CHUD.com Community › Forums › SPORTS, GAMES & LEISURE › Television › Supernatural Season 4
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Supernatural Season 4 - Page 14

post #651 of 697
Thread Starter 
Think Jonathon in the Jonathon themed Buffy episode.
post #652 of 697
Mary Sue goes back earlier than fan fiction, although FF popularized it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Sue
post #653 of 697
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mattioli View Post
Man (or woman, as the case may be), I just don't understand this. I loved Bella. Not only was she smoking hot, but I thought the interplay between her character and the Winchesters was great. It was an interesting dynamic, watching as both sides tried to stay one step ahead of the other. And, whereas other characters in the know with regard to the supernatural state of the world had been--up until Season 4, at least--presented as good or evil, Bella presented a nice shade of grey: not evil, but amoral. And I'd be curious as to why you thought the ghost ship episode was appalling ("You know, when this is over, we really should have angry sex."). I thought it was pretty great, all things considered. If anything, I think Bella's character suffered only because of the writer's strike. There was a lot more to be said there, but it ultimately got short-changed by the short season.
And she was an almost exact lift of the character Yves Adele Harlow from The Lone Gunmen.

And since when has the world of Supernatural been anything BUT shades of grey? Almost all of the ghosts we see are wronged somehow; when Vampires are introduced we were shown a hunter who was crazier than his prey and reapers are completely neutral. The episode where Sam has to kill his girlfriend because she's a werewolf is a perfect example of this (and separately I'm surprised that episode hasn't been worked into the misogyny thesis yet).

The whole point of the show is that in this very grey world the brothers have to make choices of kill or let live. And if they make the wrong choice then either innocent people are wrongly punished or innocent people get hurt. Often the results come after weighing several moral and ethical conundrums to get to the best balance of outcomes.

The dramatic tension in pretty much every single episode was based around this weighing of greys. In the beginning Dean was the one who was saying "kill it" and Sam "save it." The fact that the roles have slowly reversed is the whole point of the overall multi-season storyline.

The reason that Bella didn't work in this context is because (until her last episode) she seemed to be written for the kind of show where you could play a deadly game, screw someone over and leave them to die and then all be friends the next day (like the before mentioned Lone Gunmen). Usually when characters like that show up on Supernatural they get dead pretty quick, or they get punished for their transgression harshly enough that they learn very quickly not to do it again.
post #654 of 697
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yaz View Post
And she was an almost exact lift of the character Yves Adele Harlow from The Lone Gunmen.
Oh my God, it's anagram for Lee Harvey Oswald!

Bella is no more egregious a wish fulfillment character than either Dean or Sam is. And she was definitely used to bring a lighter fun feel to the episodes she appeared in, which is good to have every now and then.

I barely remember Jo, except her crying about the brother's dad killing her dad, whatever, shit is tough all over Jo....
post #655 of 697
Thread Starter 
The fans will NEVER forgive Jo for that one episode where she gets herself kidnapped. They HATED her for that episode.
post #656 of 697
To be fair it was a low point in the show. It just seemed so entirely predictable, which is something I think Supernatural tried to avoid a lot of the time.

I was annoyed quite a bit by the Bella arc when it started, mainly because it did seem like something out of a lighter show. There was something hateful about someone who knew what the boys were up against and then gleefully screwed them over for her own greed. Granted, it was obvious that Kripke et al were planning on slowly changing that had they got a full Season, but as it is now the transition is a little awkward and her fate seems to come from a place of spite almost. I think the original plan would've had her reveal her fate a bit sooner, so that when the Hounds do come it doesn't seem like quite the fan service it did.
post #657 of 697
Venkman, Yaz, thanks for saying and getting across what I felt I was trying to say.

Supernatural, for being on the CW and being what it is, is a great TV show. The quality is excellent on nearly all fronts. Having said that, I watch episodes I miss on the official website, and seeing Ruby and especially Bella somewhat presented as main characters for Season 3 on the website was disconcerting because of the reasons stated by myself and others.

You know, in regards to the misogyny theories, and the Madonna/Whore complex...I don't see it. Granted in this genre, not just that of horror but the mullet rock, blue-collar 'southern' type...I feel there are enough shades of grey...Women seem to me rarely only represented in the two extremes. I think the level of depth with which all the characters are represented with is one of the things that elevates the show. That being said, white nightgowns get a reaaaallly bad deal in this show. Everyone who wears them ends up dead, posessed and/or stuck to a ceiling and burst into flames.

So, what does Supernatural have against white nightgowns?

