All Episodes Talk: Saving People, Hunting Things

[RulerofallIsurvey]

2 minutes ago, Myrelle said:

That's going to be a long one, so it's going to have to wait. Work calls.

no rush!

2 minutes ago, Myrelle said:

I'm so ready for this season to be over because of stuff like this so that I can just try to forget about it-like S8. And I can't feel anything other than dread and/or trepidation(at best) for the rest of the season, at this point. 

I don't think I've ever been ready for a season to be over - a particular story line within a season absolutely - but not necessarily the season itself.  However, I am very much looking forward to the resolution (even partial as I don't think it will be completely resolved, so maybe I should say evolution?) of the BMoL story line -

Spoiler

even though I'm not really looking forward to Lady Throwherinthewoodchipper returning - unless it's to throw her in the woodchipper, of course!  Lol.

[DittyDotDot]

12 minutes ago, Bessie said:

Agreed. All of them are adults and get to make their own decisions.  Their history is just so weird, though, that I can understand if Dean were to have a hard time with Mary's alliance with the BMoL. She's his mother, who he's looked up to all his life and now (in his view) she's screwing up all over the place. And in his mind, that probably includes her work with the BMoL. Wait til he discovers she borrowed a cup of sugar from Ketch!

Oh, I understand it too. I'd feel the same way if it was my mother. But, history has taught me it best not to try and tell my mother what she can or can't do--she usually just digs her heals in deeper anyway--but it's also not my place to tell her who she can and can't work with. I can demand she not deceive or use me though. 

So, IMO, Dean's apology to Mary wasn't a "I shouldn't ever feel hurt", but a "it's your life, you can work with whoever you want, even if I don't like it." I think they haven't yet addressed the hurt feelings part and I think it will be Mary who apologizes to both Sam and Dean on that front, in the end.

Edited April 18, 2017 by DittyDotDot

[Aeryn13]

Quote

I think they haven't yet addressed the hurt feelings part and I think it will be Mary who apologizes to both Sam and Dean on that front, in the end.

Dean literally called her out on distancing herself, not because she wanted space but she wanted space from them. Which she denied. IMO that was the part about calling her out on the things unrelated to the BMOL. Mary made this into "I won`t be Suzy homemaker so get over it." And the episode then twisted it around to proving her right with that apology. 

So IMO the chance came and went. And since Mary basked in being validated in the end, I would not even buy any sincere apology coming from that character.   

[catrox14]

14 hours ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

Well, to be fair, Heaven is also dealing with Lucifer's Love Child.  Mary being let out on parole (she didn't technically 'escape' since Auntie Amara brought her back) is small potatoes in comparison.  :)

 

Lucifer''s Love Child was literally not in existence until long after Amara plucked Mary out of Heaven, so that wouldn't have been their focus at all. I think there would a faction of angels who would have been  disinclined to acquiesce to Amara's request, if she made such a request ,given that would have happened immediately on the heels of her willingness to let existence be obliterated because of her fight with Guck. I'm just sayin' . 

Edited April 18, 2017 by catrox14

[RulerofallIsurvey]

52 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

Lucifer''s Love Child was literally not in existence until long after Amara plucked Mary out of Heaven, so that wouldn't have been their focus at all.

Yeah, I know that - and as far as the beginning of the season is concerned, you are correct.  But now, I think it's all hands on the LLC problem and Mary still being MIA is not a problem worth putting valuable resources on.

54 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

I think there would a faction of angels who would have been  disinclined to acquiesce to Amara's request, if she made such a request ,

I don't think it would have mattered if Amara made such a request or not.  (For the record, I never said she did, so I'm not sure where this came from?)  Amara is Guck's sister - her powers on par with his - which means that she's more powerful than all the angels in Heaven put together (as I think she pretty much proved last season) so, imo, she could just do what she wanted (which is pretty much what she did as far as bringing Mary back) and the angels can't do a thing about it.

[catrox14]

23 minutes ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

eah, I know that - and as far as the beginning of the season is concerned, you are correct.  But now, I think it's all hands on the LLC problem and Mary still being MIA is not a problem worth putting valuable resources on

34 minutes ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

I don't think it would have mattered if Amara made such a request or not.  (For the record, I never said she did, so I'm not sure where this came from?)  Amara is Guck's sister - her powers on par with his - which means that she's more powerful than all the angels in Heaven put together (as I think she pretty much proved last season) so, imo, she could just do what she wanted (which is pretty much what she did as far as bringing Mary back) and the angels can't do a thing about it.

This is an evolving discussion and I don't want to repeat myself. 

My thoughts on this, all along, since I brought it up in my original post upthread, have been how Mary could have been taken out of Heaven without the angels noticing or being concerned about it, or remarking on it at all, at the time that it happened. Heaven wants the souls that are in Heaven to stay in Heaven.  That's why they have them all on SuperMax lockdown.  Mary Winchester going missing would have been of particular interest because she is a Winchester.  IMO, it's something that should have been addressed on screen at some point at the time that it happened.  My argument was never that the angels should spend time on this NOW. I mean they could but I wasn't making that argument.

[DittyDotDot]

21 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

This is an evolving discussion and I don't want to repeat myself. 

My thoughts on this, all along, since I brought it up in my original post upthread, have been how Mary could have been taken out of Heaven without the angels noticing or being concerned about it, or remarking on it at all, at the time that it happened. Heaven wants the souls that are in Heaven to stay in Heaven.  That's why they have them all on SuperMax lockdown.  Mary Winchester going missing would have been of particular interest because she is a Winchester.  IMO, it's something that should have been addressed on screen at some point at the time that it happened.  My argument was never that the angels should spend time on this NOW. I mean they could but I wasn't making that argument.

My guess would be, if God's sister wanted to take a soul out of Heaven, there was probably nothing the angels could do about it. I think they were aware of it though, Billy sure was and reapers are literally angels now.

[AwesomO4000]

Brought over from the Spoilers..." thread. No spoilers:

8 hours ago, Aeryn13 said:

Ideally, the other person is supposed to acknowledge they were wrong so you know the next time such a situation arises, they won`t do the same freaking thing. If that doesn`t happen and they are not called out either, I already know they will do the same freaking thing again because teflon rocks.

Now in this case, I know Sam would do the same thing in the future regardless so all I want is Dean following his instincts as well. And noone bitching at him over it. Going against your better judgment is not character growth IMO. 

Did Dean, using his instincts, know that Kevin getting killed would be the only thing to go really wrong with helping Gadreel stay in Sam? No: he got lucky. Did Dean know that taking on the mark of Cain wouldn't result in huge consequences to the world? No: he got lucky. Did Dean, using his instincts, know that killing a bunch of Stynes wouldn't result in a whole bunch of revenge on him and his family? No: he got lucky. Did Dean, using his instincts, know that killing Death wouldn't result in huge cosmic consequences? No: he got lucky. And especially for that last one Dean deserved to get bitched at, in my opinion, but no one bitched at him. But I think you see my point here.

And Dean didn't acknowledge any wrong-doing for any of those things, so theoretically he could be one of those people who does the same thing again.

