All Episodes Talk: Saving People, Hunting Things

[Myrelle]

9 hours ago, SueB said:

2)  Create Wayward Sisters spinoff -- unamiguously a season long arc.  It hurt to hear Dean say he was calling Jody in the finale.  And to see the Wayward Sisters in the "Then" montage.  They really developed that well.  I know it bothered many but it's a reasonable plot arc for a 13 year old show.  I'm just hoping we get the WS back for more stories. This arc was destroyed by the CW - bastards. 

Why are they bastards? They made a business decision that didn't jibe with the feelings of some in the social media fandom. That's all, really. And I say good for them. I thought that the Wayward Sisters pilot was awful. I didn't think it had staying power either. And I further think that anything they chose instead could not have been any worse and won't be.

And I'm really pissed off that Dabb devoted so much attention and time to it that he let the mother ship slide, IMO; and propped his little darling at the expense of the mother ship, at times, too.

9 hours ago, SueB said:

1) Sam and Dean: How they dealt with grief and depression and how they supported each other through it.  Yes, this has happened every year. But I'm with Natalie on this -- it felt MUCH more explored in depth.  I learned alot about both of them this year.  You would think by now there's nothing to learn.  But, I just really like where they are with each other.  I think we're done with the in-depth exploration of grief/depression

I don't think for one minute that they're done with this. It's their bread and butter, if you ask me.

And as far as Dean is concerned, they just scratched the surface of it this season to me.

Edited June 6, 2018 by Myrelle

[ILoveReading]

3 minutes ago, Myrelle said:

nd as far as Dean is concerned, they just scratched the surface of it this season to me

I don't think Dean's depression was explored at all.  Just saying he's sad really isn't exploring it.  I found he was judged more than supported.   The so called grief ep was a perfect example of this.  

We did get one ep that showed up how deep it goes, and its more then just losing Cas, but the next ep Cas came back and then it was done.   Depression that deep doesn't just go away.

I don't really see this being different from how it was explored in s7. 

Even I can say that Sam's wasn't well handled either.  It wasn't really dealt with at the start of the season and  it seemed to come out of nowhere later on.  Sam had hope that Mary was alive and Jack could be good, and the minute he got confirmation of these things he lost hope.  The whole Lucifer true face thing seems to be something that came out of thin air and seemed to be a plot point only Yockey knew about.

It came across as more, "now its Sam's turn and it doesn't matter how we make it happen, it just has too."

[Pondlass1]

Supernatural seasons are all available on Netflix and today's viewers tend to binge - maybe do the whole thing in a month.  Thing is, this show doesn't work for binge watching.  It just cannot hold up.  Huge glaring inconsistencies with canon and character as the series  evolved. I think the only consistent is Dean Winchester.  His character and motivations are pretty much the same from beginning to now.

And I agree with whoever mentioned Buffy.  Her AU episodes were so much more fascinating and really capitalized on the nature vs nurture concept.  A concept completely ignored by Supernatural Powers That Be who brought folk back but did nothing with the characters.  The AU was such a brilliant idea (IMO) but has been criminally wasted.

[Myrelle]

The nature vs. nurture "storyline" wasn't that at all, IMO.

It was more of just a We Believe in the Nuture Part of that vs thing and here's why-Meet The Nougat Baby Offspring of The Devil-a character we want you to love and woobie over and little else. Blech to such manipulative writing. It was the pits, IMO.

[rue721]

I think there have been pretty solid season-long arcs the last couple years. This season the character story was Jack's birth and the supernatural story was the AU. Last season the character story was Mary's return and the supernatural story was the BMOL.

In fact, I think the show is doing a great thing by bringing the character stories to the forefront like this. There were some years a while back where there were relentless supernatural stories that basically ate up the whole season while the character-based arcs never got off the ground (Dean's drinking, for example).

I also think this is more the structure that the show had when it started up -- in the first season, for example, the character story was searching for John and the supernatural story was Yellow Eyes. I thought that worked well and I'm happy for them to have gone back to the show's original structure in that way. YMMV.

8 minutes ago, Pondlass1 said:

Supernatural seasons are all available on Netflix and today's viewers tend to binge - maybe do the whole thing in a month.  Thing is, this show doesn't work for binge watching.  It just cannot hold up.

I disagree, I think it actually works better when it's binged. The seasons that I binge-watched I have tended to enjoy more than the ones that I've poured over. It's been easier to gloss over inconsistencies or even whole terrible episodes when you can just move on to the next.

Also, after the first two or maybe three seasons (and in earnest starting with S6), the seasons seem to be paced more with binge-watching in mind, too. It seems like the writers outline the season so that the mytharc episodes are broken up by MOTW episodes, which creates a pretty good pace when you're watching the whole season in one gulp but not so well in real time.

[Pondlass1]

It would have been interesting to see characters we've known and (maybe) loved in past seasons in an entirely different environment where Sam and Dean were no born and an apocalypse happened.  But these writers are not up to it I'm afraid.

I thought they'd made casting gold with Alex early in the season.  But they made Jack  woobie and boring almost from the get go.  So we get the one puzzled compassionate expression all the time.  It's a shame because I think the actor has more in him.

[gonzosgirrl]

29 minutes ago, rue721 said:

I also think this is more the structure that the show had when it started up -- in the first season, for example, the character story was searching for John and the supernatural story was Yellow Eyes. I thought that worked well and I'm happy for them to have gone back to the show's original structure in that way. YMMV.

I think where the mileage varies is that the characters in the last two instances, Mary and Jack, were just not well done. Jack's potential darker side was never even a possibility, and as a result he was inoffensive and cute, but interesting? Not to me. And Mary was and is a complete write-off for me. I hate her, and not in the love-to-hate way, but in the hate-to-hate-please-die(again) way. And on the supernatural side, I think its almost a consensus (or as close as a fandom can come to one) that the BMoL was a fail. And in my opinion, the AU never lived up to the potential. This, I believe, is because of the time wasted on the spin-off. Maybe that can and will be corrected next season, but with the spoilerish comments

Spoiler

that next season is going to be about the implications and fallout of Heaven failing,

it's doubtful.

So yeah, the structure was there, but the execution failed, in my opinion. The move from the the status quo in 13x01 to where it ended up in 13x23 could've been told over the course of a few episodes and left room for so much more, if not for all the wasted time on Wayward and Asmodeus and Gabriel's pointless resurrection. Even if the Michael story is epic and they somehow make Heaven/angels interesting again next season, it won't make that okay when judging 13 on its own.

Edited June 6, 2018 by gonzosgirrl

[SueB]

5 hours ago, gonzosgirrl said:

I dunno, if these writers, and Dabb especially, have watched every episode and know the canon of the show, know the history of the characters they are writing about, and still choose to ignore or subvert it so egregiously? Kinda makes it worse. 

I think they have a story direction they want to go and if there is a piece of history that they think they can rationalize why it's okay to shift, they'll do it.  