I kid, I kid.
post #658 of 697
Thread Starter 
Congrats, you figured it out. Lucifer's plan is to ruin all of the nightgowns in a fit of misogynistic rage. Looks like we don't need a season five...

post #659 of 697
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yaz View Post
And she was an almost exact lift of the character Yves Adele Harlow from The Lone Gunmen.
Which is meaningless to 99.999% of the population, including myself. Not to mention the fact that there are examples of this type of character that precede some goofy spin-off that lasted a few episodes. It's an archetype.
Quote:
And since when has the world of Supernatural been anything BUT shades of grey? Almost all of the ghosts we see are wronged somehow; when Vampires are introduced we were shown a hunter who was crazier than his prey and reapers are completely neutral. The episode where Sam has to kill his girlfriend because she's a werewolf is a perfect example of this (and separately I'm surprised that episode hasn't been worked into the misogyny thesis yet).
Okay, but in addition to that, we've had (in no particular order): a man-eating wendigo, a man-eating clown shapeshifter, man-eating pseudo Santa Clauses, an endless string of demons wearing people as meat puppets, killer shapeshifters, a kid-killing poltergeist, a killer god-infused scarecrow, lifeforce-sucking witch doctors, a decidedly unRobinWilliams-like genie, parent chewing changelings, neighbor-hexing witches, an organ-harvesting doctor, etc. etc. And the mere fact that most of the ghosts were wronged somehow in their lives does not make their subsequent ghostly actions any less evil. No matter how you slice it, killing an innocent is evil. There's a lot more black-and-white than you're giving the show credit for.
Quote:
The reason that Bella didn't work in this context is because (until her last episode) she seemed to be written for the kind of show where you could play a deadly game, screw someone over and leave them to die and then all be friends the next day (like the before mentioned Lone Gunmen). Usually when characters like that show up on Supernatural they get dead pretty quick, or they get punished for their transgression harshly enough that they learn very quickly not to do it again.
Which is why staying one step ahead of the Winchesters was so important. And, as you'll recall, Dean fully planned to murder her for stealing the Colt. He only relented when he realized that a hellhound was going to do the job for him.
post #660 of 697
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mattioli View Post
Which is meaningless to 99.999% of the population, including myself. Not to mention the fact that there are examples of this type of character that precede some goofy spin-off that lasted a few episodes. It's an archetype.
I don't just mean that the character belonged in the same archetype range. They looked the same, had similar makeup and even had the same goofy accent (though I think in the case of the Lone Gunmen the accent was real).

But you're right that doesn't matter too much in the general context of the audience, except to illustrate the point that she didn't feel as if she belonged on Supernatural.
post #661 of 697
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yaz View Post
I don't just mean that the character belonged in the same archetype range. They looked the same, had similar makeup and even had the same goofy accent (though I think in the case of the Lone Gunmen the accent was real).

But you're right that doesn't matter too much in the general context of the audience, except to illustrate the point that she didn't feel as if she belonged on Supernatural.
While you clearly have good taste in Alex Winter/Keanu Reeves movies, I couldn't disagree more with your sentiment here.

I dug Bella quite a bit. It was a real shame to see her go so quickly.
post #662 of 697
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jesse Custer View Post
While you clearly have good taste in Alex Winter/Keanu Reeves movies, I couldn't disagree more with your sentiment here.

I dug Bella quite a bit. It was a real shame to see her go so quickly.
I did think that her final episode was the one where she started to make sense in the Supernatural world and would have been a great jumping off point for the character to continue from, but I was absolutely sick of the wacky hijinks angle they had going for her.

Though I'm also the one who wants Jo to come back, so what do I know.
post #663 of 697
DOMINGOOOOOOOO!

Sorry. Your name doesn't lend itself well to KHAAN-like exclamations. But yeah, thanks for clearing up on the White Nightgown bit. I feel like I understand the entire series now.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Yaz View Post
I did think that her final episode was the one where she started to make sense in the Supernatural world and would have been a great jumping off point for the character to continue from, but I was absolutely sick of the wacky hijinks angle they had going for her.

Though I'm also the one who wants Jo to come back, so what do I know.

Exactly! Exactly! Now you're thinking like a woman! Bella was hot, I don't deny it. But she feel so...out of place. The music cue would get all playful and 70s porn-lite, and it was almost...the problem was that she felt artificial and foremost *forced* into the series to the point where it was almost juvenile.

Anyways...

