All Episodes Talk: Saving People, Hunting Things

[BoxManLocke]

There are much worse offenders than a music montage of Dean sex and a gruesome murder, especially in the beginning of the episode.

 

The editing has sucked for a lot longer than two years, and has actually gotten better this season (the infamous cave scene in the last ep being a painful outlier).

It was common practice under Carver to cut interesting/intense/emotional scenes every minute (sometimes even less) with mundane dialogue by other characters. Took me out of the moment every single time and it was completely useless. Thankfully they stopped doing that.

 

One of the many occurences that just popped into my mind : in O Brother Where Art Thou, The cage has just been opened, Sam is facing Lucifer for the first time since forever, tension is at it's peak... and let's cut this with funny Rowena/Crowley dialogue. Are you fucking kidding me ?

[sarthaz]

I'm watching Croatoan right now, and I know not everyone agrees with me, but this episode is terribly produced.  The pacing is wrong, the editing is terrible, the music is atrocious.  Shiban wrote some of the best eps in the first two seasons and Singer knows what he's doing as a director, so I don't get it.  Has anyone seen/heard an interview where they talk about why this episode sucked so hard?

[DittyDotDot]

On 5/15/2018 at 1:16 PM, sarthaz said:

I'm watching Croatoan right now, and I know not everyone agrees with me, but this episode is terribly produced.  The pacing is wrong, the editing is terrible, the music is atrocious.  Shiban wrote some of the best eps in the first two seasons and Singer knows what he's doing as a director, so I don't get it.  Has anyone seen/heard an interview where they talk about why this episode sucked so hard?

I agree with you!!! Personally, I rarely care for Singer's directorial style. Most of his episodes feel off to me. So, I blame it on Singer, but I'm sure there were other factors too.

I haven't ever heard them really talk about this episode other than the story Jared tells about how he got overly emotional and Singer had to reel him back in a bit when he gets asked about doing emotional scenes at cons. But then again, I can't remember much discussion about S2 in general. 

[SueB]

Natalie Fisher at Hypable did a S13 review. I enjoyed it. 

Trigger Warnings:

- it’s a super pro-show review. If that pisses you off, don’t click

- she hand waves some things that some have spent multiple post pages directing/criticizing. (Deleted second sentence — no need to presume anything) 

 

Having provided these warnings, if you are looking for a pro-show review, this is it:

https://www.hypable.com/supernatural-season-13-best-ever/

Edited June 5, 2018 by SueB
Added ‘super’ in front of ‘pro’ to explain warning need.

[gonzosgirrl]

I disagree with about 98% of that review. Like to the extent I wonder if she is on Andrew Dabb's personal payroll, lol. But honestly the only thing that triggers me is being accused of being triggered when I just disagree. *g*

PS.. the Rowena and Charlie "road trip" is quite possibly the most absurd thing in a season chock-full of absurdity.

Edited June 5, 2018 by gonzosgirrl

[Pondlass1]

What is Hypable?  Would anyone out there  actually read this? I only skimmed through. 

She's probably a cousin or aunt or something. But it's nice that she took the time to write a long review and that she seems to have actually watched albeit through some squinty  glasses.

[SueB]

10 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

I disagree with about 98% of that review. Like to the extent I wonder if she is on Andrew Dabb's personal payroll, lol. But honestly the only thing that triggers me is being accused of being triggered when I just disagree. *g*

I’m sorry!  Not my intent!  I just wanted to warn people because it’s very positive and If you read it and it made you really pissed then I would have felt bad about not warning.  I may disagree with people on many topics but I’m not here to induce irritation   

BTW Is the *g* a grin?  In which case you’re yanking my chain and I fell for it?  If not, what does *g* mean? 

4 minutes ago, Pondlass1 said:

What is Hypable?  Would anyone out there  actually read this? I only skimmed through. 

She's probably a cousin or aunt or something. But it's nice that she took the time to write a long review and that she seems to have actually watched albeit through some squinty  glasses.

It’s a website but she’s an actual writer and has press credentials. They review many shows.  They recently finished a series long Buffy podcast rewatch review with a panel and they are almost done with Angel. She personally is from Australia.  I think Hypable is US based.  

 

ETA: I’m not related to the show and I pretty much agree with 90% of what she wrote.  Plus I like a season-long perspective and there aren’t many reviews except for whatever comes out when the DVD comes out.  

Edited June 5, 2018 by SueB

[gonzosgirrl]

4 minutes ago, SueB said:

I’m sorry!  Not my intent!  I just wanted to warn people because it’s very positive and If you read it and it made you really pissed then I would have felt bad about not warning.  I may disagree with people on many topics but I’m not here to induce irritation   

BTW Is the *g* a grin?  In which case you’re yanking my chain and I fell for it?  If not, what does *g* mean? 