Examples:

- Ben Edlund made a mistake regarding the Grand Canyon.  He acknowledge that mistake.  But Dean not ever having seen the Grand Canyon was not a huge plot point -- so, it's a mistake and now we have new canon.
- Kripke wrote the screenplay for "Heaven and Hell" and had Anna make some fairly definitive statements about the nature of angels -- including not having free will.  But that was undermined within that very season. Making either Anna a poor narrator or they realized they couldn't live with the constraints.  Just deciding to disobey was an act of free will.  In this case, the mistake was in the original epsiode (overly restrictive) and they just intentionally ignored most of that speech.
- There's a massive logic gap in Gavin Macleod's story. First he's a ghost, then he never dies, then he goes back to die but it's implied he went straight to heaven and stopped Fiona from being a ghost.  I think they ignored the "he had to be a ghost to save Bobby" in order to give Gavin a happier ending.  That's an intentional ignore -- a judgement call that the continuity was fuzzy enough to let it slide for the sake of Gavin's "final" episode.
- Sometime they exploit a bit of what they believe is fuzziness in the canon (what happened to the Colt) in order to make a story point later.  In the case of "Stuck in the Middle with You", I thought it was brilliant.
 

There are more variations but the point is there are mistakes that miss history, historical mistakes they decide to ignore, and histoical canon that they ignore because they think it'll serve the current story better.

I think it's the last one that people have a real issue with in most cases.  And I'd say the it comes down to what the writer/showrunner feel is more important.  Some lore they probably hold more sacred than others.  

Edited June 6, 2018 by SueB

[rue721]

35 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

So yeah, the structure was there, but the execution failed, in my opinion. The move from the the status quo in 13x01 to where it ended up in 13x23 could've been told over the course of a few episodes and left room for so much more, if not for all the wasted time on Wayward and Asmodeus and Gabriel's pointless resurrection. Even if the Michael story is epic and they somehow make Heaven/angels interesting again next season, it won't make that okay when judging 13 on its own.

Fair enough. I actually really liked S13 -- but that's just my opinion, dude :) I think it helped that I just mainlined it over the course of a week or something, so it felt like a fun ride and I didn't get frustrated or bored the way I might have watching it slowly and steadily over the course of a year. There were also a lot of shots of the Winchesters looking very gorgeous and/or talking about their feelings in an interesting way, which didn't hurt. :P

For what it's worth, I thought that Jack was more successful than Mary, and the AU was more successful than the BMOL, as storylines go. For both Jack and Mary, I didn't find either character that interesting in themselves so much as I found their interactions with others brought out interesting things about the others. Which is what I'm really looking for from a side character like that. I wouldn't watch a show just about Jack, but I do think he adds a really good dimension to Team Free Will, and it was also interesting seeing him interact with Kaia, AU!Bobby, with Mary, even with Lucifer. And I guess my expectations were really low, too, which helped!

I also hated the BMOL, but I felt like the AU had a more interesting premise (psychologically) and didn't descend anywhere near into the gobblygook that Harry Potter -- but with Murder! (excuse me, I mean the BMOL) did. It wasn't as fully realized as it could have been, but the AU mains are still around, so we'll see. I honestly don't care that much about the mytharcs anyway. Interesting characters thrown into cool MOTW are really the meat of the show for me. But that's just me, too -- YMMV.

For me, the Wayward Sisters thing didn't feel that intrusive, but some of that was probably because I enjoyed most of the one-off episodes about the girls. I really loved Kaia's episode, the one about Donna's niece was singularly terrifying IMO, and while I didn't love Patience's episode, it was pretty solid as a MOTW in its own right. The only episode I really wasn't that into was the Wayward Sisters backdoor pilot itself, but that was mainly because it was essentially Claire's showpiece (just like the other episodes had been the other girls', I guess), and I just was really, really not feeling Claire. I'm never really feeling Claire, IBR. That said, Claire has had what has felt like a zillion showpiece episodes at this point, and I always resent the show trying to cram her down our throats but watch the episodes anyway (as a completionist?). At least this Claire showpiece had the other girls and women in it, lol. I like most all of them, albeit some more than others.

[SueB]

2 hours ago, Myrelle said:

Why are they bastards? They made a business decision that didn't jibe with the feelings of some in the social media fandom. That's all, really. And I say good for them. I thought that the Wayward Sisters pilot was awful. I didn't think it had staying power either. And I further think that anything they chose instead could not have been any worse and won't be.

And I'm really pissed off that Dabb devoted so much attention and time to it that he let the mother ship slide, IMO; and propped his little darling at the expense of the mother ship, at times, too.

I don't think for one minute that they're done with this. It's their bread and butter, if you ask me.

And as far as Dean is concerned, they just scratched the surface of it this season to me.

 

Because I really love the show.  I think the CW also set out criteria (good ratings, good reviews, fandom acceptance) for what the show needed to do and the Supernatural team delivered.  So they (the CW) are bastards IMO because they defined what they wanted and then went with a script-only cheap Originals spin-off.  

That you are happy means you probably would use the word "good guys" vice "bastards".  Different opinions. 

1 hour ago, Pondlass1 said:

Supernatural seasons are all available on Netflix and today's viewers tend to binge - maybe do the whole thing in a month.  Thing is, this show doesn't work for binge watching.  It just cannot hold up.  Huge glaring inconsistencies with canon and character as the series  evolved. I think the only consistent is Dean Winchester.  His character and motivations are pretty much the same from beginning to now.

And I agree with whoever mentioned Buffy.  Her AU episodes were so much more fascinating and really capitalized on the nature vs nurture concept.  A concept completely ignored by Supernatural Powers That Be who brought folk back but did nothing with the characters.  The AU was such a brilliant idea (IMO) but has been criminally wasted.

I'm with @rue721 on this. I think Supernatural actually does BETTER on binge wathing.  Binge watching does two things:
1) It limits expectations -- you don't have a week (or weeks) to develop theories of what could be, what you want the story to do.  You just experience what is laid out.  Disappointment is bred from misaligned expectations.  If you no specific expectations, just general direction ideas, then you are less likely to be dissappointed.
2) It allows you to see a complete story more easily.  

In fact, I think the Dabb years will prove to be better experience for those who "Binge" than "live".  It plays to his strengths. 

Edited June 6, 2018 by SueB
clarified pronouns

[SueB]

4 hours ago, ILoveReading said:

Given the amount of retconning, rewriting history and downright ignoring canon this makes it worse.  There are no rules in this universe anymore.  Every writer does what he or she wants and no one cares if it contradicts something the week before.  It makes it hard to invest an any story or arc because why should I when the writers are just going to drop it, or rewrite it to suit their episode.

I'm having a hard time thinking of any eggregious history rewrite in S13.  Was there something in particular you recall that makes you feel they threw out all the rules?  I'm not asking for a long set of details, I'm just not connecting at all with "amount of retconning" -- maybe I need more coffee today.

[ILoveReading]

8 minutes ago, SueB said:

I'm having a hard time thinking of any eggregious history rewrite in S13.  Was there something in particular you recall that makes you feel they threw out all the rules?  I'm not asking for a long set of details, I'm just not connecting at all with "amount of retconning" -- maybe I need more coffee today.

