Monster-Slayer: Why Bloodlines Failed Me
Monster-Slayer: Why Bloodlines Failed Me
Truth in advertising: I loathed Bloodlines, the failed back door pilot for a potential Supernatural spinoff. I despised it so much that I deleted it from my TiVo DVR the day after it was recorded. I didn’t even erase Man’s Best Friend With Benefits that fast, and I lambasted that episode without mercy.
I just rewatched Bloodlines with the DVD audio commentary by writer Andrew Dabb, director Robert Singer, and showrunner Jeremy Carver in the hope of understanding the thinking that had gone into producing it. End result? I now loathe it even more, and I earnestly wish the show’s production folk could understand why. Here’s the gist:
I. Don’t. Care. About. Monsters.
Period.
Oh, and I don’t believe in them, either.
Here’s the thing. I realized some time ago that Supernatural had lost something important it used to have – well, something that had been important to me, anyway. That loss pretty much happened in Swan Song, but it became concrete and explicit in The French Mistake. And it’s this: Sam and Dean aren’t in our world, and we and the show both know it now.
Okay, yeah, I know: Sam and Dean and monsters and hunting have ALWAYS been fictional. There aren’t really vampires, werewolves, shapeshifters, ruguru, wendigo, rakshasas, or other supernatural monsters in the world in which we live. But that was part of the romance we had with this series from its inception: the sense that there might have been things just a few degrees off our day-to-day reality, things we might glimpse only from the corners of our eyes, that were nonetheless real in an emotional, psychological sense. At their very best, the monsters mirrored the brothers’ own personal demons and insecurities, and helped us understand them. We could Google or book-research the monsters the brothers were fighting, and because of that, we had the tantlizing sense that both monsters and hunters could exist – and if we were very lucky, we might even glimpse the taillights of a certain vintage black Impala vanishing around the corner some dark night.
For me, that sense went away forever when The French Mistake made an explicit point of demonstrating that Sam and Dean exist in an alternate reality clearly separate and distinct from our own. While poking fun at Sam and Dean landing in a fictional version of their lives, replacing stereotypical actors named “Jared” and “Jensen” who were portraying their characters, that episode posited the existence of a multitude of alternate realities, one of which – although never actually depicted – could be ours.
I don’t fault The French Mistake for having made that choice. In a way, it was foreordained by the events of Swan Song, when we saw Dean, Bobby, and Cas watching televised accounts of massive disasters overtaking the world in the wake of Sam’s initial loss to Lucifer – widespread apocalyptic events which never happened in the world we know. Always before, we could have dismissed the localized effects of Supernatural‘s events precisely because they were very geographically limited, and even if we knew Sioux Falls wasn’t a little town and never had a widespread zombie epidemic, we could overlook the reality in favor of perpetuating the fiction. But worldwide apocalyptic events that left no mark? Not so much.
But I think Supernatural lost something when it went from being a tale of American urban legends and classical mythology to one where the driving forces were explicitly non-human, with the power struggles being between angelic factions or between pagan gods and Heaven and Hell with Earth and humans of no account except as a battleground. I think the writers lost some aspect of human buy-in that meant much more when human hunters were cast as the imperfect but essential force of good resisting a tide of evil often personified in malevolent ghosts and supernatural monsters. Now it seems humans are just the pawns of powers way beyond any hope of human understanding or control, and that has confusingly shifted the course and focus of the story from just the hearts and souls of the very human Winchester brothers to a more formless and confusing struggle between and among angels, demons, and a mostly absent God.
And that, to my mind, makes it harder to care about many of the stories and characters, especially when – as the commentators explicitly noted in Bloodlines – the whole idea was to ground a story in the monster viewpoint rather than presenting the familiar human, hunter perspective. Dabb, Singer, and Carver all described the genesis of Bloodlines as harking back to Supernatural‘s exploration of good and evil as not being dictated by the nature of a creature as either a monster or a human, but by the characteristics and choices of the individual in its society. I agree with that, but to explore that idea, they created a whole wealthy, pretty, exclusive society peopled by multiple races of monsters who somehow managed to live below human and hunter radar while simultaneously controlling large swathes of human society like the criminal mobs of Godfather fame.