Yes, *g* is shorthand for 'grin' in an emoticon-free zone.

But seriously 'triggered' has become such a hated buzzword for me, it, well... triggers me, I guess. LOL! It's a no-win. Like your justifiable annoyance over something being written off as 'PMSing', and then your anger over that brought forth as 'proof' of it.

Edited June 5, 2018 by gonzosgirrl

[SueB]

Got it!  And I understand ... turns out I have an actual trigger for a phobia (discovered in last 3 years) and IA, the term is over-used.  

Edited June 5, 2018 by SueB

[Pondlass1]

I think a lot of what adds to my disappointment and frustration with the show is my own expectations.  If I went in without expectations (as I do with 99% of other TV shows I watch) I wouldn't feel so let down I think. I'd love to feel the way this reviewer does.

(I never knew what *g* meant either - why don't we have emoticons here?)

[Myrelle]

1 hour ago, gonzosgirrl said:

I disagree with about 98% of that review. Like to the extent I wonder if she is on Andrew Dabb's personal payroll, lol. But honestly the only thing that triggers me is being accused of being triggered when I just disagree. *g*

PS.. the Rowena and Charlie "road trip" is quite possibly the most absurd thing in a season chock-full of absurdity.

 

The Wayward Sisters stuff made it absurd to me. I think that was when she lost me for the rest. An over abundance of personal opinion cloaked as facts for my taste in that part especially.

Edited June 5, 2018 by Myrelle

[DeeDee79]

3 hours ago, SueB said:

Natalie Fisher at Hypable did a S13 review. I enjoyed it. 

Trigger Warnings:

- it’s a super pro-show review. If that pisses you off, don’t click

- she hand waves some things that some have spent multiple post pages directing/criticizing. (Deleted second sentence — no need to presume anything) 

 

Having provided these warnings, if you are looking for a pro-show review, this is it:

https://www.hypable.com/supernatural-season-13-best-ever/

Thanks for taking the time to post this SueB. I have to say that I disagreed with the majority of the review and the header declaring season 13 as the best of the series almost made me stop reading beyond that.  I appreciate a positive viewpoint so that’s something I guess. ?

[ILoveReading]

Another thing about this reviewer is that I don't find she's Jensen or Dean friendly (unless Dean is fussing over Cas).

Plus, she'll block you if you disgree with her and point out show related points about what you disagree.

I have to agree with the others, I disagree with almost everything she says.  "Dean finally learned to use his words," 

Dean's been the most open and emtional character on the show since day one, so I really don't get this line of thinking.

Edited June 5, 2018 by ILoveReading

[catrox14]

 Fortunately, for me, Hypable is now asking me to remove my ad block or become a Patron.  I choose to do neither so, sorry, Hypable, I'm not reading it

[gonzosgirrl]

2 minutes ago, ILoveReading said:

Plus, she'll block you if you disagree with her and point out show related points about what you disagree.

That right there is enough for me to disregard her 'review' then. Any writer who can't abide, never mind engage in, respectful commentary or discussion of their writing, shouldn't be doing it. Not in a public forum anyway, and certainly not professionally.

6 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

 Fortunately, for me, Hypable is now asking me to remove my ad block or become a Patron.  I choose to do neither so, sorry, Hypable, I'm not reading it

This is the first two lines. Do you need to see more? lol.

Quote

Look, I always knew that Supernatural under showrunner Andrew Dabb was going to be good. But I never dreamed it could be this good.

[catrox14]

1 minute ago, ILoveReading said:

Another thing about this reviewer is that she's not Jensen or Dean friendly (unless Dean is fussing over Cas).

Plus, she'll block you if you disgree with her and point out show related points about what you disagree.

I have to agree with the others, I disagree with almost everything she says.  "Dean finally learned to use his words," 

Dean's been the most open and emtional character on the show since day one, so I really don't get this line of thinking.

I posted her article about Dean's grief in s13, and I liked it up to the point where I realized she doesn't have a clue about Dean. 

As you guys know, I am a full on Destiel shipper.  I do think the show plays around with Dean and Cas' relationship in ways that can be interpreted as romantic. Dean's grief over Cas' death was well done and she ended up making it about how Dean is somehow emotionally stunted or something and that's where she lost me on that article.

And TBF, I haven't read this one because it won't let me. I am more than happy to turn off my adblock for something I find worthwhile.  But IMO Natalie Fisher is kind of a troll writer.