The sudden appearance of the arch angel blade and Gabriel suddenly being alive. 

Only arch angels can kill arch angels.  This should mean that Raphael is still alive because wasn't he killed by Cas? 

Burnt wings have always meant permanent death for angels.

Lucifer suddenly having a "true face."

None of these things were even hinted at before.  So therefore they fall under rewriting history. 

Edited June 6, 2018 by ILoveReading

[SueB]

25 minutes ago, ILoveReading said:

The sudden appearance of the arch angel blade and Gabriel suddenly being alive. 

Only arch angels can kill arch angels.  This should mean that Raphael is still alive because wasn't he killed by Cas? 

Burnt wings have always meant permanent death for angels.

Lucifer suddenly having a "true face."

None of these things were even hinted at before.  So therefore they fall under rewriting history. 

 

ETA: Thanks for the memory jogger  

- Gabriel & his blade: that’s an intentional rewrite leveraging ‘Trickster’ history. It’s thin but it’s been speculated for years so not completely out of the blue. 

- Archangels only kill Archangels— that level of specificity didn’t exist before.  I can handwave Cas as having been super-charged.  But personally I think this new lore is an over-restrictive mistake. 

- Lucifer true face - ITA.  That’s an egregious example of pulling a plot line out of another show and retconning our canon.  This was a mistake that I hope they ignore in the future because there are too many other references to actual angel appearance for this to enter our lore. 

 

You’ve just reminded me of another one - having a Prince of Hell able to get power from Archangel grace.  That’s not in direct violation of a specific episode but it doesn’t feel right at all. They may get away with it because at this point all the Princes of Hell are dead.  I had to fill in with my own headcanon that it was possible because of he was a master of spell work.  But they really didn’t do well on either the Hell story or Asmodeus.  This was a plot line that IMO was never properly developed. 

 

So, I’m in partial agreement with your examples but I think the level of damage done is relatively contained.  

Edited June 6, 2018 by SueB
I swear, autocorrect jumps backwards and edits shit I think Inwrote correctly.

[gonzosgirrl]

42 minutes ago, rue721 said:

Fair enough. I actually really liked S13 -- but that's just my opinion, dude :) I think it helped that I just mainlined it over the course of a week or something, so it felt like a fun ride and I didn't get frustrated or bored the way I might have watching it slowly and steadily over the course of a year. There were also a lot of shots of the Winchesters looking very gorgeous and/or talking about their feelings in an interesting way, which didn't hurt. :P

For what it's worth, I thought that Jack was more successful than Mary, and the AU was more successful than the BMOL, as storylines go. For both Jack and Mary, I didn't find either character that interesting in themselves so much as I found their interactions with others brought out interesting things about the others. Which is what I'm really looking for from a side character like that. I wouldn't watch a show just about Jack, but I do think he adds a really good dimension to Team Free Will, and it was also interesting seeing him interact with Kaia, AU!Bobby, with Mary, even with Lucifer. And I guess my expectations were really low, too, which helped!

I also hated the BMOL, but I felt like the AU had a more interesting premise (psychologically) and didn't descend anywhere near into the gobblygook that Harry Potter -- but with Murder! (excuse me, I mean the BMOL) did. It wasn't as fully realized as it could have been, but the AU mains are still around, so we'll see. I honestly don't care that much about the mytharcs anyway. Interesting characters thrown into cool MOTW are really the meat of the show for me. But that's just me, too -- YMMV.

For me, the Wayward Sisters thing didn't feel that intrusive, but some of that was probably because I enjoyed most of the one-off episodes about the girls. I really loved Kaia's episode, the one about Donna's niece was singularly terrifying IMO, and while I didn't love Patience's episode, it was pretty solid as a MOTW in its own right. The only episode I really wasn't that into was the Wayward Sisters backdoor pilot itself, but that was mainly because it was essentially Claire's showpiece (just like the other episodes had been the other girls', I guess), and I just was really, really not feeling Claire. I'm never really feeling Claire, IBR. That said, Claire has had what has felt like a zillion showpiece episodes at this point, and I always resent the show trying to cram her down our throats but watch the episodes anyway (as a completionist?). At least this Claire showpiece had the other girls and women in it, lol. I like most all of them, albeit some more than others.

Despite my statement (quoted) I actually agree with a lot of this. The premise was good, the execution was not. Watching week to week it becomes a lot easier to nitpick, and if I could watch un-invested in the past or the mytharc, I know I would feel differently as well. It's how I watch 95% of the TV I watch. I just love the history and the heart of the show so much, I can't watch it that way - and seeing what for me is that heart being stomped all over, it colours everything. I admit that. I do resent the time spent on WS because it didn't feel organic to me. It was way too 'look at us, we don't need no steenking Winchesters' for my taste. I fully realize MMV on that, but like you said, just my opinion. :) 

[catrox14]

27 minutes ago, SueB said:

- Ben Edlund made a mistake regarding the Grand Canyon.  He acknowledge that mistake.  But Dean not ever having seen the Grand Canyon was not a huge plot point -- so, it's a mistake and now we have new canon.

It was Ben Edlund's final episode and he made a mistake that he acknowledged was a mistake. Sadly that mistake, IMO, altered Dean's characterization IMO to a big extent.  It was a watershed moment in s2 that Dean was like 'I can't deal with having to think about killing my brother on my father's orders (oh Hello Michael and Dean's parallel in s5)  along with the fact that they never made it to the Grand Canyon for all the crisscrossing the country. It was a pretty big deal IMO.  And for me, since Edlund acknowledged it was a mistake rather than an intentional or unintentional intentional rewrite of canon, I, as the consumer of the work, can make the choice to disregard it as a mistake and not intended to change canon. So I can consider Sam's comments as his fever hallucinations and not true. It has an asterisk vs a canon altering mistake, if you will.  It's also easily fixed by having them go to the Grand Canyon, and have Dean  say to Sam, "Remember when you were out of your mind in the trials fever and thought we came here before?".  It doesn't take more convoluted plot to fix the mistake.  

IMO, BL actively ignore canon because they WANT to change canon because the only thing they care about is plot, plot, plot - history and characterization be damned.  IMO, if Dabb had more control over the writers as head writer then there wouldn't be these canon changes.  And if comes down to a split writers room, then I guess he'll swallow Bob's wife's crappy scripts to keep his job.  Which that's another discussion.

35 minutes ago, SueB said:

- Kripke wrote the screenplay for "Heaven and Hell" and had Anna make some fairly definitive statements about the nature of angels -- including not having free will.  But that was undermined within that very season. Making either Anna a poor narrator or they realized they couldn't live with the constraints.  Just deciding to disobey was an act of free will.  In this case, the mistake was in the original epsiode (overly restrictive) and they just intentionally ignored most of that speech.

Are you saying he wrote something that never made it on screen? 

If you are talking about Anna's convo with Dean, it wasn't undermined at all.  Anna didn't live with the angels once she fell. I think it's easy enough to go with the game changed after Anna fell.  It was setting up that eventually Castiel would rebel. I'm not seeing any of that as being inconsistent or canon breaking writing myself.