In my opinion, bitching at others because they make bad decisions and just don't happen to be as lucky as you is somewhat hypocritical if you also make potentially bad decisions, but just happen to get lucky nothing truly awful happens. Maybe one of these days, the show might actually have Dean make a bad decision and not get lucky... and he might appreciate having not said "I told you so" to others who hadn't been as lucky as him in the past, because they will be more likely to grant him the same courtesy.

But I kinda doubt Dean having one of those bad decisions come back to haunt him in a big way* will happen or it probably would have by now. There was certainly plenty of opportunity, in my opinion.

* Beyond him going to hell - which was a bad decision coming back to haunt him. But that was as far as I remember the only one, and he's been pretty lucky since then.

Edited April 18, 2017 by AwesomO4000

[SueB]

3 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

Brought over from the Spoilers..." thread. No spoilers:

Did Dean, using his instincts, know that Kevin getting killed would be the only thing to go really wrong with helping Gadreel stay in Sam? No: he got lucky. Did Dean know that taking on the mark of Cain wouldn't result in huge consequences to the world? No: he got lucky. Did Dean, using his instincts, know that killing a bunch of Stynes wouldn't result in a whole bunch of revenge on him and his family? No: he got lucky. Did Dean, using his instincts, know that killing Death wouldn't result in huge cosmic consequences? No: he got lucky. And especially for that last one Dean deserved to get bitched at, in my opinion, but no one bitched at him. But I think you see my point here.

In my opinion, bitching at others because they make bad decisions and just don't happen to be as lucky as you is somewhat hypocritical if you also make potentially bad decisions, but just happen to get lucky nothing truly awful happens. Maybe one of these days, the show might actually have Dean make a bad decision and not get lucky... and he might appreciate having not said "I told you so" to others who hadn't been as lucky as him in the past, because they will be more likely to grant him the same courtesy.

But I kinda doubt Dean having one of those bad decisions come back to haunt him in a big way will happen or it probably would have by now. There was certainly plenty of opportunity, in my opinion.

I'd say taking on the Mark of Cain had some really ugly consequences.  Beyond the relatively small body count of Randy & the rapists, the evil Stynes, & Rudy... because of the Mark there were two larger "body count" events:
- he kicked the bee's nest that was Cain's brain and Cain killed well over a hundred (based on the number of bodies in that mass grave location)
- in efforts to save him from the consequences of the Mark, the Darkness was released. Now Sam may have claimed that but Dean definitely claims (and deserves**) co-ownership of that consequence.  Because the Darkness was released, it looks like hundreds died in the fart-cloud town, at somewhere approaching a dozen died to feed Amara growing up, a dozen plus died while Amara was trying to get God's attention, and THOUSANDS died in the last fart-cloud event before the final conflict.

So, while I see other consequences due to the Gadreel thing (everyone he killed who still had a living vessel when he put out the bat-signal for example), the Mark IMO was clearly coded as Dean's folly and there was a shit-down of downside there.

** On Dean deserving co-ownership of the Darkness being released.  I have many many thoughts.  First, if Dean didn't have the Mark, there would be no need to remove it.  Second, Demon!Dean had been bad the first time around.  Dean was starting to demonstrate how much WORSE Demon!Dean might be the second time around.  Once he really got his anger on.  Dean needed to be stopped.  Although Sam COULD have locked him in the bunker, Sam (by the time the spell was done), knew Dean couldn't be killed.  But forget all THAT logic.  Here's the real reason IMO that Dean co-owns Sam's decision making:  the massive lengths that Dean has gone to over the years set a precedent for the definition of action in the name of "brotherly love" that Sam felt he HAD to live up to.  I look at how Sam held firm that Dean should have let him die.  And it crushed Dean to hear that Sam would let him die.  Dean brings it up twice (when Dean is actually dying and when they have the Book of the Damned).  And Sam keeps trying to pretend that he really didn't mean that.  He knows how that was taken and it was said with intent to wound.  In S10, Sam kept saying that he HAD to save Dean.  So here's a bit for folks to consider:  while Dean was clearly twisted by John into the "Save Sam" Prime Directive, Dean's adherence to that set a standard that Sam ultimately felt he HAD to live up to.  In other words, by constantly saving Sam with some HUGE moments (selling his soul and then later killing himself to retrieve Sam's soul come to mind), Dean taught Sam that true brotherly love means doing ANYTHING to save the other person.  Sam demonstrated that inclination in Mystery Spot but no one would let him sell his soul to save Dean when he went to Hell.  He felt he let his brother down and apologized at the start of S4.  IMO that was the a precursor to the big speech at the end of S8.  So FINALLY, after years of trying, in S10 Sam got to save his brother twice: first he de-demonized him and second he removed the Mark.  At LAST, IMO, Sam felt he had lived up to the demonstration of brotherly love that Dean was so good at.  And it was only after that, that Sam is able to successfully argue with Dean that it's time they give up the other person's life for the sake of the world and STICK with it.  I'm not remotely implying that Sam thought of it that way. I'm saying that Sam could not give up on Dean, again, and live with himself.  And it's because of his admiration for his brother.  Dean is STILL, IMO, Sam's hero.  He may tease him and they are now on a more equal footing, but I don't think that was really possible without Sam freeing Dean of the Mark.  Until Sam truly saved Dean in a way that SAM felt was worthy, I don't think Sam would ever feel he lived up to his brother's standard.  So, Dean, by his life-long example, heavily contributed to the decision making that led Sam to break the curse and thus release the Darkness.

IMO, of course.  

[Meredith Quill]

Mod Note:

Before posting further in here, please read this announcement.

[Meredith Quill]

Reposting the OP here as a reminder:

Quote

A place to discuss particular arcs and moments from the show's run. Please remember this isn't a complete catch-all topic -- check out the forum for character topics and other places for show-related talk. 

Particularly, if a topic exists elsewhere for what you want to say, i.e. Sam vs Dean - please take it to that topic and not in here (we appreciate those of you who are already doing this).

[Myrelle]

I think that "blame" and personal responsibility for something happening are sometimes seen as conflated issues on this show, but they are separate entities. "Blame" for things such as the Almost Apocalypse and the releasing of the Darkness is widespread in both cases and can even be traced back to God, himself, as part and parcel of the blame. Personal responsibility for individual and specific acts and decisions/choices that happened and were made while on the road to both/any storylines is another matter.

[ahrtee]

I wasn't sure where to put this, but The Impala seemed the appropriate thread....

Rewatched Swan Song today, and I noticed that April 21, 1967 was the day they noted the landmark at the Chevy factory, and said "three days later, another car rolled off the line..."

Which means, Baby will be 50 on April 24!  (So, in case no one else has mentioned it yet, Happy Birthday!)

[Commando Cody]

I saw that episode today as well and totally missed that. 

[ahrtee]

Well, it was the first line of the episode, and only caught my attention because I realized today was April 21. 

[SueB]

We are less than a week away from starting the last 5 episodes. I expect them to come fast and furious. I've been seeing a very LONG game being played by the writers.  Some in the form of themes, some in the form of arc.  I thought I'd throw out a couple of these over of the next few days.  