Looking back on the season, what would you say were your favorite episodes? What do you think will happen in the fifth (and final?) season of Supernatural? Happy ending? Peace on earth? I for one wonder if God will come into play, or if he's been playing skeeball in Jersey...
post #664 of 697
I think it would be funny if God was around the whole time. I'm not saying it has to be Bobby, but it'd be funny. Think about it, he's always teaching the Winchester boys lessons, and he always seems to have the right answer. Plus it would put a whole 'nother level of funny on this exchange....

"SUCK DIRT AND DIE RUFUS, don't call here again."

*Hangs up*

"... What did Rufus do?"

"He knows what he did!"


Of course I'm totally bullshitting but that exchange still makes me laugh.
post #665 of 697
Thread Starter 
That works so well because we have no clue what Rufus did to annoy Bobby soooo much.
post #666 of 697
Bobby's indignant "He knows what he did" is what truly sells it.
post #667 of 697
In conclusion, Jim Beaver is the shit and needs to be in the final season much more.
post #668 of 697
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Murder View Post
In conclusion, Jim Beaver is the shit and needs to be in the final season much more.
Or get his own spin-off.
post #669 of 697
Quote:
Originally Posted by B_MetalSucks View Post
Or get his own spin-off.
Cleave It To Beaver?
post #670 of 697
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jesse Custer View Post
Cleave It To Beaver?
God damn. Get. Out. Of. My. Head.
post #671 of 697
Will he have a sidekick named Wally?
post #672 of 697
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mattioli View Post
God damn. Get. Out. Of. My. Head.
Clearly we possess some kind of demonic psychic connection.

Quick: try to throw a knife with your mind.
post #673 of 697
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jesse Custer View Post
Quick: try to throw a knife with your mind.
...did it work?
post #674 of 697
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mattioli View Post
...did it work?
Totally.
post #675 of 697
Thread Starter 
post #676 of 697
I'd really rather the show stick to the five year plan.
post #677 of 697
Thread Starter 
Couldn't agree more.
post #678 of 697
Here's the important part for me....

Quote:
However, Jared did issue a warning. Ironically, having just starred in a season four episode entitled Jump the Shark - a term used in the TV industry for the point when a show becomes too unbelievable to be watchable - Jared told the audience that if he felt the season six storyline was going to jump the shark for real, he wouldn't go on.

He said: "I was a huge fan of Lost - I'd never seen a drama series that I loved so much. But as I continued to watch it, it started to get complicated for the sake of being complicated. It could have been so complete, it could have just answered the questions that it asked as opposed to saying 'let's blow some stuff up and we'll figure it out later'. I don't want that to happen. If there's still a story to tell and still something for me to bring to the show as Sam Winchester, then absolutely."
Sounds like if the story is crap they'll lose at least one brother and I don't see the show going on with just one. I like the five year plan but I'm willing to let them prove me wrong.
post #679 of 697
I've loved this show progressively more with every season it's been on. Everything I'd ever want to say about it, and season four in particular, has already been said here. Except for one or two things which annoy me.

The first is you guys. Is it really hard to get the angel/demon characters' names right? More than half the time any of these four names are mentioned, they are spectacularly wrong:

Castiel
Zachariel
Azazel
Lilith
Alastair

There. Not hard. Which beings me to the second nitpick (but not before a little disclaimer). I appreciate that the show tries to use genuine angelic/biblical names for characters because it enriches the mythology. Names like Uriel, Zachariel, and Castiel besides falling into angelic naming conventions, are the names of actual angels in Judeo-Christian mythology. Lilith was Adam's first wife. It's cool that she is Lucifer's first twisted soul gone demon. I also like that they don't explicitly go into her history but leave people who know a bit about this stuff kind of just enjoy the reference. Azazel is a fun reference because it's the same name as the demon in Fallen, that Denzel movie from the 90's. I don't know if it's legit, mythologically speaking.

Which brings me to Ana. My biggest nitpick for this show is having an angel named Anna. I know it's dumb, but it's not like they couldn't feminize a legit angelic name stamp on a female angel. Or at least an angel that takes a female body. Or if they juse angelicized it by having it be another cute angel nickname like Cas for Castiel and have her real name be Annaruel or Annael or something like that. Having said that, Anna is a name with Hebrew origins and there's an Anna involved with Jesus' birth or something if I remember that right. Still, if humans can become angels in Supernatural's mythology, I think that an angel named Anna bears some explanation. Obviously I don't mind the show having it's own mythology, it's just that if you're going to refer to something else you ought to be consistent.