41 minutes ago, SueB said:

There's a massive logic gap in Gavin Macleod's story. First he's a ghost, then he never dies, then he goes back to die but it's implied he went straight to heaven and stopped Fiona from being a ghost.  I think they ignored the "he had to be a ghost to save Bobby" in order to give Gavin a happier ending.  That's an intentional ignore -- a judgement call that the continuity was fuzzy enough to let it slide for the sake of Gavin's "final" episode.

To me that's just lazy writing to get rid of Gavin, because they were planning on killing off Crowley and maybe even Rowena.  The logic gap happened when they let him live in this time line and never explored the consequences of Crowley not returning him to the past.  That's the big logic problem with Gavin. Way more than his exit IMO.

 

44 minutes ago, SueB said:

- Sometime they exploit a bit of what they believe is fuzziness in the canon (what happened to the Colt) in order to make a story point later.  In the case of "Stuck in the Middle with You", I thought it was brilliant.

And in the process basically ruin the specialness of Azazel and make the Yellow Eyed demons more powerful than angels and archangels it would seem.  Perez wanted to write an homage to Reservoir Dogs and Dabb wanted us to worry that Castiel would really most sincerely die after we learned of his past in the Lily Sunder episode which was written by Yockey who I think is the best writer on the staff...or was anyway...but even he messed up on the nephilim lore if you look back to s8 with the nephilim that Cas killed at Metatron's behest.   To me that's not brilliant at all. 

Again, mileage varies as always.

I

[ILoveReading]

8 minutes ago, SueB said:

So, I’m in partial agreement with your examples but I think the level of damage done is relatively contained.  

Id disagree here because it makes it hard to really care or invest in a storyline if they just change the rules in the middle of it.  The whole arch angel killing an archangel thing will just disappear if they want Sam or Cas to be able to kill an archangel.  Plus, why did no one remember that Raphael should be out there if they need grace?

If they're following their rules a super charged Cas shouldn't matter because he's not an arch angel. 

Plus, the whole Gabriel thing ruined his original arc.   He had a heroic ending.  But then the bring him back they basically had to label him as a coward again and say he ran away.  Then they bring him back and repeat the same arc with the same ending.  What was the point?  Someone could have suggested Michael if they needed grace and actually built up to Dean saying yes instead of it being a last minute thing. 

[ILoveReading]

13 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

Sadly that mistake, IMO, altered Dean's characterization IMO to a big extent.

I agree here because given Dean's history and how family is everything to him, and how how jealous he got because John took Adam to a baseball game, there is no way Dean wouldn't remember a family vacation. 

[SueB]

52 minutes ago, ILoveReading said:

I agree here because given Dean's history and how family is everything to him, and how how jealous he got because John took Adam to a baseball game, there is no way Dean wouldn't remember a family vacation. 

Oh, I agree they didn't have a family vacation.  And I'm ignoring the mistake because it was acknowledged as a mistake.  I don't think Ben intended to change history.

But I don't need an in-show fix.  The gist: Dean had a shitty childhood is so very well established, I'm okay ignoring the mistake.

1 hour ago, catrox14 said:

It was Ben Edlund's final episode and he made a mistake that he acknowledged was a mistake. Sadly that mistake, IMO, altered Dean's characterization IMO to a big extent.  It was a watershed moment in s2 that Dean was like 'I can't deal with having to think about killing my brother on my father's orders (oh Hello Michael and Dean's parallel in s5)  along with the fact that they never made it to the Grand Canyon for all the crisscrossing the country. It was a pretty big deal IMO.  And for me, since Edlund acknowledged it was a mistake rather than an intentional or unintentional intentional rewrite of canon, I, as the consumer of the work, can make the choice to disregard it as a mistake and not intended to change canon. So I can consider Sam's comments as his fever hallucinations and not true. It has an asterisk vs a canon altering mistake, if you will.  It's also easily fixed by having them go to the Grand Canyon, and have Dean  say to Sam, "Remember when you were out of your mind in the trials fever and thought we came here before?".  It doesn't take more convoluted plot to fix the mistake.  

IMO, BL actively ignore canon because they WANT to change canon because the only thing they care about is plot, plot, plot - history and characterization be damned.  IMO, if Dabb had more control over the writers as head writer then there wouldn't be these canon changes.  And if comes down to a split writers room, then I guess he'll swallow Bob's wife's crappy scripts to keep his job.  Which that's another discussion.

Are you saying he wrote something that never made it on screen? 

If you are talking about Anna's convo with Dean, it wasn't undermined at all.  Anna didn't live with the angels once she fell. I think it's easy enough to go with the game changed after Anna fell.  It was setting up that eventually Castiel would rebel. I'm not seeing any of that as being inconsistent or canon breaking writing myself.

To me that's just lazy writing to get rid of Gavin, because they were planning on killing off Crowley and maybe even Rowena.  The logic gap happened when they let him live in this time line and never explored the consequences of Crowley not returning him to the past.  That's the big logic problem with Gavin. Way more than his exit IMO.

 

And in the process basically ruin the specialness of Azazel and make the Yellow Eyed demons more powerful than angels and archangels it would seem.  Perez wanted to write an homage to Reservoir Dogs and Dabb wanted us to worry that Castiel would really most sincerely die after we learned of his past in the Lily Sunder episode which was written by Yockey who I think is the best writer on the staff...or was anyway...but even he messed up on the nephilim lore if you look back to s8 with the nephilim that Cas killed at Metatron's behest.   To me that's not brilliant at all. 

Again, mileage varies as always.

I

Anna -- No, it was all on-screen.  Example: I think her statement about Cas not being sorry due to "angels don't have the capacity to feel"  was incorrect.  They are stunted, compared to humans, but they have the capacity. Cas clearly does it very well.   

Gavin - I thought it was a good way of correcting the issue.  They almost effectively retconned the retcon.  It was an abject less in 'don't screw with time'.  But I think they shouldn't have shown the happy ending white glow.  It wasn't even dialog -- it was just a special effect.

Regarding Azazel - YED being more powerful than angels works for me -- Cas didn't have the juice to kill Alastair.  But I think Archangels are naturally more powerful than YED's.  The plotonium of HOW Loki's boys trapped Gabriel was fuzzy, but the "lore" we were given is that a drained Archangel is less powerful than a YED.  I don't think that's inconsistent. 

Edited June 6, 2018 by SueB

[catrox14]

1 hour ago, SueB said:

abriel & his blade: that’s an intentional rewrite leveraging ‘Trickster’ history. It’s thin but it’s been speculated for years so not completely out of the blue. 

When was this speculated in the show? It's been fanon speculation that Gabriel wasn't really dead. But in the show he was said to be dead. 

 

1 hour ago, SueB said:

- Lucifer true face - ITA.  That’s an egregious example of pulling a plot line out of another show and retconning our canon.  This was a mistake that I hope they ignore in the future because there are too many other references to actual angel appearance for this to enter our lore. 

It's a retcon. And it was done to give Sam and Rowena something scary to bond over.  I don't think it was a mistake.  It's intentional. And I feel certain it's not over for Sam unless killing Lucifer makes it go away. Which would be the best way to kill it.  But I don't think he'll end up being dead after all.