That whole concept was so outlandish to me that it was utterly ridiculous and completely unbelievable, not to mention being majorly tone-deaf with regard to my understanding of fandom perceptions. I believe the Supernatural fandom is invested in the viewpoint the series itself created, which is a human one. Yes, stories have made us appreciate the redeeming qualities of individual “monsters” and the dangers of painting any race or class with a single brush, but they have done so through our discoveries of humanity in the parallels between the monsters and the brothers, from Bloodlust‘s Lenore to Metamorphosis‘s Jack to vampire Benny, and even to Castiel, his brother and sister angels, and demons Crowley and Cain.
I appreciated the parts of the commentary that revealed how scenes shot in Vancouver were interwoven with ones shot on location in Chicago; that discussed Singer fortunately having gotten unscripted but perfectly timed shots of Chicago’s El-train; that addressed Jay Gruska’s musical score or the audition beats that resulted in particular actors being cast for the principal roles; and that helped explain how Jerry Wanek’s design team could so rapidly manufacture structural architectural elements to build a large set on the soundstage (hello, CAD/CAM software!) – but I was dismayed to learn that in the 18 months they took to develop the concept and the script, they apparently never even considered that a monster-centric focus might not appeal to the core, human-centric Supernatural fanbase.
I’ll confess, I had hoped to learn that the genesis of the Bloodlines pilot was a deliberate attempt to appeal to CW network perceptions that attractive young monsters would sell well, based on the fan response to such shows as The Vampire Diaries, True Blood, Bitten, and the like, or that they undertook something the network wanted despite understanding it wouldn’t necessarily appeal to the bulk of Supernatural fandom. Unfortunately, what I heard in the commentary indicated to me that they (alas including Eric Kripke, who played a part in the planning phase) never once realized how alien and unwelcome this core concept might be to fans who – like me – had invested heavily in the very human, blue-collar Winchester brothers and didn’t care at all about the social lives and politics of rich, powerful and pretty vampires, werewolves, shapeshifters, and djinn.
Basically, if Bloodlines had been pitched as a genre cross between The Vampire Diaries, Dallas, True Blood, and The Sopranos, it might have done just fine; I wouldn’t have watched it, but it would at least have fit the mold used to sell it. But precisely because Supernatural has never truly been about the monsters, monster-focused Bloodlines had no Supernatural blood in it at all, and got rolled out of the nest like the cuckoo’s egg it was.
The CW still has hopes of launching a Supernatural spin-off of some type or another, hoping to capitalize on the Winchester brothers’ fanbase to support another show. I wish them success at that, but I think that chance rests on understanding what it is that draws most fans to Supernatural – and despite the show’s monster-and-horror surface, I think that’s something very human. I, for one, am into people who are very different and who struggle with each other but still love; I’m into the families we all make as well as the ones we’re born into; and I’m into the quest to always try to do the right thing even in the midst of circumstances that make it very hard to tell the difference between right and wrong. Give me another show that does that, with performances and production quality to match Supernatural, and I’ll watch it every week.
Bloodlines was never going to be that show, and based on what I heard in the commentary, its creators never even understood why.
I hope they know now.
I couldn’t agree more Bardicvoice. Especially this quote: “Now it seems humans are just the pawns of powers way beyond any hope of human understanding or control, and that has confusingly shifted the course and focus of the story from just the hearts and souls of the very human Winchester brothers to a more formless and confusing struggle between and among angels, demons, and a mostly absent God.”
Yep I lost interest in the first few minutes when the characters were introduced as you put it as “rich, powerful and petty” monsters. Not my cup of tea in any show let alone one touted as a Supernatural spin-off. Even though the show has strayed from it’s original roots the resemblance was non existent and offended me slightly as a blatant attempt to have us jump on board just because of it’s tenuous connection to SPN. Thanks Bardicvoice.