S12 ... The Road So Far... Theme: Mothers

This has definitely been the year of the Mother. exploring both the good, the bad, and the importance of the role of Mother. Looking at the Mother's we've visited:
- Lady Toni Bevell - Her role as mother was first shown at the end of S11 (as part of the S12 plot embedded in the finale).  Clearly his lordship represents the center of her emotional world.  Speculation abounds that part of her 'crazy' is coming from a need to protect her boy.  Is he Supernatural? Is Ketch the baby-daddy?  Her role as mother was also supposed to humanize her for us.  Although she's Lady McTortureMustDie for many of us, We have more questions than answers about Lady Horrible but if they come back with "everything she did was to protect her son", that would completely fit what they showed us. Although her son clearly doesn't have a SAG card (we never even see his face), it's fair to presume she's central to his life. 
- Mary Winchester - Well THAT went poorly.  Here was the woman idealized for DECADES and she's undergone the largest character deconstruction I've EVER scene. Instead of being the accepting, loving, and protective mother we were anticipating -- she's rejecting the boys, distant. and both willing to die for them while also putting them in danger.  Mary is the CENTRAL mother figure of not just the season but the series.  I suspect all other mother examples are meant to be looked at in reflection of Mary.  Right now, Mary is a hot mess. But her importance to the boys is UNAMBIGUOUS.  They are trying to deal with her needing space & time but the start of The Raid showed how much they've been hurt by her actions.  
- Rowena - Who may be part Klingon because she served that dish of revenge quite cold to King Crowley.  Conversely, we've seen that she did in fact LOVE Oscar and her 'motherly love' drove her to seek revenge on Crowley - the child she rejected.  Although Rowena generally only 'plays' at being motherly, there were a few moments in Regarding Dean that were both amusing and somewhat honest.  Rowena is a tough as nails mother. But I'm not sure if she actually loathes Crowley as much as she says. And Crowley, still wants his mother's love. No matter HOW MUCH HE DENIES IT.  
- Lorraine Fox - Loving mother, grieving over her son's death. Clearly they never got along regarding his hunting. She resented everyone involved in that life. But he also still lived with her and likely loved her a great deal.  Lorraine is a fairly 'normal' mom. But I think she had a healthy relationship with Asa.
- Barnes' twins Mom - someone they both admire and are following in her footsteps. This is an inspirational Mom for her kids. 
- Jodi Mills - MOTHER OF THE YEAR! I love her. She's taken vampire-bait Alex and gotten her into Nursing school?!? There's not a greater turn around than that. Just the thought of disappointing Jodi was enough to make always-angry Claire turn into a puddle.  In just three-ish short years, Jody has established a strong maternal foundation with these two girls and set an EXCELLENT example.  And she sticks up for Sam and Dean with their Mom.  Jody has dramatically altered the lives of the two girls she's come to 'adopt'. 
- Kelly, mother of the Devil's Spawn - her entire existence right now is about protecting the baby.  She knows it's trouble but she's 100% dedicated (as of the last episode) to taking care of it.  Now Dagon just told her she would die in childbirth, so it's not clear how Kelly feels about that. The spawn is supposed to kill it's mother -- but will mother-love have an influence --- we'll see. 
- Not!Delores Umbridge, Ms Hess at BMoL - well she was AWFUL.  She was clearly supposed to be a maternal figure but she was horrific. She needs to be chased into the Forbidden Forest and EATEN BY WEREWOLVES.  She is the damaging mother who screws up her children.

Bottom Line on the Mother theme: We've had a full-spectrum of mother this year.  I suspect while Mary is still finding herself, she will eventually align more closely with the good vs the bad moms. 

[Commando Cody]

I was watching repeats on TNT, but I didn't start watching new episodes until, maybe, season 9. So maybe someone can answer this question I have. Every time I watch Swan Song it seems like the end of the series.  When they did that episode, did they not know if Supernatural was going to be renewed? I figured if they got the word later, they just reedited the ending.  So, what is the deal with that episode?

[Wayward Son]

17 minutes ago, Commando Cody said:

I was watching repeats on TNT, but I didn't start watching new episodes until, maybe, season 9. So maybe someone can answer this question I have. Every time I watch Swan Song it seems like the end of the series.  When they did that episode, did they not know if Supernatural was going to be renewed? I figured if they got the word later, they just reedited the ending.  So, what is the deal with that episode?

If I remember correctly by the time the episode aired they knew the show was going to be renewed, but they did not know it while they were filming the episode so it was intended as a series finale just in case. 

@Commando Cody

ETA: Actually I was wrong! I found the following article from the time which announced the shows renewal http://m.uk.ign.com/articles/2010/02/17/supernatural-renewed-for-season-6 which was posted in February! However, Swan Song was still considered a finale of sorts. It was the end of Kripke's plan for the show so that Gamble could start with a fresh canvas. I suspect some of the things leading into the next season like Sam in the cage were more Gamble than Kripke! 

Edited April 22, 2017 by Wayward Son

[DittyDotDot]

30 minutes ago, Commando Cody said:

I was watching repeats on TNT, but I didn't start watching new episodes until, maybe, season 9. So maybe someone can answer this question I have. Every time I watch Swan Song it seems like the end of the series.  When they did that episode, did they not know if Supernatural was going to be renewed? I figured if they got the word later, they just reedited the ending.  So, what is the deal with that episode?

They knew the show was renewed long before they did Swan Song, but Kripke was ready to tie up his five-year arc and move on. So, it feels like and ending because it was an ending, of sorts. 

As to the renewal: Jared and Jensen were still under contract for another year and the ratings were still good, so I think the network figured they'd milk one more year out of the series regardless. One more year turned into another year and so on and so forth.

Here's an interview where Sera Gamble talks about Swan Song and the renewal: http://io9.gizmodo.com/5543025/supernaturals-showrunner-sera-gamble-talks-about-god-and-endings

Quote

 

io9: Did you guys change "Swan Song" at all after you got picked up for another season? Was that how you were always going to end the series?

SG: We knew we were returning for another season well before Eric [Kripke] sat down to write the finale. So, the episode you saw was the story he worked on from the beginning. As for whether or not the episode resembles Eric's vision of the series finale, had the story ended there ... this is a great question for someone to ask Eric. I'd feel weird speaking for him about what was in his head.

 

[SueB]

22 minutes ago, Commando Cody said:

I was watching repeats on TNT, but I didn't start watching new episodes until, maybe, season 9. So maybe someone can answer this question I have. Every time I watch Swan Song it seems like the end of the series.  When they did that episode, did they not know if Supernatural was going to be renewed? I figured if they got the word later, they just reedited the ending.  So, what is the deal with that episode?

The end of S5 was a big deal.  I was not following Supernatural at the time and I remember it being a shock when they said it was going on without Kripke.

But (as Wayward Son pointed out), that was decided late January.  So Jo & Ellen were dead already.  But with Kripke still FIRMLY in charge, I think he made only a very few corrections at the end.  I think he was not happy to see "his" show go on without him.  