[SueB]

2 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

When was this speculated in the show? It's been fanon speculation that Gabriel wasn't really dead. But in the show he was said to be dead. 

 

It's a retcon. And it was done to give Sam and Rowena something scary to bond over.  I don't think it was a mistake.  It's intentional. And I feel certain it's not over for Sam unless killing Lucifer makes it go away. Which would be the best way to kill it.  But I don't think he'll end up being dead after all.

Although it was done by the actor (and now we know it wasn't Gabriel because he would have been a prisoner at the time), when "Gabriel" wiggled his eyebrows at Cas (after Cas asked if he was really dead) -- that introduced doubt.

Good point on the true face - it was intentional.  I meant "bad idea" as opposed to an oops.  My bad.  And since I think Lucifer is most sincerely dead, I don't think we'll have to live with this bad idea.  Sam and Rowena now have the bond of "he's the one to kill her".  

[Katy M]

1 hour ago, ILoveReading said:

Lucifer suddenly having a "true face."

I'm pretty sure Lucifer has always had a "true face." We know that angels and demons have a look that (depending on the season and episode) other angels and demons can see through the meatsuit.

[catrox14]

3 minutes ago, SueB said:

Although it was done by the actor (and now we know it wasn't Gabriel because he would have been a prisoner at the time), when "Gabriel" wiggled his eyebrows at Cas (after Cas asked if he was really dead) -- that introduced doubt.

I didn't know anything about the eyebrow waggle being an ad lib by Dick.  So to me, that was just facetious writing and not intended to make us think Gabriel was really alive all the way back in s9.  I always took that to mean that Metatron was a lying liar who lied and we should understand that about him.

[Katy M]

1 minute ago, catrox14 said:

I didn't know anything about the eyebrow waggle being an ad lib by Dick.  So to me, that was just facetious writing and not intended to make us think Gabriel was really alive all the way back in s9.  I always took that to mean that Metatron was a lying liar who lied and we should understand that about him.

That's how I always felt.  We knew at the time that it was Gabriel, that he was a manifestation of Metatron, so Cas even asking him if he were really dead was stupid, and the answer, no matter what it was, was meaningless.

[catrox14]

2 minutes ago, Katy M said:

I'm pretty sure Lucifer has always had a "true face." We know that angels and demons have a look that (depending on the season and episode) other angels and demons can see through the meatsuit.

It was never mentioned in this show, in canon, until s13.  They used to be able to recognize other angels and demons but I'm not sure what that has to do with Lucifer's "true face".  The only thing said about it is that it's so terrifying that Sam and Rowena can never forget it.  To me, Lucifer possessing Sam and brutally killing Rowena would be enough trauma for them both to suffer for the rest of their days without this super scary "true face" silliness. 

[SueB]

9 minutes ago, Katy M said:

That's how I always felt.  We knew at the time that it was Gabriel, that he was a manifestation of Metatron, so Cas even asking him if he were really dead was stupid, and the answer, no matter what it was, was meaningless.

Stupid or not, it establishes doubt at least existed in Cas' mind.  So that's why I say it's not completely out of the blue that he came back.  

[rue721]

Just now, catrox14 said:

The only thing said about it is that it's so terrifying that Sam and Rowena can never forget it.  To me, Lucifer possessing Sam and brutally killing Rowena would be enough trauma for them both to suffer for the rest of their days without this super scary "true face" silliness. 

Hopefully the show doesn't mean "true face" in such a literal way and they're talking about it more metaphorically. As a way of saying that Sam and Rowena saw the "real" Lucifer when he tortured them, I think it makes perfect sense (and it makes perfect sense that the experience was shattering for each of them).

IIRC Rowena also said that she "saw" his "true face" when he was crushing her head in, which to me also sounds even more like she meant "saw" as in she finally understood what Lucifer really was, not that she was literally seeing him finally (since you can't really literally see with a crushed head!).

To me it doesn't feel like a retcon so much as a maybe too-literal way of expressing a legitimate idea.

6 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

And I feel certain it's not over for Sam unless killing Lucifer makes it go away. Which would be the best way to kill it.

I thought Sam was telling Rowena that what's happened has already happened and there's no changing it, so they both just have to find what peace they can regardless. When Rowena was asking him how he dealt with the knowledge/memories of what Lucifer did to him and he couldn't really say -- I thought that was a really good scene. I liked Sam getting all flustered by the question, and not wanting to think about the question but also not wanting to blow her off because he did genuinely want to help her. That said, I do like the vibe between Sam and Rowena (and have since Werther's Originals at the latest), so the bonding felt pretty organic to me (YMMV). 

Anyway, I don't think killing Lucifer will get rid of the knowledge/memories, there's no getting rid of that because there's no undoing what happened. Glad he's dead (DING DONG!), though, don't get me wrong!

[Katy M]

14 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

It was never mentioned in this show, in canon, until s13.  They used to be able to recognize other angels and demons but I'm not sure what that has to do with Lucifer's "true face".  The only thing said about it is that it's so terrifying that Sam and Rowena can never forget it.  To me, Lucifer possessing Sam and brutally killing Rowena would be enough trauma for them both to suffer for the rest of their days without this super scary "true face" silliness. 

Dean said that Ruby was ugly, so I have no trouble believing that the more evil you are, the uglier (scarier) your face.  Sure, I totally think just being tortured is enough. But, I don't find anything at all retconny in Lucifer's true face being scary.  Also, in I Know What you Did, Anna backed up and was scared by seeing demon's faces. I know Lucifer's an angel, just saying, that I haven't seen anything in canon that suggests Lucifer's face wouldn't/shouldn't be scary.

[catrox14]

14 minutes ago, rue721 said:

To me it doesn't feel like a retcon so much as a maybe too-literal way of expressing a legitimate idea.

Sam already knew Lucifer's true self from being possessed and tortured by him for 100 years and then the Hellucinations. I think the "true face" thing is intended to be something literal, and actual. Like a terrifying thing.  Nevermind that it goes against Sam going down memory lane with Lucifer and working with him in s11.  Maybe we are to understand that Sam is so strong mentally and emotionally that being around that "true face" in much of s11 and in parts in s12 didn't really affect him that much....but now it does.  That all feels pretty retcon to me. 

[catrox14]

14 minutes ago, Katy M said:

ut, I don't find anything at all retconny in Lucifer's true face being scary. 

 I'm saying that calling it this official "True Face" is a retconny to a great extent because Sam never mentioned it before.  Dean saw Ruby and said she was ugly but we don't know what that meant exactly.  Did she have a messed up face that was just hideous by any standara? Or was just ugly by Dean's personal standards? Was her face morphing like Sam's did when Dean started hallucinating? I don't know those answers. To me, this is "True Face" is being set aside as particularly special only to Lucifer.  Unless they have Dean say something about seeing AU Michael's "True Face" then I'll think it's a lore change.  

[rue721]

2 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

Sam already knew Lucifer's true self from being possessed and tortured by him for 100 years and then the Hellucinations.