[Aeryn13]

This is the reviewer who once likened Jensen to a NeoNazi for not shipping Destiel. Hard pass.  

[catrox14]

3 minutes ago, Aeryn13 said:

This is the reviewer who once likened Jensen to a NeoNazi for not shipping Destiel. Hard pass.  

Whoa....what?  Seriously? Holy crap.

[SueB]

8 minutes ago, Aeryn13 said:

This is the reviewer who once likened Jensen to a NeoNazi for not shipping Destiel. Hard pass.  

That's a really perjorative statement, I have a hard time believing it. 

[trxr4kids]

Quote

Mary and Castiel were both unconditionally loved, both unacceptable losses, so their respective perils were included to prove a point about the way Sam and Dean have changed. Back in the day, when they lost someone close to them, they did not react like this. They repressed and moved on, repressed and moved on, conveniently removing the mourning period from show’s tone sooner rather than later. This season, we see a story where the entire point, the build and climax of each episode, is about how the boys are unable to do that this time, and through this, it proves that they’re no longer willing to accept those kind of casualties as their lot in life – they’ll repress and move on no longer.

I couldn't disagree more with the point I put in italics and am bewildered by how anyone could claim the part I bolded. 

To the first part there's too many examples IMO as to make that laughable (see seasons 2 through 8). To the second part I bolded since I don't agree that they did that in the first place, ever (except when Sam hit a dog, arguably), I'll play devil's advocate and say we have no way of knowing if they would have done that according to her views since they had no reason to as Cas and Mary were saved.

Also a major point of contention for me is that bot were unconditionally loved since the show has taken great pains to show that Dean especially only loved Mary in particular conditionally ie: you won't cut my crusts fine you're dead to me then angry face.

ETA: There's a huge difference IMO between repression (another overused buzzword) and coping and functioning the best you can given loss and grief.

Edited June 5, 2018 by trxr4kids

[SueB]

31 minutes ago, trxr4kids said:

I couldn't disagree more with the point I put in italics and am bewildered by how anyone could claim the part I bolded. 

To the first part there's too many examples IMO as to make that laughable (see seasons 2 through 8). To the second part I bolded since I don't agree that they did that in the first place, ever (except when Sam hit a dog, arguably), I'll play devil's advocate and say we have no way of knowing if they would have done that according to her views since they had no reason to as Cas and Mary were saved.

Also a major point of contention for me is that bot were unconditionally loved since the show has taken great pains to show that Dean especially only loved Mary in particular conditionally ie: you won't cut my crusts fine you're dead to me then angry face.

ETA: There's a huge difference IMO between repression (another overused buzzword) and coping and functioning the best you can given loss and grief.

 

I think it's definitely accurate that the show allowed itself to change tone pretty quickly after a major death.  OTOH, I think John, Bobby, and Kevin's death all had callbacks that were plot relevant for more than 2 or 3 episode.  John's death was a key contributor to Dean's crossroad's deal.  Bobby's death started Dean on an alcoholic arc that they ended up abandoning, but it was there for several episodes. Kevin's death drove the Mark of Cain decision and they revisited his plight 4 or 5 episodes later.  

But S6 Dean said:

Quote

 

DEAN You shove it down, and you let it come out in spurts of violence and alcoholism.

SAM That sounds healthy.

DEAN Well, works for me.

 

And in S12, Dean stewed in the Bunker for a few days after the big fight with Mary before he went out for a drink and violence.  And even then, it wasn't a real "spurt".  It came and went in the course of the episode.  So, I think Dean showed he was dealing better.  In fact I'm not sure the "functioning alcoholic" description from S10 is true anymore (which is not realistic IRL... but I think they've shown less angst drinking). And in S13, he flat out said he wasn't all-right a BUNCH of times. And he wasn't shit-faced when he could have been.  He really didn't want to "open a vein" but he didn't shut down Sam, he expressed where his head was at when Sam nudged him past pro-forma objections. 

Conversely I think Sam would have talked more about his feelings in the earlier season but he followed Dean's "no chick flick moment" lead for a while.  Then I think he internalized some "shame" associated with the demon blood infection and started keeping shit to himself. I think that came to a head in S5 with the whole "I'm angry. All the time." speech.  With the exception of the (IMO) reasonable rage he had towards Dean during the second half of S9, he's been reasonably forthcoming since then.  

So, I guess I think she has a point that the S13 Winchester are willing to deal with an issue when ready (sooner rather than never) and that wasn't the case in S1-S9ish.  It's definitely improved IMO since then.  