This is partial speculation but I believe Kripke wanted to end the story with both the redemptive themes and the tragedy of it all.  So, I think he wanted to end the series with
- Sam redeemed but lock in Hell in the Cage (this is redemption and tragedy)
- Dean alive, having told his younger brother that he try to force his will on Sam's decisions (car scene, start of Swan Song) and living the apple pie life with Lisa (this is tragic for Dean but with the hope that Lisa and Ben would become his new 'family')
- Cas going to straighten out heaven
- Bobby -- I don't know.  I think if there were no S6, Kripke would have just killed him.  Like a fire-sale. Everyone must go who were an intimate part of TFW with Dean left alone.

Kripke always WANTED Sam to go darkside (he's said this himself) and be redeemed. It's why, IMO, the characters were so harsh on his choices and why the final two episodes were so much about Sam's redemption.  Sam is Kripke's tragic hero.  In Hell, in a Cage.  I think he also wanted to have Dean live because that would be a tragic ending for Dean.  But Mary, John, and Sam ALL wanted Dean to have a real home.  So, Dean would do what they wanted, and try to have a real home.  Again, both tragic but with hope.  Dean is the Wayward Son who gets to lay his weary head to rest (IMO) for Kripke.  Sam is dead but he's not at peace if he's with Lucifer in the Cage.  Now, I think Kripke was wrong in thinking that was a 'good ending for Dean'. I think Dean would NEVER be truly happy with Sam in the Cage (Which Gamble did a fine job of reflecting).  I think Kripke wanted Dean permanently "wounded" but able to move on.  

Kripke himself, said he thought Swan Song was "perfect" and was crushed when many didn't like it.  I don't think you can put the "Adam switch" on Gamble, I think that was all Kripke.

[DittyDotDot]

24 minutes ago, SueB said:

This is partial speculation but I believe Kripke wanted to end the story with both the redemptive themes and the tragedy of it all.  So, I think he wanted to end the series with
- Sam redeemed but lock in Hell in the Cage (this is redemption and tragedy)
- Dean alive, having told his younger brother that he try to force his will on Sam's decisions (car scene, start of Swan Song) and living the apple pie life with Lisa (this is tragic for Dean but with the hope that Lisa and Ben would become his new 'family')
- Cas going to straighten out heaven
- Bobby -- I don't know.  I think if there were no S6, Kripke would have just killed him.  Like a fire-sale. Everyone must go who were an intimate part of TFW with Dean left alone.

Kripke always WANTED Sam to go darkside (he's said this himself) and be redeemed. It's why, IMO, the characters were so harsh on his choices and why the final two episodes were so much about Sam's redemption.  Sam is Kripke's tragic hero.  In Hell, in a Cage.  I think he also wanted to have Dean live because that would be a tragic ending for Dean.  But Mary, John, and Sam ALL wanted Dean to have a real home.  So, Dean would do what they wanted, and try to have a real home.  Again, both tragic but with hope.  Dean is the Wayward Son who gets to lay his weary head to rest (IMO) for Kripke.  Sam is dead but he's not at peace if he's with Lucifer in the Cage.  Now, I think Kripke was wrong in thinking that was a 'good ending for Dean'. I think Dean would NEVER be truly happy with Sam in the Cage (Which Gamble did a fine job of reflecting).  I think Kripke wanted Dean permanently "wounded" but able to move on.  

It'd be fun to really talk with Kripke about this now. I'm not talking about his interviews were he regurgitates the same old answers, but really sit down and spend an evening chit-chatting with him about these things. But, it's fun to speculate, so...I always figured Kripke's endgame was everyone died and no one knew about their sacrifice.

[SueB]

14 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said:

It'd be fun to really talk with Kripke about this now. I'm not talking about his interviews were he regurgitates the same old answers, but really sit down and spend an evening chit-chatting with him about these things. But, it's fun to speculate, so...I always figured Kripke's endgame was everyone died and no one knew about their sacrifice.

That's certainly a Pyrrhic victory that would probably appeal to Erik. 

[auntvi]

16 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said:

I always figured Kripke's endgame was everyone died and no one knew about their sacrifice.

American Blue-Collar Noir

[Wayward Son]

That's how I think he would have ended things @DittyDotDot . Castiel would have went to heaven to fix up heaven and ensure the angels go back to simply observing, Sam and Dean would have been in the cage and Bobby would be dead! 

As I mentioned, IMO some of the direction of the last part of season 5 such as Sam being the only one to go into the cage was influenced by Gamble and the storylines she had in mind for season 6.

I also think the same happened again at the end of season 7 with the introduction of the Levitian tablet. It was a very Carver plot point IMO, as it served to bring the angels and demons back into prevalence after Gamble had shifted away from them for most of season 7. 

Edited April 22, 2017 by Wayward Son

[catrox14]

All of this discussion sent me down a rabbit hole because I remembered reading that Kripke wanted the end to be Sam and Dean fighting each other. I finally found the source of that comment from Kripke himself in the Variety article that came out before the 200th episode   "Supernatural Oral History " which IMO is a great read about the show.

Excerpts from the article: 

 

Quote

Kripke: The thing I remember most about that season was how exhausted I was going through it… I knew I wanted some sort of apocalyptic ending where evil Sam had to fight a good Dean. One of the things that was really hard about that season is, it’s one thing in season four when you’re promising the apocalypse: Is it going to happen, can the boys stop it? It’s a whole different matter when you’re saying in season five, “okay, the apocalypse is happening,” because you still are on a budget. There’s an incredible amount of off-camera, “oh no, there’s been an earthquake!” stuff on the news. It’s really difficult to mount something of that scope.

Ackles: To look at the five seasons, to step back and look at that all as one story… it was a massively grand finale and it was like Game Seven of the World Series, and I just don’t know how you can go on from that. I think Eric thought the same thing. He was like, “I’m throwing out my last pitch and I’m taking off into the sunset,” and that’s what he did, but it had become such a hit that the studio and the network were like, “no, guys, you have to keep going.”

**************************************************************************

Kripke: It was very bittersweet for me. I had come to really love all the people I had worked with on the show and so loved those characters… After having run 104 episodes of the show, I just didn’t know what the 105th episode should be anymore, and I always used to know. I felt like I was in danger of approaching burn out. And if that was the case then the show would suffer and it was more important that the show remain strong and vital. I knew Sera was up to the job.

Gamble: We thought season five would be the last season. But pretty early into [it], Eric came to me and said “signs are pointing toward a season six,” and he was ready to move on and asked me to step in. And he came to me really early because there was a tremendous amount of learning and training and coming behind the curtain to see what he and Bob were doing that had to happen.

There was part of me that was just, lovingly, super pissed at Eric. I was like, “do we have to do this after the apocalypse? We literally burned the story all the way to the apocalypse. We have to start over and find a whole new classification of villains, so what the hell are we going to do?” But we had several months to ponder that. We had a great writers’ room, and everybody put their heads together, and Eric, to his great credit, stayed with the show, and was very active in constructing season six, and was incredibly helpful to me, personally. He was instrumental in figuring out what we were going to do next. It was like a reboot.