Anyway, nitpicking over. I love this show.
post #680 of 697
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xion View Post
The first is you guys. Is it really hard to get the angel/demon characters' names right? More than half the time any of these four names are mentioned, they are spectacularly wrong:

Zachariel
Actually, it's Zachariah.
post #681 of 697
Thread Starter 
Every time I've seen it written on a script it's Zachariah.

*Shrug* Sorry.
post #682 of 697
Quote:
He said: "I was a huge fan of Lost - I'd never seen a drama series that I loved so much. But as I continued to watch it, it started to get complicated for the sake of being complicated. It could have been so complete, it could have just answered the questions that it asked as opposed to saying 'let's blow some stuff up and we'll figure it out later'. I don't want that to happen. If there's still a story to tell and still something for me to bring to the show as Sam Winchester, then absolutely."
I couldn't agree more. About Supernatural but mostly about Lost.
post #683 of 697
Quote:
Originally Posted by Domingo View Post
Couldn't agree more.
Wouldn't that mean, you know, unemployment?
post #684 of 697
Thread Starter 
Well, yeah... Frankly I want to stick this one out as long as they'll have me, but at the same time I want to do my own stuff or climb even higher and meet more people in the Vancouver film business, keep the ball rolling. I love the show and I'll probably see it out to the end, but I don't want to slip into becoming a lifer one day. But at the same time, I only just turned 21, so I'm probably just way too ambitious for my own naive good.
post #685 of 697
All right so it's Zachariah. That takes it from being a nitpick #1 to a nitpick #2.
post #686 of 697
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xion View Post
I also like that they don't explicitly go into her history but leave people who know a bit about this stuff kind of just enjoy the reference. Azazel is a fun reference because it's the same name as the demon in Fallen, that Denzel movie from the 90's. I don't know if it's legit, mythologically speaking.
You come off like a bit of a prick in your post. That being said, the name "Azazel" is one hell of a lot older than a Denzel Washington film. In Jewish mysticism, "Azazel" was a personification of wickedness or a "demon of the desert". From Wikipedia (the most trustworthy of sources, I know):
Quote:
This is confirmed by the Book of Enoch, which brings Azazel into connection with the Biblical story of the fall of the angels, located, obviously in accordance with ancient folk-lore, on Mount Hermon as a sort of an old Semitic Blocksberg, a gathering-place of demons from of old (Enoch xiii.; compare Brandt, "Mandäische Theologie," 1889, p. 38). Azazel is represented in the Book of Enoch as the leader of the rebellious giants in the time preceding the flood; he taught men the art of warfare, of making swords, knives, shields, and coats of mail, and women the art of deception by ornamenting the body, dyeing the hair, and painting the face and the eyebrows, and also revealed to the people the secrets of witchcraft and corrupted their manners, leading them into wickedness and impurity; until at last he was, at the Lord's command, bound hand and foot by the archangel Raphael and chained to the rough and jagged rocks of [Ha] Duduael (= Beth Ḥadudo), where he is to abide in utter darkness until the great Day of Judgment, when he will be cast into the fire to be consumed forever (Enoch viii. 1, ix. 6, x. 4-6, liv. 5, lxxxviii. 1; see Geiger, "Jüd. Zeit." 1864, pp. 196-204).

The story of Azazel as the seducer of men and women was familiar also to the rabbis, as may be learned from Tanna d. b. R. Yishma'el: "The Azazel goat was to atone for the wicked deeds of 'Uzza and 'Azzael, the leaders of the rebellious hosts in the time of Enoch" (Yoma 67b); and still better from Midrash Abkir, end, Yalḳ., Gen. 44, where Azazel is represented as the seducer of women, teaching them the art of beautifying the body by dye and paint (compare "Chronicles of Jerahmeel," trans. by Moses Gaster, xxv. 13). According to Pirḳe R. El. xlvi. (comp. Tos. Meg. 31a), the goat is offered to Azazel as a bribe that he who is identical with Samael or Satan should not by his accusations prevent the atonement of the sins on that day.
Quote:
Which brings me to Ana. My biggest nitpick for this show is having an angel named Anna. I know it's dumb, but it's not like they couldn't feminize a legit angelic name stamp on a female angel. Or at least an angel that takes a female body. Or if they juse angelicized it by having it be another cute angel nickname like Cas for Castiel and have her real name be Annaruel or Annael or something like that.
Anna was a fallen angel. She fell to earth and was reborn a human. Her human parents named her Anna. That doesn't necessarily mean that "Anna" was her angelic name, although it doesn't explain why Cas and the other angels refer to her as "Anna" rather than her angelic name.
post #687 of 697
I didn't mean to come off like a prick, but we had people in here spelling Castiel "Castillio" for shit's sake. For pages. It's not like it ruined my day or anything, it's just one of the few things I could think of to say about Supernatural that hasn't already been said!

