had a giant cherry pie with her, another was wearing black contacts, another had him pretend to punch her, and a lot of girls got bear hugs (and I'm very jealous of those girls).

 

I also recommend picking who you go with wisely.  I found out my coworker's wife was going so we planned to meet up.  The Jensen photo was from 10:45-11:30 and she was so busy getting her hair and makeup done that morning she didn't get there until 11:25.   Which I think added to my weird photo--I wasn't about to miss my photo waiting for her so I had to go in alone and nervous and it didn't help that I was anxious about her getting there in time.  And then afterwards we hit the bar (where she drank a lot) and during the Q&A she kept saying how much she wanted to touch Jensen's face and how she was going to rush the stage and do it.  So I basically had to babysit a drunk 41-year-old and keep her from causing a scene and getting thrown out.

 

Still, I'll totally do it again next year.  And maybe by then I'll have worked up enough courage for my Dean hug.

 

By the way, parts of the Q&A were pretty damn funny.  One bit in particular where Jensen was mimicking hoola-hooping while the band plays behind him is worth hunting down on youtube (I've tried to find it to post but my computer doesn't want to run videos for some reason).

 

ETA:  Here we go:  Minute 4:37 is where the magic starts.

Edited by cassandle
  • Love 2
catrox14

catrox14

Thanks for that synopsis, Cassandle.  I may or may not be a little jealous. :) 

 

Just FYI, they did make it on stage and there is a video out there of it, but I won't post it so you don't feel worse ;. 

 

I can't imagine Jensen being more beautiful in person...lordy, I'd probably be an incoherent mess.  I love your story of thinking about how Jensen's shirt was scratchy.  I think it's lovely, and it's a very kind thing to wonder that. That's fantastic IMO. 

 

Thanks again for the report!

  • Love 1
catrox14

catrox14

Happy Birthday, Jensen!

I thought this was cute.

He was kind of a goober when he was little boy and we'll he's still kind of a goober.. Just a ridiculously handsome and ridiculously talented goober

http://justjensenanddean.tumblr.com/post/112397363952/i-would-physically-be-embarrassed-about-things

catrox14

catrox14

HA!

#HappyBirthdayJensenAckles is the #1 US trend on Twitter and bumped HappyBirthdayJustinBieber.  I don't know why I love this but I do. 

 

United States Trends
· Change

    #HappyBirthdayJensenAckles
    #OffendEveryoneIn4Words
    Grease 2
    #IREvENG
    Minnie Minoso
    So Help Me God
    #philday
    #CapitalOneCupFinal
    God is Life

  • Love 1

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...