I’ve been saying this to myself for a few years now, mostly S7-9. When did the show quit caring about the humans? You know “SAVING PEOPLE…”. Somewhere along the way it became about the monsters, the supernatural creatures that Sam and Dean started to care about more than the poor shlobs that were the true victims. We (and I will speak for what I think is the vast majority) watch for the relationships of the brothers and their struggle to save humanity not just the third rock from the sun.
I knew that Kripke had some input into the pilot but I didn’t know at what stage. I can’t believe he looked at the final script and gave a “hell yeah, that’ll work”.
It was a horrible script that was horribly executed and took I am sure vast resources that might have been better spent on the mother ship. I can’t believe there was actually a commentary on the DVD about this episode. Were they that confident? So disappointing. 🙁
Although I will have to say that is a spectacular picture of the boys cruising down the streets of Chicago in, well not the Impala but close.
[quote]I, for one, am into people who are very different and who struggle with each other but still love; I’m into the families we all make as well as the ones we’re born into; and I’m into the quest to always try to do the right thing even in the midst of circumstances that make it very hard to tell the difference between right and wrong. Give me another show that does that, with performances and production quality to match Supernatural, and I’ll watch it every week.[/quote]
You’ve made an excellent point. You are always so eloquent and I love your posts. I agree with your assessment, but just this once I’d like to submit an idea: that the issue was somewhat deeper seated than simply placing the role of protagonist in the hands of monsters.
I was eager to see Bloodlines when I first heard about the proposed format because in all my years of watching the show, it was actually the monsters that I related with the most. Like almost everyone, I first ‘took to’ the Winchesters boys because they met a huge struggle head-on against a nebulous danger without knowing if they would be able to survive it. I related to that on an internal level immediately. I think most of us did and that was the start. I mean, when is there a day when we don’t feel that same battle in our daily lives, sometimes in a quite literal sense? I sympathized with Sam and Dean, and that bond grew exponentially as I watched. Their confusion over right and wrong and their desire to do good for others while saving themselves was all the encouragement I needed to face those same fears every day. They became my doorway to a world I was still growing into. We became family. And by way of that trust in their genuineness, I was able to watch their interactions with the monsters who reflected the same internal war. I became able to step outside myself, outside the boys, and see things from the bad guy’s point of view. As I watched, it dawned on me that I was being asked to consider that maybe sometimes the ‘other guy’s’ struggle aren’t all that different from my own. Eventually, not all monsters were redeemable. When it came down to it, many of them I was glad to see defeated. But I always learned something from them, just as Sam and Dean did. Monsters served a purpose for everyone, even Sam and Dean and me, even when the monsters didn’t realize it themselves. Even if they were simultaneously something I had to maintain a healthy fear about, even though I no longer feared the creepy crawly, I knew their value and that their ability to destroy was real enough.
Eliciting reality in a world that cannot exist is a tough nut to crack. If I can relate, that’s the only invitation I need to enter the world they are in. The problem with Bloodlines was that I couldn’t relate. Sam and Dean repeatedly gave me the impression that they could care less, which I felt to be out of character (Winchesters simply don’t put themselves first, period, not unless it’s them with the problem which makes them my priority one and that’s just too much plot-ground for me to cover) and so alliteratively I found it nearly impossible to spare the energy to care without them. The whole concept of monsters running a city is not that far-fetched, since we’ve seen evil running the Winchesters’ lives behind the scenes from day one. The problem wasn’t so much the dark power trip of potential doom (doom for whom?), it was that we never really got to see it and establish it as the force to be overcome. We didn’t get a good chance to establish a long-term [i]redeemable[/i] quality in the monster characters. They were one-dimensional, already ‘good’, and their cement truck’s worth of arc was shoehorned into a single visit to the Windy City. I was not left wondering how they would fare alone since it was pretty obvious. They didn’t need the Winchesters and they didn’t need me.
A storyline based on monsters, or even a single monster, could be successful if it followed not just the structure of the show but the underlying gravitas that you so eloquently described. I would have chosen a spin-off for a character like Benny, who has a quasi-filial connection to Dean and a story of his own that is still so full of question marks. I wanted to know more about him. I wanted to see what happened to him, how he became what he was. I wanted to see why needed his soul back so much that he would do anything to get it. I wanted to see him head-on against a nebulous danger, saving others along the way, without knowing if he would be able to survive it. I could have been him. I could have been learning so much.