As for "repressing and move on" no longer -- well avoidance is a natural reaction in many circumstances.  But I think they are successfully fighting against that instinct more now than they did before. 

Edited June 5, 2018 by SueB

[gonzosgirrl]

Look, I always knew that Supernatural under showrunner Andrew Dabb was going to be good. But I never dreamed it could be this good.

I'm still not convinced that whole article wasn't meant for The Onion. Honestly, how does one type that with a straight face or expect what follows to be taken seriously.

Edited June 5, 2018 by gonzosgirrl
clarity

[trxr4kids]

I just think that anyone who hasn't seen Dean grieve often and repeatedly is not watching the same show I am. IMO it's been his major character arc since S2 and I've seen no repression, unhealthy coping mechanisms sure. I don't want to turn this into b vs j but IMO Sam is the one who sometimes (as plot demands) goes into emotional lockdown not Dean, who alternately reflects and projects his grief at anyone or anything in at least a mile wide perimeter.

[companionenvy]

1 hour ago, trxr4kids said:

Also a major point of contention for me is that bot were unconditionally loved since the show has taken great pains to show that Dean especially only loved Mary in particular conditionally ie: you won't cut my crusts fine you're dead to me then angry face.

I think "you won't cut my crusts" was a vast simplification of Dean's issues with Mary, and I think it is clear he never stopped loving her even when he was very angry and not willing to be around her. That's unconditional love, IMO. 

I do agree that we've seen grieving Dean before - I don't know that this season had meaningfully more emotional continuity than plenty of others in which Dean, especially, was clearly in a bad place. 

[trxr4kids]

24 minutes ago, companionenvy said:

I think "you won't cut my crusts" was a vast simplification of Dean's issues with Mary, and I think it is clear he never stopped loving her even when he was very angry and not willing to be around her. That's unconditional love, IMO. 

While I can agree it was an a vast simplification it's what the show peddled IMO. I can also agree he was angry with her but I believe that stemmed from her unwillingness to be around them and accept them as her sons. Dean IMO has always loved unconditionally until they decided for plot reasons to make his love conditional in order to prop Mary's *extremist viewpoint.

* the ends justify the means regardless of how vastly simplistic her envisioned ends were ie: Dean and Sam the declared dead serial killer brothers could just hang up their spurs and have an apple pie life if only if it weren't for those meddling monsters, that Mary's agenda didn't factor in any of that not to mention heaven and hell is ridiculous, that the means involved working for her sons torturers and coercing them to participate is either ludicrous or heinous depending on your POV, I'm going with the latter.

I'll take my soapbox and go now.

[MysteryGuest]

I read her review.  It's always interesting to see someone else's perspective on something you've already formed an opinion on.  I can agree with a lot of what she has to say, but there are some things I'd disagree with.  I personally wouldn't call season 13 the "best season ever"...not by a long shot.  But it also wasn't the worst for me, and parts of it I enjoyed quite a bit.  A big part of my final rating for the season will be contingent upon whether Lucifer is truly dead.  I'm going to be angry if he's back because I've wanted him gone for so long now, and I'm going to feel manipulated.  

I'm not sure about all of the returning characters.  It got a bit silly after a while, I thought.  But her comments about how Bobby and Charlie really are the same people they knew, just without the same memories, made me think that maybe it could work if they were to remain in our world.  And for whatever strange reason, I'm suddenly onboard with keeping Ketch around.  I guess it all depends on just how the Michael story plays out next season. 

[companionenvy]

As a whole, I thought the season was OK - there were tons of missed opportunities, and some plotting issues, but it kept me consistently entertained and I was rarely throwing things at the screen. Scoobynatural alone - which wasn't quite up there with the very best few episodes, IMO, but came close --  elevates the season as a whole for me, and I agreed with the writer that Jack, while not the most complex character ever drawn, was an enjoyable one in whom I was emotionally invested. And even after a couple of weeks to let it settle -- and having been pretty sure it was coming because of spoilers -- "What if...you had your sword?" goes down for me as one of the series' great moments. 

[DeeDee79]

1 hour ago, trxr4kids said:

I'll take my soapbox and go now.

*snicker* ?

[catrox14]

1 hour ago, MysteryGuest said:

I'm not sure about all of the returning characters.  It got a bit silly after a while, I thought.  But her comments about how Bobby and Charlie really are the same people they knew, just without the same memories, made me think that maybe it could work if they were to remain in our world. 