 

Kripke: I read every script. And then once Sera was comfortable in the gig and the studio network were comfortable, I backed off. And from then I would define my role as a parent who sends their kid off to college. I’m extremely proud. I’m there if they need me… And it was never me running the show alone. It was always me and Bob Singer, and Bob has always been there. So there’s been true continuity. People say “Supernatural” has had different showrunners and it hasn’t. It’s actually always had the same showrunner, he has just had different partners over the last decade.

 

 

My impression of Kripke's comments that I highlighted,  and based on how I think the Righteous Man/Michael Sword arc for Dean was plotted at the beginning of s5 was heading for Kripke's stated desire to have Sam and Dean fight each other at the end but the network renewal for a s6, with the boys still under contract to the network, compelled Kripke to alter his original course.

Seems to me Kripke stuck around to help Sera get a foothold but was not really in charge of the story arcs  for s6 whatsoever.  IMO, it was Sera's choice to have Sam in the pit, so she could have Soulless Sam, which left her with what to write for Dean and she came up with Domestic!Dean which couldn't have happened with both  in the pit.  YMMV. 

ETA: I think Kripke helped her craft the story arcs for s6 but not that they were his ideas per se. 

Edited April 22, 2017 by catrox14

[SueB]

Excellent find.  

I stand corrected. But I still suspect both boys dead at the end would have been pure Kripke, even if fought.  He was a 'burn it all down' kind of guy. 

But if that was the case, Sammy couldn't have just swallowed Lucifer and kept him in check.  SOMETHING would have had to happen to the Archangels.  Maybe they both jumped.  

[DittyDotDot]

7 minutes ago, Wayward Son said:

I also think the same happened again at the end of season 7 with the introduction of the Demon tablet. It was a very Carver plot point IMO, as it served to bring the angels and demons back into prevalence after Gamble had shifted away from them for most of season 7. 

The demon tablet wasn't introduced until S8. Are you talking about the Leviathan tablet? My impression was that Carver took that and ran with it, but I don't think he had anything to do with the tablets inception. 

11 minutes ago, auntvi said:

American Blue-Collar Noir

Exactly.

7 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

Seems to me Kripke stuck around to help Sera get a foothold but was not really in charge of the story arcs  for s6 whatsoever. 

Commentaries and interviews in S6 directly contradict Kripke not being involved. He wrote the finale--The Man Who Knew Too Much--that would be pretty hard to do if he was hands off. Plus, S6 commentaries talk about Kripke and Edlund breaking the story for The French Mistake and such. Not to mention the Paley Festival panel that was done late in S6 where it appears Kripke is still very involved with the show. In fact, if I didn't know better I would think Kripke was still running the show and Sera was just a writer from watching that panel.

[catrox14]

12 minutes ago, SueB said:

But if that was the case, Sammy couldn't have just swallowed Lucifer and kept him in check.  SOMETHING would have had to happen to the Archangels.  Maybe they both jumped.  

My thought that could have put them both in the cage was that Dean and Sam would agree to say yes  and both believing they could get control of the Michael/Lucifer long enough to jump into the pit together, both saving the world together. 

I also had a head canon that Cas would be the one to get with Bobby to help them get out for a s6. The entire idea of domestic!Dean sure doesn't fall in line with IMO Kripke's stated vision of the boys ending in s5. 

13 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said:

Commentaries and interviews in S6 directly contradict Kripke not being involved. He wrote the finale--The Man Who Knew Too Much--that would be pretty hard to do if he was hands off. Plus, S6 commentaries talk about Kripke and Edlund breaking the story for The French Mistake and such. Not to mention the Paley Festival panel that was done late in S6 where it appears Kripke is still very involved with the show. In fact, if I didn't know better I would think Kripke was still running the show and Sera was just a writer from watching that panel.

I didn't say Kripke wasn't involved in the show at all.   I'm saying I don't think the main story arcs for Sam, Dean and Cas in s6 were Kripke's design nor desires since Sera had become the actual showrunner.

I guess it's up to the reader to decide how to reconcile the Oral History as stated by Kripke et al with whatever else was said at the time of s6.

I don't think it's a far reach to think there is always much more to these things than I'm sure we'll ever know until someone writes a tell-all about the entire show, which I would read the hell out of BTW.  Maybe not everything that was said back when the show was airing was the 100% truth and facts of everything happening behind the scenes. Maybe Kripke was falling on the sword for Gamble back then  since he was already on his way out. Kripke writing the finale doesn't necessarily mean he was in charge of story for s6 at all. Maybe he wrote it as a favor to Gamble? I don't think Kripke would have killed off Castiel if he had final say over s6 and heading into s7. 

But that's why I say YMMV.

[SueB]

6 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

Maybe not everything that was said back when the show was airing was the 100% truth and facts of everything happening behind the scenes.

Very true.  

I took the inside joke (regard Sera asking if they even know who runs the show) as lampshading their own complexities.  

[DittyDotDot]

1 minute ago, catrox14 said:

I guess it's up to the reader to decide how to reconcile the Oral History as stated by Kripke et al with whatever else was said at the time of s6.

Well, the article you linked to was done around the time of the 200th--four years after S6. So, yeah, you have to merge the histories together and try and figure out which is fact, which is fiction and which is just not remembering the details all that well.

My point more was that I don't think any of the story arcs happen in a bubble. It's not just the showrunner dictating what they want, but there's other executive producers who weigh in and the network gets to weigh in as well. The responsibility falls on the showrunner when things don't go right and the credit is given to them when they do, but there are more people involved in creating these story arcs, IMO.

My impression has always been Sera didn't have any strong ideas or arcs in mind herself, but they all sat down and came up with something together in order for the show to keep going. If I remember right, on one of the S6 commentaries, the credit for the idea of Sam being soulless was given to Singer. I think that was what got them rolling on the idea of the souls and what it means to be soulless. 

[Wayward Son]

1 hour ago, DittyDotDot said:

The demon tablet wasn't introduced until S8. Are you talking about the Leviathan tablet? My impression was that Carver took that and ran with it, but I don't think he had anything to do with the tablets inception. 

Sorry yes I meant the Levithian tablet and the sudden focus on angels and Demons again in the last few episodes. Of course I'm just speculating, but the sudden shift back to them after Gamble had moved away from them came across as very Carveresque to me. 

 

1 hour ago, catrox14 said:

My impression of Kripke's comments that I highlighted,  and based on how I think the Righteous Man/Michael Sword arc for Dean was plotted at the beginning of s5 was heading for Kripke's stated desire to have Sam and Dean fight each other at the end but the network renewal for a s6, with the boys still under contract to the network, compelled Kripke to alter his original course.

I think from quite early in the shows run, or at least as early as season three, Kripke envisioned the show ending with an epic battle between Sam and Dean. I can't find the original interview, which I find immensely annoying, but Kripke revealed the need to shorten season three dramatically altered the resolution of the Dean's demon deal storyline. 