Monsters have been ‘adopted’ by fans in nearly every season, and you listed a few as well. In each of those cases, though, the monsters were shunning the monster world and trying valiantly to coincide with the human world. Their fall was often recorded in the show, and the fall was always a failure to overcome their true nature, which is something we all contend with. It’s not going to be enough to grant monsters a dose of humanity. It won’t be adopted overnight that humans live in a monster world or that monsters are playing at mafiosi in a human world. That type of paradigm shift needs to happen gradually and be introduced as another layer in the main characters’ struggle, something that should keep us up at night figuring out for them.
They just tried too hard. There was too much idea and not enough meaning. If they can flip those two things around, they’ll have much better luck next time.
(The caveat emptor rests with the network and not the fans! How very strange to be in a world where we can collaborate directly with the creative mind. Is that alternate universe #542,638? Who knows.)
Bardicvoice -I agree with you about this episode. I do wonder how the series would have been if the writers maintained the brothers human fight against monsters as in Seasons 1-5, without going on to meta episodes like The FrenchMistake. The ability of the writers in including hell, heaven, pergatory, angels, demons, god and gods has opened up all sorts of story lines and growth for the two leads characters. As time goes on, it is natural for the stories and characters to change. So, could you respond as to what you think the series would be like now if the writers would not have gone to the more “glorified” fights between the brothers and the angels/demons/gods?
If they wanted me to watch and enjoy it, and plan to watch every week, they needed to do as you suggested – make it about humans (including the Winchester brothers) and not about the monsters. I don’t care about or watch the 20-something CW shows, and that’s exactly what Bloodlines tried to be. They had the Winchester brothers in it just enough to call it a SPN spinoff, but if they want a true spinoff the fans will watch, I say they need to give us Young John and Mary, or earlier Men of Letters. Give us characters we already know and love and want to see more of.
I think early MOL could work, or just do a show around Henry Winchester. I’d even watch a show about a young John Winchester learning about the supernatural, etc. Get to see Caleb, Pastor Jim, and other hunters. The problem w/that is we’ve become so used to the actors but I’d give it a shot.
First, the idea that Sam and Dean were unaware that 5 monster families controlled Chicago (and no other hunters they know had this info) was ludicrous. Second, Sam and Dean actually came across as awkward and out of place in the episode. Yes, I fear TPTB have no clue what makes Supernatural work the way it does. It’s the humanity of the characters and their struggles to do the right thing under difficult circumstances. It’s about family and what constitutes family. It’s the bond between Sam and Dean. Then it ends with the human cop shooting the human bad guy point blank instead of taking him in to custody. He was seeking revenge over monsters killing his 4 year old, his family. Sound familiar?
I think I agree on all statements here why it didn’t work, but for me actually the worst part wasn’t the monsters running Chicago. (Even if it was ludicrous)
To me the most interesting character on the whole episode was “the monster” except that was he? I saw the man to be a hunter with Freddy Kruger weaponry. He had lost his family/child (Sorry, watched this episode only once so can’t remember how it was) to monsters so he was now -hunting- them. And he was the -bad- guy? Ha-ha-hah… Seriously, I am not laughing. He even said that it was an accident that the girlfriend died and then he was shot just like that while the brothers were present. I would yell Blasphemy and all other bad words if the episode would be worth it. But it was not. It was horrid in all sense. Even the brothers wanted to split it as soon as possible.
Rant over. It was terrible. Music and Chicago was beautiful. The brothers did what they could but just. Ugh…
– Lilah
I agree about why Blood Lines didn’t work. And I also agree with Liah. I found the Human “monster” actually the most intriguing of all the charectores…..well the only one really. I think it would have been fascinating to watch his journey……hell They could have had a type “Punisher” type on the outskirts of the supernatural world….seeking revenge for his loved ones deaths….and finding himself skirting the line between monster and human. Meanwhile he could find an ally or two in the monster world. it would have been dark yet very very human. It would be bringing us into the world, wanting revenge/justice yet rooting for our ‘hero’ to retain his humanity. in a way…a reverse Cain with our hero on the slow road to healing whiile determined too keep others from suffering the same as he did.