This is exactly the problem for me with Not!Charlie and Not!Bobby.  They shouldn't be the same people. They shouldn't have the same personalities or desires or whatever since they are from an alternate universe. I mean isn't the point of an alternate universe in a storyline, or at least one that I personally find interesting, is that they are different? That they behave differently, have different attitudes, different demeanors to a great extent?  Otherwise, they could just have made up any kind of supernatural reason to resurrect the OG Bobby and OG Charlie by saying Amara decided to give them back as gifts to the boys, and not just Mary.

Thus far to me this smacks of nothing more than a convoluted way to bring back fan favorites (which is highly debatable as to how favored they are). And IMO it cheapens their deaths and makes death even more meaningless in this show than it is already. YMMV

Edited June 5, 2018 by catrox14

[MysteryGuest]

3 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

Thus far to me this smacks of nothing more than a convoluted way to bring back fan favorites (which is highly debatable as to how favored they are). And IMO it cheapens their deaths and makes death even more meaningless in this show than it is already.

Oh, I think it's definitely a way to bring back fan favorites, just with a bit of a different spin.  I don't know.  Maybe I'm feeling nostalgic because the show is winding down, so having these characters back, potentially for the remainder of the show, doesn't really bother me.  I don't know that they won't return to the AU at some point.  I would hate to think that the show would just forget about what was happening in that world.  I know that Bobby and Charlie are not universally loved, so not everyone's going to be happy with their return.  But they were characters I wish the show had never killed off, so I'm interested in seeing where they might go with this.

[DeeDee79]

9 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

They shouldn't be the same people. They shouldn't have the same personalities or desires or whatever since they are from an alternate universe. I mean isn't the point of an alternate universe in a storyline, or at least one that I personally find interesting, is that they are different? That they behave differently, have different attitudes, different demeanors to a great extent? 

Exactly. With that logic I guess that deep down Cas and his AU counterpart are one in the same. Bobby and Charlie were brought back as fanservice and personally I hate the fact that they're supposed to be different people with no bonds with Sam and Dean. Part of what I loved about them in the first place was their close relationships with the Winchesters. And I'll say again that out of all of them Kevin deserved the most to be brought over from the AU to get his happily ever after or at least some semblance of it. SPN really shit all over Kevin Tran.

[gonzosgirrl]

What really bothers is me is the how thoroughly this season (and last, with the introduction of this Mary Winchester) has ruined rewatching for me. The emotional impact of Bobby's death, the innocence of Chuck the prophet. I can't invest in any of it. I can't even measure the loss I feel over episodes like WIAWSNB and In The Beginning, given the abomination that is resurrected Mary. 

[DeeDee79]

3 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

What really bothers is me is the how thoroughly this season (and last, with the introduction of this Mary Winchester) has ruined rewatching for me. The emotional impact of Bobby's death, the innocence of Chuck the prophet. I can't invest in any of it. I can't even measure the loss I feel over episodes like WIAWSNB and In The Beginning, given the abomination that is resurrected Mary. 

Co-sign. I actually wouldn't have minded Chuck as God if there was a scene that showed where God took Chuck as a vessel after he had only been a prophet instead of the idea that he had been God all along. When you look back at his prior appearances it just makes Chuck seem like a colossal dick.

[catrox14]

32 minutes ago, DeeDee79 said:

With that logic I guess that deep down Cas and his AU counterpart are one in the same.

Which...holy shit...what a horrible thing for the writers to imply about Cas.

Edited June 6, 2018 by catrox14

[DeeDee79]

14 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

Which...holy shit...what a horrible thing for the writers to imply about Cas.

And his character is the only one that's drastically different from their RW counterpart. Bobby, Kevin, Charlie and even Zachariah are pretty much the same as in the regular SPN world. Cas is the only anomaly.

[catrox14]

14 minutes ago, DeeDee79 said:

And his character is the only one that's drastically different from their RW counterpart. Bobby, Kevin, Charlie and even Zachariah are pretty much the same as in the regular SPN world. Cas is the only anomaly.

Yeah. And even OG Castiel, didn't seem to be headed down a Nazi-esque torturer character.  They could have spent all season developing that character to explain why he was so different than AU characters.

Unless we find out in a big swerve that all the AU characters will be revealed to be evil doppelgangers at some point LOL

[DeeDee79]

8 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

Unless we find out in a big swerve that all the AU characters will be revealed to be evil doppelgangers at some point LOL

Now that would be an interesting twist! Maybe during their road trip Rowena will find out that Charlie is a hunter that hates all supernatural beings. Or maybe she is a witch herself with extreme loyalty to Olivette :)

Edited June 6, 2018 by DeeDee79

[SueB]

5 hours ago, gonzosgirrl said:

Look, I always knew that Supernatural under showrunner Andrew Dabb was going to be good. But I never dreamed it could be this good.