Isn't that the experience that he and Rowena were referring to when they were in the car talking about how to deal with their knowledge of Lucifer, though?

I thought that she knew that Sam had been tortured by Lucifer, too, and that's what she meant when she said she figured he'd also seen Lucifer's "true face." Even if it's a literal thing (which hopefully it isn't), Rowena was definitely referring to having seen Lucifer's true face when he was in the act of torturing her -- being tortured by Lucifer and "seeing his true face" were definitely related.

In any case, Sam working with Lucifer in S11 was stupid and I hate it and and and now I feel like Sam did when he was in the car getting flustered by Rowena's questions about how to deal with terrible memories that you can't forget...thanks, @catrox14! :P

[catrox14]

26 minutes ago, SueB said:

Stupid or not, it establishes doubt at least existed in Cas' mind.  So that's why I say it's not completely out of the blue that he came back.  

Wasn't it said that angels could feel when other angels were dead or in the case of Lucifer, that they could feel when he was out of the Cage? I swear I remember that.  Also, angels could feel when Jack was even conceived.  So that Cas had any doubt IMO was at best Cas' wishful thinking to have his brother back and being separated from Heaven at that time vs  Cas really thinking Gabriel could be alive. So, again, to me, it's not enough to base Gabriel's retconn'd return to give him a 2nd redemption arc after retconning away his first, better redemption.

2 minutes ago, rue721 said:

Isn't that the experience that he and Rowena were referring to when they were in the car talking about how to deal with their knowledge of Lucifer, though?

I thought that she knew that Sam had been tortured by Lucifer, too, and that's what she meant when she said she figured he'd also seen Lucifer's "true face." Even if it's a literal thing (which hopefully it isn't), Rowena was definitely referring to having seen Lucifer's true face when he was in the act of torturing her -- being tortured by Lucifer and "seeing his true face" were definitely related.

 I have no idea if Rowena knows about Sam being tortured or that Sam was ever actually possessed by Lucifer.  I suspect she did know but I'm not seeing how that is related to the "True Face" matter?  

To me it was a conversation about a literal thing.  YMMV

[gonzosgirrl]

55 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

It was never mentioned in this show, in canon, until s13.  They used to be able to recognize other angels and demons but I'm not sure what that has to do with Lucifer's "true face".  The only thing said about it is that it's so terrifying that Sam and Rowena can never forget it.  To me, Lucifer possessing Sam and brutally killing Rowena would be enough trauma for them both to suffer for the rest of their days without this super scary "true face" silliness. 

I am 100% convinced that the 'true face' language came about because it's a 'thing' on the other Lucifer (aka Lucifer on Fox). I'll never believe otherwise.

[catrox14]

More BL/Dabb changing lore horses midstream/not paying attention to past history/lore:

In 12.23, Dabb wrote about angel killing bullets and had Cas and Dean be surprised to know those existed. Problem: Angel killing bullets existed in s8 as Cas used one to kill Not!JakeGyllenhaal!Angel by putting it into his eye. 

Within s13 alone, they changed the RIFT functionality.  They said in Exodus that only one person at a time could go through the Rift. But that wasn't true, because Dean and Sam went through together in both directions.  Lucifer dragged Mary through the Rift and nothing happened to it.  IMO, BL changed that just to make sure one person at a time went through so Not!Charlie and Not!Bobby got their moment of "awestruck" alone. It was freaking stoopid.

8 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

I am 100% convinced that the 'true face' language came about because it's a 'thing' on the other Lucifer (aka Lucifer on Fox). I'll never believe otherwise.

I believe this.

[Katy M]

37 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

I am 100% convinced that the 'true face' language came about because it's a 'thing' on the other Lucifer (aka Lucifer on Fox). I'll never believe otherwise.

Is it? If they stole it from that, and just didn't mean it based on the comments that I've made, then it's definitely a retcon and a particularly inexcusable one.

[Lemuria]

1 hour ago, catrox14 said:

When was this speculated in the show? It's been fanon speculation that Gabriel wasn't really dead. But in the show he was said to be dead. 

In fact, Chuck essentially said that in 11.22:

CHUCK: Well, Michael’s in no condition to fight, and it’s outside of my power to bring Gabriel and Raphael back.
SAM: But you restored Castiel.
CHUCK: Archangels are different. They’re the stuff of primordial creation. Rebuilding them, that’s – It’s time we don’t have. 

So, yeah, we saw the wings and we were told by God that Gabriel was gone.  Because it certainly wouldn't have been outside of His power to get Gabriel back from Loki--we saw how easily Lucifer took down a room full of gods and Chuck is above Luci's pay grade--or Asmodeus, if that's where he was.  

I think canon is important.  If the showrunners and writers don't have any respect for, or belief in, their own universe, why should I?  

Cavalierly changing canon--and usually, IMO, the changes have not been for the better--seems to result from an inability of the writers to find a clever solution to the very problems the writers themselves have created, so they play a round of "Canon? What canon?"  See, "Taxi Driver."  

Maybe they should try not to write themselves into corners if they can't find a way to get out without trampling canon.  Might be nice for a change.

Oh, and as for "free will," if Anna didn't think angels had any she was clearly an idiot.  Leaving aside Lucifer's rebellion, Anna rebelled.  An amazingly stupid remark from the writer, undermined by the episode itself.

[gonzosgirrl]

23 minutes ago, Katy M said:

Is it? If they stole it from that, and just didn't mean it based on the comments that I've made, then it's definitely a retcon and a particularly inexcusable one.

Well, it's my speculation and not 'fact', but it's pretty coincidental that it never once came up in all the years Lucifer has been a part of SPN, but it's a key point on Lucifer (on Fox) and most especially this last season since he 'lost' it.

This,

15 minutes ago, Lemuria said:

So, yeah, we saw the wings and we were told by God that Gabriel was gone. 

bugs me more than just about anything they have done. It's one of the few things we could count on. Burned wings = dead angel. And then this season they disregarded it first with Castiel, and then with Gabriel.

And this,

16 minutes ago, Lemuria said:

I think canon is important.  If the showrunners and writers don't have any respect for, or belief in, their own universe, why should I?  

this, is the crux of it all. How can they expect me to invest emotionally in anything when they can, will and do change it on a whim.

[trxr4kids]

27 minutes ago, Lemuria said:

In fact, Chuck essentially said that in 11.22:

CHUCK: Well, Michael’s in no condition to fight, and it’s outside of my power to bring Gabriel and Raphael back.
SAM: But you restored Castiel.
CHUCK: Archangels are different. They’re the stuff of primordial creation. Rebuilding them, that’s – It’s time we don’t have. 

So, yeah, we saw the wings and we were told by God that Gabriel was gone.  Because it certainly wouldn't have been outside of His power to get Gabriel back from Loki--we saw how easily Lucifer took down a room full of gods and Chuck is above Luci's pay grade--or Asmodeus, if that's where he was.  

I think canon is important.  If the showrunners and writers don't have any respect for, or belief in, their own universe, why should I?  