I think even Dean spelled that out as the theme for SN back in Wendigo.
The fact that the show decided to kill off the human character who was fighting monsters because one of them had hurt his family means that they killed off John Winchester. Imagine where we’d be if that happened in the pilot of Supernatural! They went so far against the formula of the show that they were trying to emulate that it had to fail.
I do see your point, and in some ways I agree, but in other ways I’m not sure. I hated “Bloodlines” as well. I took as more than a failure of tone, it was a plain insult to “Supernatural” fans everywhere. It literally, even though not intentionally, made a mockery of the original concept, aka the core foundation of “Supernatural.” Anything that is tied to this show needs to follow that core concept or is blasphemy. “Bloodlines” was sheer blasphemy.
I do believe “Bloodlines” failure was due to a lot of what is causing such a disparity between “Supernatural” under the Kripke era and then post Kripke. “Supernatural” used to be written with a lot of heart. You hit the nail on the head when you mentioned the shows focus shifting from the heart and soul of Sam and Dean to a more formless struggle between angels and demons. Also, somewhere along the line, this new crop of writers began confusing “feels” with “heart.” They have clearly drifted away from the core concept of the show, and when that happens in your main show, the spinoff will likely be ill-advised.
I can see on paper why a new spinoff would embrace a big city setting in contrast to the rural, backwoods locales in “Supernatural.” I can see why they would think that focusing on the monster side as opposed to the human side opens up bold new territory. Bottom line though, if you can’t relate to the characters or their struggle, then who wants to watch the story? If the tone makes you think that you’re watching a trashy soap as opposed to a dramatic, engaging family tale, why bother? Yes, some people like the soaps. Like you said though, then the story shouldn’t have “Supernatural” tagged with it.
I’m a lot more open to the idea of monsters being the main characters though. I do watch other CW shows and enjoy them. So far The CW has had one successful spinoff (one big one coming too) and it’s a show I absolutely love, “The Originals.” It has worked because the original family so dominated the storyline of “The Vampire Diaries” they were crowding the other characters out. Now that they have their own series, it’s no wonder. They’re so good it was a no-brainer that they have their own show. Heck, “The Vampire Diaries” even suffered for it, producing in season five what I think is the worst season of the series.
“Supernatural” only has one character that comes close to the original family in comparison and that’s Castiel. The idea of a Castiel spinoff has been nixed by The CW though, and/or the SPN writers in general. The reasons are numerous, but no one believes that Misha Collins or an angel based storyline can carry a whole series. I’m not going to debate if they’re right or wrong (although if written right I think it can work, but Castiel has never been widely embraced by this writing team). It seems to me that the network wanted a spinoff, and it became a situation where the writers could tell the new story they wanted to tell, not necessarily the story that fans wanted to watch. It’s no wonder, they’ve been writing “Supernatural” that way since season six. They probably honestly believed they had a shot.
I so agree that monster families was ill-advised. No matter what you do in a spinoff, there has to be a trace of connection with the main show. Aside from Sam and Dean awkwardly showing up in this mess, that was pretty much the only clue that “Supernatural” was involved here. They even forgot their own monster lore, aka a Shapeshifter just doing a quick shift and not shedding its skin. It’s almost like they wanted to pretend “Supernatural” never existed. The character of Ennis wasn’t relatable at all and his cold shooting of the HUMAN villain at the end, who was really someone like Sam and Dean with a tragic backstory shown in a far less sympathetic light, is exactly what killed this from ever going to series.
Let’s go back to “The Originals.” Klaus Mikaelson is a tyrant. He’s also a very fascinating character to watch, and is redeemable. Just when you think he’s gone too far, that human part of him, the human part that was changed over a thousand years ago, comes through. He’s the conflicted character, and Joseph Morgan is dynamic and just plain freaking brilliant. Ennis was NONE of that. He was a bland character that we didn’t want to get to know and in the end, his motivations made absolutely no sense to us. The only trace of a relatable hero in this story was David Lassiter, and he was very much neutralized in this episode to pretty background. Anyone see Nathaniel Buzolic on “The Vampire Diaries” and “The Originals”? He’s a very dynamic and engaging actor. His presence was totally wasted here and it’s a shame.