Yeah, I wasn't sure if Azazel was a name that was supposed to sound legit. I didn't wiki it, so there you go. I just like that of all the names they could have used, they used the same one that was used in Fallen. It's a cute reference.

I can understand that Anna's human name is Anna. That's basically what I thought at first, but then everybody just kept calling her Anna and no mention is made. It's a tiny nitpick cuz it's just a name thing for a supporting character.

Again, it's not as if any of this BS ruins my day. Supernatural is an awesome show and you guys are all very eloquent in your praise for it. I just wanted to point out the awkward mispellings and naming inconsistencies as I saw them.
post #688 of 697
Supernatural is looking for Lucifer:
Quote:
[LUCIFER]
30s – 40s, male. This is the devil – he is soft-spoken, strangely sympathetic, more vulnerable than evil and should have piercing eyes. This is an amazing role that will be heavily recurring...HEAVILY RECURRING GUEST STAR
Taking into consideration the character description and the age requirements, who do you think should play the role?

My suggestions...

James Callis (Battlestar Galactica)


Alexis Denisof (Angel)


Matt Keeslar (The Middleman)


Lee Pace (Pushing Daisies)
post #689 of 697
Honestly? I think the best angle for Anna would have her being Nephilim. I just think it would have made sense and generally been cool.

I love love LOVE the way divinity is represented in Supernatural. I remember the "A Very Supernatural Christmas" with the pagan gods, and I love the shout-outs to lore and mythology because I'm such a myth geek. I really enjoy them going deeper into some of the more archaic aspects of Christian lore. Hierarchy of angels and all.

But yeah, Domingo? Your car? Please? Your show's turned me into somethng of a....well. I've come to appreciate classic cars a lot more.
post #690 of 697
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barry Woodward View Post
Supernatural is looking for Lucifer:Taking into consideration the character description and the age requirements from the link above, who do you think should play the role?
[/QUOTE]

This is Vancouver, British Columbia we're talking about the acting pool is pretty much limited to WB past and present, SciFi and low budget made for TV movies. And while I think Baltar is a good pick, judging from his IMDB page he might be back in the UK.

Michael Shanks

or maybe an Ed Quinn (Eureka)


No matter what, they'll never live up to Ray Wise's devil... damn you WB!
post #691 of 697
Supernatural is a show that i have completely enjoyed since I saw the first season on DVD when i was being a lazy bum and not working. Some of my favorite episodes have been the one with the Mystery Spot ("Do these tacos taste funny to you?") and the changling episoode. I have been rabidly awaiting casting news on Lucifer, even though my first pick has gone the way of Heroes. (Seriously, the guy who played T-Bag in Prison Break is screaming for some awesome role like this. I wanted him for the ANOES remake also.) Can't wait to hear more, and can't wait for some more Supernatural goodness.

Oh, and did anyone else catch the reference by Dean to Jo and Ellen in the Episode where the brothers were working at the corperate office? Stuff like that makes this show even more awesome!
post #692 of 697
Mark Pellegrino -- who was unmasked as Lost's enigmatic Jacob at the end of last season -- is joining the cast of Supernatural as <spoiler hidden-->none other than the Prince of Darkness himself, Lucifer.

Yipee!
post #693 of 697
Thread Starter 
Jesus Christ! It crossed my mind but I never thought in a million years he would be free. I get to meet Jacob! WOOOOOO HOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
post #694 of 697
He also played Rita's Ex on Dexter
post #695 of 697
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyZ View Post
He also played Rita's Ex on Dexter
And helped dunk The Dude's head in the toilet, once upon a time.

Huh. So Pelligrino's playing 'God' and the devil simultaneously?

Is this the first time that's happened since George Burns?
post #696 of 697
This is all so bizarre... but I love it!!!
post #697 of 697
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jesse Custer View Post
And helped dunk The Dude's head in the toilet, once upon a time.

Huh. So Pelligrino's playing 'God' and the devil simultaneously?

Is this the first time that's happened since George Burns?
Well, Harry Shearer voiced God, the Devil and Hitler on The Simpsons.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Television
CHUD.com Community › Forums › SPORTS, GAMES & LEISURE › Television › Supernatural Season 4