I'm still not convinced that whole article wasn't meant for The Onion. Honestly, how does one type that with a straight face or expect what follows to be taken seriously.

I think Dabb does a good job.  I particularly like his big arc’s.  

[catrox14]

4 minutes ago, SueB said:

I particularly like his big arc’s.

I'm not being snarky when I ask this -- what big arcs? I don't see anything that points to arcs as much as happenstance writing with maybe some lucky connecting the dots.

[DeeDee79]

8 minutes ago, SueB said:

I think Dabb does a good job.  I particularly like his big arc’s.  

I respect your opinion but personally I think that the Dabb along with his writers who state that they haven't watched the early seasons have done much to ruin the show for me. It's especially baffling because Dabb wrote one of my favorite episodes ( The Prisoner ) along with others that I've enjoyed. My love for Dean Winchester is what's keeping me here as well as my desire to see how the story of the Winchesters ends. I still have love for the show but when I watch the earlie seasons that were run by Kripke I feel sad when I think of what it's become. IMO of course.

[ILoveReading]

I can't even say what this season was about. 

There was no plot.  Just a bunch of ideas that the writers threw on screen hoping something would stick.

I've said before.  Dabb might be in charge but there is no leadership behind the scenes.

[DeeDee79]

1 minute ago, ILoveReading said:

There was no plot.  Just a bunch of ideas that the writers threw on screen hoping something would stick.

This so much. During seasons 1-11 there was an overall arc that tied the whole season together with few MOTW eps to fill things in. Season 1-Find Dad; Season 2-Kill the YED and wrap up the psychic kids story; Season 3- Get Dean out of his deal; Season 4-Kill Lilith & stop the seals from being broken; Season 5-Avert the Apocalypse; Season 6-Kill Eve with a side of get Sam's soul back; Season 7-Kill the Leviathans; Season 8-Complete the trials; Season 9-Kill Abaddon and stop Metatron; Season 10-Remove the MOC; Season 11-Defeat the Darkness; Season 12.....Defeat the MOL, Defeat Lucifer, Kill Lucifer's baby, The Adventures of Mary the Hunter; Season 13-Jack, AU World, Lucifer, Dead Cas, Asmodeus, WS Pilot, kitchen sink, etc, etc, etc...………………...

[SueB]

1 hour ago, DeeDee79 said:

I respect your opinion but personally I think that the Dabb along with his writers who state that they haven't watched the early seasons have done much to ruin the show for me. It's especially baffling because Dabb wrote one of my favorite episodes ( The Prisoner ) along with others that I've enjoyed. My love for Dean Winchester is what's keeping me here as well as my desire to see how the story of the Winchesters ends. I still have love for the show but when I watch the earlie seasons that were run by Kripke I feel sad when I think of what it's become. IMO of course.

I'll give you Buck-Lemming on that -- they only watch their episodes.  But not Dabb.  What makes you think Dabb never watched the early years?  I also know for a fact that Bobo Berens (and when they were there, Robbie Thompson and Adam Glass) ALL have watched every episode based on personal conversations at Wayward Cocktails at SDCC in 2015.  Glass called Dabb the "heart and soul" of the writing staff.  He was the one everyone went to for lore.  

Perez mentioned in a Nerdy Girl interview in Mar (?) 2017 that as a new person on the show, you have to go back and research the early episodes.  In addition to live tweeting most episodes, he's often showing pics of the memorabilia he bought, including some out-of-print Supernatural (the TV show) mythology book on Etsy. He dressed up as Bobby for Halloween.
Meridith Glynn live tweets plus tweets mid week about Supernatural.  She's got Sam & Dean action figures. She went to the opening of the Family Don't End With Blood party.  No one pays her to do that. Her comments are often in depth and reflect how well she knows the show and characters.  Clearly a fan as well as a writer. 
Yockey has said the least (as far as I know) about how much he's researched past seasons but it was either he or Perez who tweeted out they were binge watching all the old episodes.

Show Assistant Meghan Amanda tweeted out her "scorecard" of reading all 264 (at the time) episodes of SPN. She and Mary Manchin (Post coordinator) also keep a map with pins/string for everyplace the boys went in every episode.  

Bottom Line:  Your comment (highlighted) implies they haven't watched past episodes.  Unless you've got some interview that contradicts what I've seen, that's just not consistent at all with what the writers have said in interviews and on twitter.  Notable exception is Buck-Lemming, who've been there since S1 and haven't watched all the episodes.  I'll give you those two.  Otherwise, I don't see any evidence that the current writers haven't all watched the past episodes.  
 