It all boils down to the fact that whatever idea they had on paper, the execution was deplorable. The characters were bad, the concept was bad, the tie with the original series was non-existent, and don’t get me started on what they were thinking with their “strong” female characters. Rich bitches in their nice dresses and expensive jewelry flashing their monster eyes and fangs any time they got in a little tizzy? Oh boy, don’t mess with them! Too bad “The 100” wasn’t around when they were constructing this. That’s the definition of strong and competent female characters.
“Bloodlines” also exposed one of the biggest weaknesses of Andrew Dabb, which is why he’ll probably never have a series of his own – characterization. He’s good at telling a monster story (and he’s been a big driver of the lore for “Supernatural” for the last few years), but injecting heart into that story and making the characters come alive is something he’s always struggled with. It’s bad enough when he struggles with very strong established characters like Sam and Dean , can you imagine him trying new ones? Sadly out of this bunch, I think only Jeremy Carver has the talent to create a new show from scratch. Okay, maybe Robert Berens.
So, that’s why I have zero confidence that a spinoff will ever work for “Supernatural.” Not unless Ben Edlund comes back and writes every script for “Castiel: Angel Warrior.” An origin story is always possible, but I’m not convinced it could carry a whole series, not unless they can somehow convince Jeffrey Dean Morgan to come back (not happening). Even then, it has to be written right, and the flashback stories lately haven’t exactly been all that compelling or true to continuity. It’s okay, they never figured out a way to spinoff “The X-files” either. Sometimes, the original is just too special to be recreated again.
Thanks for stirring up this topic! It does amaze me how this ended up being the result of all that planning. I do wonder if they really thought they had something special on their hands. If so, they have truly lost touch with the preferences of this fanbase. I think they have, because of the producers’ panel at VanCon. A fan asked them about the dipping quality of the show, and all of those guys on the stage thought they were doing great. After all, the ratings are the highest they’ve even been. I swear when they came up with that answer, I wanted to slap them all upside the head. That’s the myopic entertainment business mentality and not grounded in reality. They don’t realize that their successes are based on an extremely loyal fanbase that Eric Kripke and team captured for them. No one thinks the show is as good as it was. That’s their justification for doing what they want. Nothing sadly is going to change that perception. Yep, having an extremely loyal fanbase is both a blessing and a curse.
Is that the problem with a potential spinoff maybe? There aren’t enough original characters as was the case with the XFiles to make a spinoff that could carry the Supernatural label? The Vampire Diaries obviously had enough characters to carry two shows even though the original show suffered with the split. There are plenty of intriguing past characters that might work (still hoping for Samuel Colt myself) but I agree that it would have to be Carver (maybe with Beren’s?) to helm the show.
I agree that a whole show based on Angels might not be a huge success but would have been a thousand times better than the mess that we got with Bloodlines.
It is easier to spinoff when there’s a larger cast ensemble. It’s not only the only way though. Look at Arrow. That’s part of a bigger DC Universe, so they could have done any DC character. Just so happens, they’ve been pitching The Flash for years and found their opportunity. Supernatural has had so many different characters and created so many different worlds there are some places, like Samuel Colt and the supernatural in the Old West that could be done. I personally think Kevin Tran: Prophet has a lot of story potential. That character has so much heart. Charlie too, although we know Felicia Day’s schedule makes it impossible. They tried The Ghostfacers as a web series. The point is, there’s a lot of stories in the Supernatural archive they could dig into. However, if the right idea isn’t fully developed and the bold pitch isn’t done, or if TPTB don’t see the potential, it’s a moot point.
I don’t think The French Mistake precludes Supernatural being in ‘our’ universe, because the actors on the television show are so obviously [i]not[/i] the real Jared and Jensen. So they didn’t land in our universe, they were in our universe and landed in a different one.