Cavalierly changing canon--and usually, IMO, the changes have not been for the better--seems to result from an inability of the writers to find a clever solution to the very problems the writers themselves have created, so they play a round of "Canon? What canon?"  See, "Taxi Driver."  

Maybe they should try not to write themselves into corners if they can't find a way to get out without trampling canon.  Might be nice for a change.

Oh, and as for "free will," if Anna didn't think angels had any she was clearly an idiot.  Leaving aside Lucifer's rebellion, Anna rebelled.  An amazingly stupid remark from the writer, undermined by the episode itself.

Like x 1000!

[SueB]

ITA canon is essential.  And I think you are right about Chuck’s statement certainly was enough to be definitive.  If not, then Chuck left Gabriel in Asmodeus’ hands.  That’s shitty.  

So I’ll  agree to it’s a solid case that it’s a retcon. I wonder how Rich has ‘sold it’ at conventions or if no one has challenged him because they are afraid it might sound rude.  

[Katy M]

35 minutes ago, SueB said:

ITA canon is essential.  And I think you are right about Chuck’s statement certainly was enough to be definitive.  If not, then Chuck left Gabriel in Asmodeus’ hands.  That’s shitty.  

So I’ll  agree to it’s a solid case that it’s a retcon. I wonder how Rich has ‘sold it’ at conventions or if no one has challenged him because they are afraid it might sound rude.  

I don't hold actors responsible for canon.  I'm sure Richard Speight wanted to work.  More than he cared about canon.  Which is fine.  The writers and showrunner are 100% responsible for canon.

[SueB]

2 hours ago, Katy M said:

I don't hold actors responsible for canon.  I'm sure Richard Speight wanted to work.  More than he cared about canon.  Which is fine.  The writers and showrunner are 100% responsible for canon.

Sorry, poorly phrased on my part.  It's possible that Rich lobbied but I don't think the arc did his character much good --- he got to sleep with Rowena and tell off Lucifer, that's about it.  No, when I said "sold", I mean how Rich would explain the disconnect between what Chuck said and Gabriel's return if he was asked at conventions.  He could say "shit if I know". "Chuck lies", or something else flippant.  He could also offer up his own theory.  SPN has been very good to Rich and if he didn't go the flippant route, he'd come up with something plausible (at least in his mind).  

No, I think the whole point of Gabriel's return was to allow for the initial recon mission into AU world.  They needed a source of Archangel grace and wanted to save Lucifer for the 3-part finale,  And using Archangel grace kept Lucifer more connected to the main plot this year.  So they needed a source - hence Gabriel.  And they LOVE Rich.  So they just wrote him in to provide that plot point.  But it must be important that he's not around to help with Michael!Dean or fix heaven.  So they brought him back, milked his story for what they could, and then killed him off. Again.  

In terms of 'structure' of the main plot (recover their family), the recon mission sort of represents the "pinch 2" point of Dan Well's 7pt structure.

With apologies to actual English majors, as I understand it, one of the options for story structure is an expansion of the 3pt and 5pt structures into the 7 pt structures:

Quote

(1) HOOK – “Establish characters and starting state.” [everybody is dead and we have a baby nougat]

(2) PLOT TURN 1 – “Call to action.” [Lucifer is back and informs Cas that AUMichael wants to take over the world, introduction of "Archangel grace" MacGuffin for jumping worlds  Could also argue that the "you have to live" edict from Death was the "call to action" moment but I think that's a multi-season plot.]

(3) PINCH 1 – “Put pressure on characters; force action.” [Jack finds out Mary is alive, "The Bad Place" epsiode]

(4) MIDPOINT – “Move from reaction to action.” [Cas finds out from Donatello what the spell is -- boys start to assemble the ingredients]

(5) PINCH 2 – “Really lay on the pressure; hero on his/her own.” ["Bring Em Back Alive", Gabriel abandons them]

(6) PLOT TURN 2 – “Get the last piece of puzzle.” [Avengers assemble! Rowena on board, Gabriel on board, let's drain Lucifer!]

(7) RESOLUTION – “Winning!” [13.22 We got Mary & Jack + bonus chracters back from the AU! Woot Winchester Family party in the Library!]

from: https://johnrberkowitz.wordpress.com/2015/04/15/revisiting-the-7-point-story-structure/

But with a show like Supernatural there would naturally be an 8th structure point for every season:
(8) CLIFFHANGER - Everything goes to shit when a bad thing that's been brewing blows up - in this case AUMichael is roaming the planet in a well-dressed Dean suit

Disclaimer: Again, NOT an English major.  I'm sure there are some legitimate arguments about the evils of the 7 point structure or why my interpretation is bad because I'm missing "Important factoid X".  I'm just trying to make sense of why bring Gabriel back in the first place if they were just going to kill him.  And I think the answer is - they needed his Archangel grace in order to get initial recon and set up a more realistic "team" rescue mission as part of the 3 part finale.  

Edited June 6, 2018 by SueB

[Pondlass1]

23 hours ago, rue721 said:

I think it actually works better when it's binged.

I binged seasons 1-7.  Which wasn't too bad.  And I agree that bingeing puts you deep into the Supernatural world.  I literally lived and breathed Supernatural during the binge.  Dreamed about it too.

But bingeing seasons 1-13 in one whallop???.... that's another thing entirely - as has been illustrated by most of the posts following my post.   Canon... what's that?  They need some sort of legend or bible in the writing room or someone checking up on who can do what, or what can do what.... because it's got to be glaring for bingers.  And there are a lot of them apparently.  I'm finding acquaintances and co-workers, etc., who've started a binge of Supernatural because there's nothing much on Tv these days.

[SueB]

3 minutes ago, Pondlass1 said:

I binged seasons 1-7.  Which wasn't too bad.  And I agree that bingeing puts you deep into the Supernatural world.  I literally lived and breathed Supernatural during the binge.  Dreamed about it too.

But bingeing seasons 1-13 in one whallop???.... that's another thing entirely - as has been illustrated by most of the posts following my post.   Canon... what's that?  They need some sort of legend or bible in the writing room or someone checking up on who can do what, or what can do what.... because it's got to be glaring for bingers.  And there are a lot of them apparently.  I'm finding acquaintances and co-workers, etc., who've started a binge of Supernatural because there's nothing much on Tv these days.

Not an advertisement, but I find the Supernaturalwiki to be highly reliable.  And I know the show writers and cast have mentioned using it.

Edited June 7, 2018 by SueB

[catrox14]

20 hours ago, SueB said:

No, I think the whole point of Gabriel's return was to allow for the initial recon mission into AU world.  They needed a source of Archangel grace and wanted to save Lucifer for the 3-part finale,  And using Archangel grace kept Lucifer more connected to the main plot this year.  So they needed a source - hence Gabriel.  And they LOVE Rich.  So they just wrote him in to provide that plot point.  But it must be important that he's not around to help with Michael!Dean or fix heaven.  So they brought him back, milked his story for what they could, and then killed him off. Again.

The thing is that there is an archangel at the ready. Sitting in the Cage.  His name is Michael. He has his grace unless they retcon that he doesn't. So bringing back Gabriel was IMO only for Dick Speight and maybe some fanservice. 