Originally Dean was not going to go to hell. Kripke was initially adamant that there would be no Angels on the show despite the attempts of writers such as Gamble to persuade him otherwise. Instead Sam was going to fully embrace his demonic abilities and use them to save Dean from the pit. Unfortunately, this would come at the price of Sam's humanity and he would go full blown dark side. However, the shortened season meant they didn't have the time needed to do this and so Dean was ultimately sent to hell and the dark Sam stuff was pushed back to season four. 

On the other hand, the dark Sam stuff was originally much darker than what we actually got! The original seasons 4 and 5 would have been spent with Dean trying to track down and save Sam. However, Sam was going to be irredeemable, driven mad by whatever power he used to save Dean, and the show would have ended with Dean having to kill Sam to protect humanity and the man he once was.

With that in mind it's perfectly in character for Kripke to have shifted this battle to one between Michael possessed Dean and Lucifer possessed Sam during season five. I believe it was the influence of Sera that led to just Sam being caged so that the soulless Sam storyline could begin. If they had both been put in the cage it would have probably been difficult to explain  why Dean came back normal, but Sam lacked his soul. 

Honestly, I'm glad the writing strike happened, and not just because it resulted in the introduction of one of my favourite characters, but because it prevented this original ending. I know you'll disagree, since I know you hate Swan Song and the last third of season 5, but what we got in the end was infinitely better than that original storyline IMO. The idea of the show ending with one brother killing the other is absolutely abhorrent to me. IMO it would have been such an awful smack in the face to those who had spent five years invested in the brothers bond. I'm not saying the show needed to end with rainbows and unicorns, but both brothers in the cage together, or Sam in the cage and Dean on earth is infinitely better than it concluding in Dean stabbing Sam like he was just another monster. 

Edited April 22, 2017 by Wayward Son

[DittyDotDot]

3 minutes ago, Wayward Son said:

On the other hand, the dark Sam stuff was originally much darker than what we actually got! The original seasons 4 and 5 would have been spent with Dean trying to track down and save Sam. However, Sam was going to be irredeemable, driven mad by whatever power he used to save Dean, and the show would have ended with Dean having to kill Sam to protect humanity and the man he once was.

When I first watched the show, I had a vision of the movie Frailty as a possible ending. I don't know if that's what Kripke had in mind, but the movie has some eerily similar undertones to what the show became.

5 minutes ago, Wayward Son said:

Honestly, I'm glad the writing strike happened, and not just because it resulted in the introduction of one of my favourite characters, but because it prevented this original ending. I know you'll disagree, since I know you hate Swan Song and the last third of season 5, but what we got in the end was infinitely better than that original storyline IMO. The idea of the show ending with one brother killing the other is absolutely abhorrent to me. IMO it would have been such an awful smack in the face to those who had spent five years invested in the brothers bond. I'm not saying the show needed to end with rainbows and unicorns, but both brothers in the cage together, or Sam in the cage and Dean on earth is infinitely better than Dean stabbing Sam like another monster. 

When you say "you", who are you referring to? I personally do not hate Swan Song or the last third of S5, nor do I disagree with you. I think the Writer's Strike was one of the many great happy accidents the show had when Kripke was running the show. Seriously, I'm almost positive the dude did make a deal with a devil. ;) 

[Aeryn13]

Quote

Honestly, I'm glad the writing strike happened, and not just because it resulted in the introduction of one of my favourite characters, but because it prevented this original ending. I know you'll disagree, since I know you hate Swan Song and the last third of season 5, but what we got in the end was infinitely better than that original storyline IMO. 

I think the writer`s strike for this show was a blessing. I do hate the ending of Season 5 with a passion but I hate the proposed storyline as well. It would have made it all Dean`s fault in the end. Changing it up by introducing angels at least gave me a Season 3 Finale that I liked as well as a Season 4 that I mostly found really good. And it still could have had a good Finale IMO.  

[Wayward Son]

14 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said:

When you say "you", who are you referring to? I personally do not hate Swan Song or the last third of S5, nor do I disagree with you. I think the Writer's Strike was one of the many great happy accidents the show had when Kripke was running the show. Seriously, I'm almost positive the dude did make a deal with a devil. ;) 

Sorry, if my post came across as a board wide you. I was referring specifically to @catrox14, since I was directly responding to her quoted post about the Kripke interview which mentioned a battle between "Good Dean and evil Sam" at that point :). 

But yay I'm glad someone else agrees with me :) . 

5 minutes ago, Aeryn13 said:

I think the writer`s strike for this show was a blessing. I do hate the ending of Season 5 with a passion but I hate the proposed storyline as well. It would have made it all Dean`s fault in the end. Changing it up by introducing angels at least gave me a Season 3 Finale that I liked as well as a Season 4 that I mostly found really good. And it still could have had a good Finale IMO.  

I'm glad the writers strike worked for you as well @Aeryn13 . I also think it would have grown stale very fast! I could see them making Dean track down Dark!Sam in a game of cat and mouse work for a season,  but I think it would have been far too dragged out if they'd tried to do it across two seasons. 

[DittyDotDot]

7 minutes ago, Wayward Son said:

Sorry, if my post came across as a board wide you. I was referring specifically to @catrox14, since I was directly responding to her quoted post about the Kripke interview which mentioned a battle between "Good Dean and evil Sam" at that point :). 

No, it's fine, it's just that you quoted me so I wasn't sure if you were speaking directly to me or not.

[Wayward Son]

7 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said:

No, it's fine, it's just that you quoted me so I wasn't sure if you were speaking directly to me or not.

It's no problem at all! Sorry if my posting style confused you. For future reference I generally post in this type of format.

 

QUOTE

General comments / queries directed at everyone  go here! 

QUOTE

Quote One 

Anything I put here is a direct response to the comment made by a user in quote one!!

QUOTE

Quote 2

Anything I put here is a direct response to the user I've quoted in quote two.  

And so on. I usually use the quotes as  markers to indicate I've stopped discussing one thing and moved on to the next lol. So for example in that post my first paragraph where I was talking about the Levitian and the sudden of demons was directed at you. Then I quoted Catrox14 and the rest of the post was directed at her. Although of course, as always, other users are more than welcome to comment on what I've said to her. 

Id be happy to discuss / clarify things  further in PM if you'd like. I don't want to veer off topic for too long by discussing this for too long in here :)

[catrox14]

1 minute ago, DittyDotDot said:

My point more was that I don't think any of the story arcs happen in a bubble. It's not just the showrunner dictating what they want, but there's other executive producers who weigh in and the network gets to weigh in as well. The responsibility falls on the showrunner when things don't go right and the credit is given to them when they do, but there are more people involved in creating these story arcs, IMO.

No they don't happen in a bubble, but the showrunner is the one who crafts the story arcs for the season. The showrunner is the head writer, the EP and creatively in charge of the story arcs. They are the ones that alter course if necessary, for whatever reasons, be it creative decisions, actor availability, writer influence, network influence etc.