But the bigger point – is there any good show which has consistently remained on the air for longer than a few seasons and remained true to the same set-up as in the first? Even M*A*S*H, which remained focused on the 4077th, had various shifts in tone over the years so that it ended up being a very different series to the first. One of the things I think is amazing about Supernatural is the chutzpah with which the writers have pressed the reset button from the start. ‘It’s a show about two brothers, one is the cocky confident rebel and the other is the normal one.’ ‘No it isn’t, it’s a show about two brothers looking for their father and the rebel turns out to be a secretly vulnerable conformist and the ‘normal’ one turns out to have mysterious psychic visions.’ ‘No it isn’t, it’s a show about two brothers who have found their father and are trying to adjust to hunting with him as adults.’ ‘No it isn’t, he’s dead.’ And that’s just taking it to the start of season two.
But where I agree with you is in the fact that what draws us in is the ‘human’ side of things, not the monsters. And there was a fandom who already were very invested in the many existing side characters. To create a whole new ‘supernatural!verse’ in Bloodlines, rather than pull out someone – anyone – who had already attracted fans, seems bizarre to me, even if only to start the spinoff off.
Alice, it would be great to hear more about the VanCon producers’ panel. What did they think they were doing well? What is it that *they* like about the show? At their furthest apart, there are fans who would happily never see another monster again if they got a slow-paced exploration of Dean and Sam taking Cas to a pet shop to buy him a guinea pig (I would totally watch this episode), while there are people attached to the show whose ideal episode seems to be one where Dean and Sam have a big fight, five angels we have never met before murder one another, and someone gets their limbs chomped off by a possessed jacuzzi bath…
The question specifically was what they consider to be their biggest mistakes for S9, since it was a controversial season. The crowd booed her claiming there were no mistakes, the initial reaction of the producers is they made no mistakes, but Russ Hamilton asked her what mistakes she thought they made. She said too many story lines. Adam defended that they can’t service what everyone wants because so many fan want different story lines, so they’re basically telling the kind of stories they want to tell and they write where the story takes them.
Bardicvoice’s tweets from the panel are here, but that’s the only question that only looked at things critically. https://thewinchesterfamilybusiness.com/article-archives/con-reports/18696-2014-supernatural-vancon-report-saturday-mayhem-and-madness
Also Nightsky talks about it in this report: https://www.thewinchesterfamilybusiness.com/article-archives/con-reports/18713-supernatural-vancon-saturday-m-day-part-2-misha
Thanks Alice – I missed this first time around. The comments about how they write are very interesting:
[quote]He then explained the writing process. First, Jeremy (Carver) and Bob (Singer) tell the writers what is going to happen each season. The writers then pitch three or four stories and Jeremy and Bob pick which ones they think will work best. They (I think Jeremy and Bob) then pepper the myth arc into the pitch. Adam shared that the Supernatural writers all LOVE the show. He saig that is absolutely not standard in the industry![/quote]
[quote]Adam: Jeremy & Bob come in at beginning of season with arc, beginning, middle, end. Writers pitch their stories. Along way …, [/quote]
[quote]… during meetings on stories after assigned to writers, leaders may say “We need to add a myth element to MOW story.”[/quote]
I can’t help but think that sometimes the writer who is perfect to write the MOW (because it’s their idea) may not be the best one to handle the arc, or the arc at that particular point.
You said it! I used to think Supernatural would be the one show to remain consistent past 5 years, but, sadly, I was proven wrong.
By [b][i]my[/b][/i] standards, Supernatural is a shell of its former self. If others are enjoying it, that’s great! I’m not saying my opinion is the right one. I’m just stating how I feel, and for me, the quality is just not there anymore. To be even more brutally honest, I will probably watch Marvel: AOS live next Tuesday and either tape Supernatural or catch it online. None of the spoilers or sneak peeks have interested me for the upcoming season. There seems to be no real plan for the season. I’m just not excited to see the show. The last season I truly enjoyed was S6 so why am I still watching? Haha! Out of S9’s 23 episodes, there is only one episode I can think of that I would gladly rewatch. That’s a shame, but it’s been that way for me ever since JC returned as showrunner. I just don’t like his vision for the show.