[SueB]

2 hours ago, catrox14 said:

I'm not being snarky when I ask this -- what big arcs? I don't see anything that points to arcs as much as happenstance writing with maybe some lucky connecting the dots.

They told us what the Season 13 was going to be about last September (Dabb & Singer, pre-season special).  S12 they had a lot of allies and at the end of the bloodbath they had lost so many people, important people to them.  It was Sam & Dean looking for the spawn of Satan. So S13 was going to be "what do you do when you've had such a great loss?"

The single sentence answer for S13's "purpose" was to rebuild/reshape the Supernatural family -- both it's allies and enemies. I think they did that.  

What long plot arcs did we get in S13:
1) Rebuild/recover/expand Team Free Will- it started back with just Sam & Dean and by the end of the season they've surrounded themselves with a ton of new (and old) allies.  This arc is complete (and is the main arc of the season).
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. 
3) World & universe deconstruction - Hell is leaderless, Heaven closed it's doors.  The Heaven story was more consistent. I think the Hell deconstruction was weak. This is a slow-burn arc that is developing over S13/S14 IMO. 

Character arcs for S13:
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.  They'll experience it again - hello, Supernatural - but I don't think it'll get the same level of attention. 
2) Cas got his groove back.  He's still carrying the weight of all the shit that's happened in the past (his horror at the loss of Heaven is palpable), but I think he's more confident in his decision.  I think the payoff to the arc was supposed to be the juxtaposition of Cas who was forever changed by the Winchesters vs Cas who stayed the 'good soldier'.  I think Naomi was right - Cas was always different.  In the AU, without the Winchesters, 'good soldier Cas' turned into a bit of a psychotic tool of Michael's.  I think our Cas recognized that without the humanizing influence of the Winchesters, Heaven would have broken him and turned him into something awful. I feel this arc may be two distinct parts - S13 a recognition of who Cas now "is" and S14 perhaps a better shaping of who Cas will be. 
3) Jack - We got the tried and true "nature vs nurture" -- nature won. Works for me. His "I love you" self-sacrifice moment was pure Winchester. I think the fundamental arc of establishing him as part of TFW 2.0 is over. 
4) Lucifer - His final fall.  In a season full of redemption, they demonstrated he was forever beyond redemption.  He tried on several different "roles", but in the end, he really just wanted to replace his Dad -- which was always his problem.  And now he's dead.  Some beings you just can't save.  And no, I don't think for one minute that he'll be back.  Most of the writing staff posted "Salt and Burn" just before the episode aired.  I'm pretty sure they were just as happy to have Lucifer finally most sinerely dead.  He was fun to write snarky bits for, but his story was complete.  Lucifer's was a 2 season arc S12/S13.  Done now. 

Perhaps the thing that doesn't bother me but bothers others is that there's just so many threads.  IMO the show is more complex than ever and they have a ton of different directions they can go.  Ultimately I think Dabb has at least a 4 year deal and intends to square away Heaven and Hell before he's finished. 

Note: I thought about annotating each arc I listed with the episodes that initiated, built, and completed the arcs but that's a lot of work and I'm not sure you'd all be interested.  Instead I just marked off whether or not it was complete.  

[catrox14]

1 hour ago, SueB said:

Perez mentioned in a Nerdy Girl interview in Mar (?) 2017 that as a new person on the show, you have to go back and research the early episodes.  In addition to live tweeting most episodes, he's often showing pics of the memorabilia he bought, including some out-of-print Supernatural (the TV show) mythology book on Etsy. He dressed up as Bobby for Halloween.

Perez also said on Twitter that he'd only seen like 25 episodes....so if he did what you are listing above, he did it later. And frankly for someone who's watched many episodes, he didn't have a clue about Dean IMO.  But that's another discussion for another thread. 

 

29 minutes 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. 

I give you this one. That seems to be the only one they really cared about IMO.  And IMO, they sacrificed Sam, Dean and Castiel's arcs for Wayward Sisters.

As to the rest, to me they only were answering fan demands or complaints or tweets or what have you and maybe even cast members wanting those characters back.  They also said that the character Jensen would play wasn't anyone we've seen recently and it turned out to be AU Michael....

To me, there are just too many inconsistencies in how I think they tell a story to make it a fulfilled arc. 

Thanks for anwering.

[companionenvy]

When it comes to the AU characters, I think you need a happy medium. On Once Upon a Time, the writers were fond of creating AUs where the characters were the polar opposites of their prime-verse characters, without necessarily worrying about whether or not that would or wouldn't be a reasonable extrapolation of those personalities. That wasn't all that effective either. Whereas in Buffy's "The Wish," there was much more of a mix; Buffy was harder and more cynical, but was still fighting the good fight, for instance, and even vampire Willow, disturbingly, retains aspects of Willow's personality. including some aspects that wouldn't be apparent in Willow prime for a few more seasons. 