IMO, the way I read that oral history is that Kripke knew early enough in s5 that a s6 was coming so he started grooming her in s5 to take over in s6. IMO she influenced the final act that put the characters where they needed to be to get s6 going which was going to be her responsibility as the showrunner, much like Carver influenced the end of s7 with the way to bring in the angels and demons again and separate the boys,  and how Dabb influenced the end of s11 to start his story arcs of the BMoL and Mary's resurrection.

IMO, Kripke stayed on to help bring her vision into play since he was leaving at some point in s6. She said that he did her a big favor by staying longer. I don't think Kripke would have let go of the Sam and Dean battle at the end of s5 if he had the final say. I don't think he would have had domestic!Dean nor would he have killed off Castiel. I think Sera wanted Castiel gone so she wanted to resume the "Epic Love Story of Sam and Dean". But that's just how I see it.   

2 minutes ago, Wayward Son said:

. I know you'll disagree, since I know you hate Swan Song and the last third of season 5, but what we got in the end was infinitely better than that original storyline IMO

I remember seeing something that Kripke would have Sam think Dean was a serial killer who killed John! LOL. There was a lot of wild things that the show wanted to do. 

@Wayward Son I knew you meant me, about Swan Song LOL. And I do hate it.

I think Kripke wouldn't have had one brother kill the other, I think he wanted the battle but have them both jump into the pit together in a heroically tragic ending, which I think was set up pretty well at the end of s4 and early season 5.  I also think that's why some of the interviews with Kripke after the fact sound kind of all over the map about Dean's role in the end of it compared to what IMO was set up before the introduction of Adam.  JMHO

[rue721]

45 minutes ago, Wayward Son said:

Originally Dean was not going to go to hell. Kripke was initially adamant that there would be no Angels on the show despite the attempts of writers such as Gamble to persuade him otherwise. Instead Sam was going to fully embrace his demonic abilities and use them to save Dean from the pit. Unfortunately, this would come at the price of Sam's humanity and he would go full blown dark side. However, the shortened season meant they didn't have the time needed to do this and so Dean was ultimately sent to hell and the dark Sam stuff was pushed back to season four. 

I actually like this explanation/storyline for Sam going darkside better than what we got. His blood addiction seemed so disconnected and random in comparison. I think it would have also given more depth to Dean feeling responsible for Sam afterward.

39 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said:

When I first watched the show, I had a vision of the movie Frailty as a possible ending. I don't know if that's what Kripke had in mind, but the movie has some eerily similar undertones to what the show became.

In retrospect I can see the similarities to Frailty, but when I was first watching the show, I totally took at face value that John was an awesome father who had prepared his sons for adulthood in a totally supportive, helpful way given what he knew about the world LOL. I just sort of took it for granted that Sam and Dean were normal guys working their (admittedly weird!) job and just living their lives. My mind was BLOWN by Henriksen being like, "he was kinda nuts and you're both following right in his nutso footsteps, huh?" My mind is STILL kind of blown by that shift in perspective on the characters and their lives.

It's still pretty hard for me to even conceive of them as "freaks," to be honest. The thing is that I'm STILL not sure how freakish we're supposed to find the Winchesters or their lives. The show has been beating the drum from the beginning that we're supposed to find them strange IMO (they refer to themselves as freaks really often right from the beginning of the show, and then there was that "rah-rah Winchesters!" stuff later on (which I found really off-putting and weird TBH)). But at the same time, the show does try to make them at least somewhat grounded and normal, as human beings. I mean, the infamous Brothers' Moments in the episodes' tags are all about that, I think.

[auntvi]

46 minutes ago, Wayward Son said:

Honestly, I'm glad the writing strike happened, and not just because it resulted in the introduction of one of my favourite characters, but because it prevented this original ending. I know you'll disagree, since I know you hate Swan Song and the last third of season 5, but what we got in the end was infinitely better than that original storyline IMO. The idea of the show ending with one brother killing the other is absolutely abhorrent to me. IMO it would have been such an awful smack in the face to those who had spent five years invested in the brothers bond. I'm not saying the show needed to end with rainbows and unicorns, but both brothers in the cage together, or Sam in the cage and Dean on earth is infinitely better than it concluding in Dean stabbing Sam like he was just another monster.

Yes! I think maybe Kripke was lucky.

Then there's this quote from Kripke:

Quote

Kripke: I read every script. And then once Sera was comfortable in the gig and the studio and network were comfortable, I backed off. And from then I would define my role as a parent who sends their kid off to college. I’m extremely proud. I’m there if they need me… And it was never me running the show alone. It was always me and Bob Singer, and Bob has always been there. So there’s been true continuity. People say “Supernatural” has had different showrunners and it hasn’t. It’s actually always had the same showrunner, he has just had different partners over the last decade.

So aside from the original author, Kripke, perhaps the most influential person all these years has been Bob Singer. I'm not sure how I feel about that. Since Sera Gamble left, he has been dragging down every lead writer or showrunner?

[DittyDotDot]

32 minutes ago, Wayward Son said:

It's no problem at all! Sorry if my posting style confused you. For future reference I generally post in this type of format.

Sorry, I wasn't clear. It was totally me. You're posting just like everyone else posts, it's very clear, I just missed the quote in the middle, so I wasn't sure if you were still talking to me specifically. Sorry, sorry, sorry.

12 minutes ago, auntvi said:

So aside from the original author, Kripke, perhaps the most influential person all these years has been Bob Singer. I'm not sure how I feel about that. Since Sera Gamble left, he has been dragging down every lead writer or showrunner?

TBH, I think Singer has been more influential with constructing the story from the beginning, it's just that I think Kripke and Singer struck a better balance than Singer has with the following showrunners. IMO, a lot of what Gamble--and Carver and Dabb--gets blamed for are really decisions made by Singer. Unfortunately though, the official showrunner gets the rub even if it's really the guy behind the scenes who is the one pulling the strings.

Edited April 22, 2017 by DittyDotDot

[catrox14]

14 minutes ago, auntvi said:

So aside from the original author, Kripke, perhaps the most influential person all these years has been Bob Singer. I'm not sure how I feel about that. Since Sera Gamble left, he has been dragging down every lead writer or showrunner?

LOL. I have said from time to time that maybe I've been directing my ire at the wrong EPs. 

I've tended to think of Singer as more of the money guy. I thought he was hired originally to help Kripke not overrun his budgets etc early on.

He's directed a ton of episodes but I still don't know what kind of creative influence he has over the story arcs in general. Of course his wife and her writing partner seem to write the most controversial and IMO story altering/canon destroying/canon "expansion" so maybe he does have that.

He took a step back in s11 and many viewers think s11 was the best season in a long time but then again Carver was on his way out, Dabb was stepping up, Robbie Thompson left, so I guess when it comes to Singer's over all power and influence on the storylines leave me:

Edited April 22, 2017 by catrox14

[rue721]

Brought over from the Writers' thread:

3 hours ago, DittyDotDot said:

For one, I'm guessing the Campbell gang was written out simply because the characters didn't go over well. And, if anyone was meant to be the antagonist instead of Crowley, I'd say it was Grampy, myself.