Unless the show is a crime drama, I don’t think many shows can maintain quality past 5-6 years. Again, that’s just my opinion. My current absolute favorite show is TWD so I’m curious to see if it will break the mold but other shows I’ve watched (Nip/Tuck, Rescue Me, The Dead Zone, True Blood, Dexter, SFU, QAF (USA), 2 1/2 Men, etc) all experienced a drop in quality. Some weren’t so bad that I quit watching (Dexter, SFU, TB) but others were (Rescue Me, Nip/Tuck, 2 1/2 Men).
I think cable has the right idea by limiting most shows to 5 seasons.
Bardicvoice:
[img]http://x1.fjcdn.com/thumbnails/comments/Have+my+babies+please+_6d134ee140d62eb489b1c94c392c944d.gif[/img]
[quote]Here’s the thing. I realized some time ago that Supernatural had lost something important it used to have – well, something that had been important to me, anyway. That loss pretty much happened in Swan Song, but it became concrete and explicit in The French Mistake. And it’s this: Sam and Dean aren’t in our world, and we and the show both know it now.[/quote]
Bingo. Our suspension of disbelief has been mortally wounded and they don’t bother trying to heal it. That’s the other big problem with a lot of the canon missteps in later seasons. If you don’t allow the work to be in your world, it has to exist in its own, which means it must be consistent (for example, compare Star Trek TOS, which was supposed to be a very real and possible future of our time, with TNG and later where it’s more of just it’s own story universe). Every time they mess things up, it makes it harder to shift our investment from looking at “the shadows of our world” to “its own world”.
[quote]At their very best, the monsters mirrored the brothers’ own personal demons and insecurities, and helped us understand them. We could Google or book-research the monsters the brothers were fighting, and because of that, we had the tantlizing sense that both monsters and hunters could exist – and if we were very lucky, we might even glimpse the taillights of a certain vintage black Impala vanishing around the corner some dark night.[/quote]
Beautiful. Love this bit.
[img]http://media.giphy.com/media/p6O1bnuYuKYcU/giphy.gif[/img]
[quote]I think the writers lost some aspect of human buy-in that meant much more when human hunters were cast as the imperfect but essential force of good resisting a tide of evil often personified in malevolent ghosts and supernatural monsters. Now it seems humans are just the pawns of powers way beyond any hope of human understanding or control, and that has confusingly shifted the course and focus of the story from just the hearts and souls of the very human Winchester brothers to a more formless and confusing struggle between and among angels, demons, and a mostly absent God.[/quote]
It certainly doesn’t help that more often than not humans have ended up being the villains of late than the monsters. One almost gets a sense that unlike Kripke, some of these show runners think maybe we should be wiped out by the monsters. (Serious, I don’t have enough words to describe how much of a misstep it was in Bloodlines to make the main bad guy human and have the new hero shoot him.)
[quote]I agree with that, but to explore that idea, they created a whole wealthy, pretty, exclusive society peopled by multiple races of monsters who somehow managed to live below human and hunter radar while simultaneously controlling large swathes of human society like the criminal mobs of Godfather fame.[/quote]
Which is why I still insist (especially after rewatching Time after Time) that the spinoff MIGHT have worked had it been a period show from the ’40s. Maybe have the newbie hunter be an apprentice to Elliot Ness (seriously, bring back Nicholas Lea) and we can look at a father/son dynamic in the show rather than just a bros one. It could have worked wonders!
[quote]they apparently never even considered that a monster-centric focus might not appeal to the core, human-centric Supernatural fanbase.[/quote]
So this. It’s like they thought they could appeal to all those who already have several monster-loving shows (Vampire diaries, Tru blood, etc) never realizing that they have plenty of shows already. Give us human-power! dudes.
[quote]I’m into the families we all make as well as the ones we’re born into; and I’m into the quest to always try to do the right thing even in the midst of circumstances that make it very hard to tell the difference between right and wrong. Give me another show that does that, with performances and production quality to match Supernatural, and I’ll watch it every week.[/quote]
This, this a thousand times, this.