Realistically, some AU characters are going to more or less retain their personalities. But if you want to make those characters interesting, IMO, you need to give them sufficiently developed and distinctly different motivations, backgrounds, etc. Probably the most successful element of OUaT season 7 was an AU version of Hook, who is fundamentally similar to the original version (who was no longer on the show; season 7 was a soft reboot). But he works precisely because he isn't simply being slotted into a storyline that the original Hook could more or less have filled equally well, were he still around; he's got a compelling plot involving reuniting with his daughter, who does not exist in the prime universe. 

In SPN, there could have been a mix. I like Bobby a lot, but he's not a super complex character and I'm not sure if I needed to see a radically altered version of him. But while AU-Earth is a much grimmer place than Sam and Dean's version, it is a difference of degree rather than kind. Our Bobby was also involved in some pretty tight battles, in those last few years. So essentially, we're left with a character who is not meaningfully different from our Bobby and whose circumstances, while different, aren't different enough to provide an interesting twist on the character. He's simply Bobby without any prior connection to Sam and Dean, which robs him of a lot of what made us care about him.  A good AU Bobby might be, for instance, a Bobby living in the very early days of a post-apocalyptic world who had not become a hunter and needed to be initiated into the supernatural world. 

But if Bobby is going to more or less be our Bobby, you have to work to vary it up with other characters, and five minutes with OTT evil Cas doesn't count. For the time we spent in the AU this season, we simply didn't get enough time with interesting variations on prime characters in favor of hanging out with what were essentially clones stripped of emotional context (Bobby and then Charlie). 

Edited June 6, 2018 by companionenvy

[gonzosgirrl]

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. 

[DeeDee79]

7 hours ago, SueB said:

But not Dabb.  What makes you think Dabb never watched the early years? 

My statement was to mean Dabb plus the writers who haven't watched, not stating that Dabb himself hasn't. As @catrox14 stated above Perez said last season that he hadn't watched all of the episodes.

Edited June 6, 2018 by DeeDee79

[DeeDee79]

4 hours ago, companionenvy said:

He's simply Bobby without any prior connection to Sam and Dean, which robs him of a lot of what made us care about him. 

Yes! This is exactly my problem with AU Bobby.

[ILoveReading]

7 hours ago, SueB said:

3) Jack - We got the tried and true "nature vs nurture" -- nature won. Works for me. His "I love you" self-sacrifice moment was pure Winchester. I think the fundamental arc of establishing him as part of TFW 2.0 is over.

I don't see this as a season long arc.  Because IMO, a successful Nature vs Nurture storyline should have had the viewer wondering whether Jack had a darkside.   Whether he would end up siding with Lucifer.   The show never matched the tell.  Everything they showed us is that Jack just wanted to help and how he wanted to do good.   They paid lip service now and then but Jack never really did anything I would consider dark.  I can't really look at him going after the convience store guy because we've seen Sam, Dean and Cas go off on people.   The darkest thing this season was Dean pulling a gun on Kaia.  Jack never even came close.  He'd get all sad and mopey if Sam and Dean even entertained the thought he might have done something wrong.  They even made it canon that if Jack went darkside it was Dean's fault not Jack's nature. 

IMO, a well written arc, I should have been questioning whether Jack was going to choose the Winchesters or Lucifer.  It never even crossed my mind he'd pick Lucifer. 

It seems like Clark's had the most influence over Jack this season because he met him first and bought him candy.  This '"arc" ended the minute Jack announced he loved nougat.

Quote

Bottom Line:  Your comment (highlighted) implies they haven't watched past episodes.  Unless you've got some interview that contradicts what I've seen, that's just not consistent at all with what the writers have said in interviews and on twitter.  Notable exception is Buck-Lemming, who've been there since S1 and haven't watched all the episodes.  I'll give you those two.  Otherwise, I don't see any evidence that the current writers haven't all watched the past episodes.  

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.

Quote

The single sentence answer for S13's "purpose" was to rebuild/reshape the Supernatural family -- both it's allies and enemies. I think they did that. 

I feel like we've been seeing variations on this since s2's Bloodlust where the show redefined what it means to be a monster.  The Winchesters have been rebuilding/reshaping their family when new characters are introduced.  These days everyone who works with the Winchesters more than once gets pronounced family. 

Edited June 6, 2018 by ILoveReading