The Campbells was such a half-baked plotline that I think that the writers probably didn't flesh it out TOO much in the beginning. It came off to me like they thought they would "do something cool around Mitch Pileggi" and then forgot to fill in enough details about what "something cool" would be or WHY it would be cool or interesting. So the story just drifted for a while, until they just gave up and flat out killed it off.

To me, it seemed like the kind of thing where they didn't necessarily realize how half-baked the idea was until they had to actually come up with stuff for the Campbells to do each episode -- and when they couldn't come up with anything for episode after episode, they eventually just gave up on making the story or characters cool and decided to just get them gone.

I think the basic idea of the Campbells was kinda/semi-interesting, at least because a committed gang of monster hunters is kind of interesting (we've only seen solo acts and duos before IIRC -- it's usually just vampires that nest like the Campbells kept nesting LOL). And I thought it was REALLY interesting that Soulless Sam was hunting as part of a team with them, and then was trying to recruit Dean as his partner and break off from the Campbell clan *for hunting based reasons.*

But the show at that point was just OVERRUN with grumpy old man hunters (what with Bobby, Rufus, AND Samuel -- and IMO 3 is a lot in a cast this small!) and IMO trying to fit in the Campbells with Samuel at the helm was just overkill.

I'm trying to think about how it could have gone better, but honestly, I don't know how they could/should have fit in Samuel at that point. Or why they were trying to fit him in at that point at all, either.

[Wayward Son]

In regards to the role of Singer and Kripke! 

I  recently watched the special for the season one DVD/Blu Ray (an interesting watch for anyone who owns them) and there is discussion on how the show came to be. What I gathered was that for Kripke the big draw was writing a horror show that focused on the urban myths of America. It was writing myths and exploring the horror genre that appealed to him! Originally the show was going to be led by an investigation journalist and it was the network telling him to return with a new idea that led to Sam and Dean being the leads. He was also very big into seeing Sam as Luke Skywalker and Dean as Han Solo. 

The biggest contribution of Singer (and Kim Manners also) to the show was shifting that focus from the urban myths end of things to stressing that it needed to be "a show about two brothers". It was Singer and Manners who led to the show becoming very much about family, the brothers journey, and shifting everything around so that it served that story! I think Singer and Kripke worked well together because Singer brought the characters heart to the show while Kripke bought the plotting end of things. I think since then there Singer and Kripke's successors have not complemented each other in the same manner. 

Edited April 22, 2017 by Wayward Son

[Commando Cody]

33 minutes ago, Wayward Son said:

Originally the show was going to be led by an investigation journalist and it was the network telling him to return with a new idea that led to Sam and Dean being the leads. He was also very big into seeing Sam as Luke Skywalker and Dean as Han Solo. 

It's too bad "The Night Stalker" is a TV show in the Supernatural universe. It would have been cool if Sam had discovered some of Carl Kolchak's work. 

[Demented Daisy]

11 hours ago, SueB said:

- Not!Delores Umbridge, Ms Hess at BMoL - well she was AWFUL.  She was clearly supposed to be a maternal figure but she was horrific. She needs to be chased into the Forbidden Forest and EATEN BY WEREWOLVES.

Or abducted by centaurs?  ;-)

Hee!  I guess my spec that the BMoL is the Ministry of Magic, obsessed with rules and control, wasn't that far off, for a change.

[Myrelle]

6 hours ago, Wayward Son said:

In regards to the role of Singer and Kripke! 

I  recently watched the special for the season one DVD/Blu Ray (an interesting watch for anyone who owns them) and there is discussion on how the show came to be. What I gathered was that for Kripke the big draw was writing a horror show that focused on the urban myths of America. It was writing myths and exploring the horror genre that appealed to him! Originally the show was going to be led by an investigation journalist and it was the network telling him to return with a new idea that led to Sam and Dean being the leads. He was also very big into seeing Sam as Luke Skywalker and Dean as Han Solo. 

The biggest contribution of Singer (and Kim Manners also) to the show was shifting that focus from the urban myths end of things to stressing that it needed to be "a show about two brothers". It was Singer and Manners who led to the show becoming very much about family, the brothers journey, and shifting everything around so that it served that story! I think Singer and Kripke worked well together because Singer brought the characters heart to the show while Kripke bought the plotting end of things. I think since then there Singer and Kripke's successors have not complemented each other in the same manner. 

I think the loss of KM was a devastating blow to this show. I've always felt that way. And I always will. The loss of Kim Manners input can never be filled or replaced by that of anyone else's, IMO. And that has made all the difference in what happened with the writing on this show post S4. IMHO.

[FlickChick]

16 hours ago, Myrelle said:

I think the loss of KM was a devastating blow to this show. I've always felt that way. And I always will. The loss of Kim Manners input can never be filled or replaced by that of anyone else's, IMO. And that has made all the difference in what happened with the writing on this show post S4. IMHO.

Agree 1000% I don't think anyone else has taken the same leadership or has had the experience Kim had ON SITE since his loss. Thus, our current situation! 

[ILoveReading]

On 2017-04-23 at 1:14 AM, Myrelle said:

I think the loss of KM was a devastating blow to this show. I've always felt that way. And I always will. The loss of Kim Manners input can never be filled or replaced by that of anyone else's, IMO. And that has made all the difference in what happened with the writing on this show post S4. IMHO.

I miss him too.  He seemed to be the first person to recognize the value of the Dean character outside of just being a brother and body guard.  I think it was his influence that lead to Dean's s4 storyline.

The longer the show goes the more convinced I become that he was the biggest reason for the success of the early seasons.

Edited April 24, 2017 by ILoveReading

[DittyDotDot]

22 minutes ago, Boopsahoy said:

I don't think this season is boring just....calm. I mean Sam and Dean are pretty much on the same page (not fighting) and neither one of them has something supernatural wrong with them so its not angst all the time. I actually like that for a change. I like to watch them together and pretty much agreeing on everything or at least willing to give the others point of view a chance. Theyre not 20 somethings anymore-they have matured and I like it most of the time. I like that Dean is pissed at Mary (as he should be) and I like that Sam tries to keep the peace. Maybe I'm just boring!

Bores unite!!

I don't know, I'm fine with this season. Is it epic or flashy? Hell no. Is it perfect? No. Would I like it to be more at times? Sure. But, I kinda like the calm that's settled over the show this season.

[Katy M]

Brought over from bitch vs jerk
 

Quote

 

because I didn't think it was very logical that Sam would say "Yay! Sign me up!" after the events of "The Raid" and not be doing it ironically or as an infiltrator - or even just to watch out for Mary - but apparently that's exactly what happened, so I don't know anymore.

 

 

I could see him signing up at that point.  No, they weren't very helpful, but they did have resources. What makes no sense to me is that they are still working with them fter Ladies Drink Free and the d The British Invasion.  They know that killing a monster, even if they haven't killed is BMOL SOP, and that anyone who accidentally killed a BMOL is now up for death.  So, it is dangerous to work with them and aagains their own moral code.  This is information they didn't have when signing up, but they do now.