TPTB are actively ignoring this option thus far.

Edited June 7, 2018 by catrox14

[SueB]

1 hour ago, catrox14 said:

The thing is that there is an archangel at the ready. Sitting in the Cage.  His name is Michael. He has his grace unless they retcon that he doesn't. So bringing back Gabriel was IMO only for Dick Speight and maybe some fanservice. 

TPTB are actively ignoring this option thus far.

Fair.  But in what meat suit?  Because Lucifer spent half of S12 hopping around looking for a good one until Crowley put him in a Nick perma-suit.  Young John Winchester is long dead.  Not sure Adam's meatsuit survived very long in Hell.  Sam was pulled out right away.  If Adam wasn't, then how exactly would that work?  Plus it leads back to Dean.  Putting Michael into Dean at that point in the season is too early for it to be the big cliffhanger. Putting our world Michael into play takes away Dean's meatsuit being the AUMichael Big Bad.  

Put differently... here's the leaps of faith required:
Gabriel:
- claim it was yet another trick
- have him be a prisoner (and thus why he wasn't around for the last 8 years)
- presume Chuck lied about him or Asmodeus had somehow manage to hide Chuck from God (iAmara could hide from God, is there some spell that would make that work for Asmodeus/Gabriel?)
Michael:
- either Lucifer and Chuck were lying about his incapacity OR Michael has mentally healed since Luci flew the coop
- either the Adam meatsuit was somehow in "suspended animation" in the Cage or Michael needed a new vessel
- They'd have to find a way to get Michael out.  Rowena had Lucifer's cooperation and access to Hell via Crowley.  Could she pull Micheal out of the Cage without going into Limbo?  Again... the meatsuit issue.  If Adam's meatsuit was still around, was it being tortured, hanging in suspended animation?   How does she get the meatsuit out too?  
- Michael would have to be willing to help.  Seems to me he'd have good reason to hate the Winchesters.  Why would they trust him if he had never been an ally before? What evidence do we have that our Michael is suddenly the good guy?  Last time we saw him, he was kind of a dick.  "Free will is an illusion" "You're not a part of this anymore."  "I'm a good son." Bleech.  He's the dude who oversaw forcing the Apocalypse early because he and the other Archangels were tired.  

Finally IF their plan was to always have AUMichael be the Big Bad (which they stated in Sep 2017), then having our Michael out and about 5-7 episodes before the season finale seems a much bigger story to tell than just "Gabriel came out of hiding."  It was already a complex season. We'd need to work on getting him out. We'd have to have the backstory on why he's now okay to work with.  And we wouldn't really need Lucifer to be in the bunker opening the gate in 13.21.  

In short, everything from 13.18 onward would have to be rewritten in a way to use a character that (IMO) is arguably more complicated to rationalize.

  

[trxr4kids]

2 hours ago, catrox14 said:

The thing is that there is an archangel at the ready. Sitting in the Cage.  His name is Michael. He has his grace unless they retcon that he doesn't. So bringing back Gabriel was IMO only for Dick Speight and maybe some fanservice. 

TPTB are actively ignoring this option thus far.

And Rowena, who has apparently fallen into a road trip plothole with AU Charlie and can't get up, has access to the cage.

It's mind boggling to me that Guck said he couldn't resurrect Gabriel ( who wasn't even dead apparently) and couldn't enlist CageMichael's help because he was a drooling mess or words to that effect. Somehow, someway as plot demanded Lucifer was (once again) the best option. <massive eye roll> 

It's all about Lucifer these days, which includes his little cinnabon!

[SueB]

18 minutes ago, trxr4kids said:

And Rowena, who has apparently fallen into a road trip plothole with AU Charlie and can't get up, has access to the cage.

It's mind boggling to me that Guck said he couldn't resurrect Gabriel ( who wasn't even dead apparently) and couldn't enlist CageMichael's help because he was a drooling mess or words to that effect. Somehow, someway as plot demanded Lucifer was (once again) the best option. <massive eye roll> 

It's all about Lucifer these days, which includes his little cinnabon!

Had access with the help of Crowley letting her into limbo.  How do we know she can do it from just anyplace? And why would you try it unless you KNEW Michael was 1) safe to bring out and 2)had a meatsuit to go into?

[Katy M]

4 minutes ago, SueB said:

Had access with the help of Crowley letting her into limbo.  How do we know she can do it from just anyplace? And why would you try it unless you KNEW Michael was 1) safe to bring out and 2)had a meatsuit to go into?

yeah, it would be just as stupid to have let Michael out as it would have been to let Lucifer.  And, if you're going to do that, I think you're also going to have to finally deal with Adam, and I think that would be just too much.  He's been in Hell over 800 years.  That's insane.  So, either he's still in Adam which is nearly impossible to write for IMO, or he would need a meatsuit, because I don't think they know how to extract grace from "celestial wavelengths" or whatever.  It's canon that he's a drooling mess which would probably make it difficult for him to get someone to say yes.  And, so Dean would have to.  And, in all honesty, it would be really crappy for the Winchesters to specifically let him out and then expect some innocent person to host him.  Kind of like in Season 11 when Dean said they needed to get Lucifer out of Cas and into another meatsuit before he fought Amara.  Pretty crappy whether he was talking about Sam or some John Doe.

[trxr4kids]

18 minutes ago, SueB said:

Had access with the help of Crowley letting her into limbo.  How do we know she can do it from just anyplace? And why would you try it unless you KNEW Michael was 1) safe to bring out and 2)had a meatsuit to go into?

How do we know she can't? And she didn't know Lucifer was 1) safe to bring out and 2) had a meatsuit to go into ( aside from the Nicksuit which was untested outside of hell AFAIK), but it didn't deter TPTB from their massive plot holes IMO.

Edited June 7, 2018 by trxr4kids

[companionenvy]

This is SPN. If you need access to archangel grace, you invent a convenient McGuffin - a vial of surviving grace held on the peak of Mount Doom, or wherever. Or decide that Cas's grace somehow works because of the time he spent as Lucifer's vessel. 

You don't resurrect a character who had a narratively satisfying death and was confirmed as dead by your universe's god, who had no reason to lie at the moment, only to kill him off in a watered-down version of his original death three episodes later.

I actually didn't mind bringing Gabriel back if it had had a good payoff - for me, there are times when a retcon is worth it if it really serves the story.  Bringing back Gabriel as a logistical plot device is another matter.

[catrox14]

26 minutes ago, SueB said:

Had access with the help of Crowley letting her into limbo.  How do we know she can do it from just anyplace? And why would you try it unless you KNEW Michael was 1) safe to bring out and 2)had a meatsuit to go into?

How will they ever know if they never try?Why would there be a need for a meatsuit if all they want to do is get his grace?  Why couldn't Rowena bind him in a spell like she did Lucifer and bleed his grace? Cut his throat with an extender angel blade. Hell, even ask him if he'd give up his grace. He just might be willing to do it.  I can come up with another 10 different ways they can use Michael for his grace.

My entire point is that it's conveniently not brought up as an option in the narrative.