10.23 Poll

[ash48]

A little late, but I'm still keen to know what you all thought. :)

[Poll #2012232]

I still have a few comments to reply to on my original 10.23 post, and I hope to get to them soon. :))



Hearing Jensen say that the writers write the season finales (since S5) without a clue how they'll get themselves out if it confirms my new found (solid) understanding that there really is no journey from the beginning of a season to the end of it. I did think that maybe Carver had a 3 year plan when he took over in S8, but if they don't know how a season will end, then I have to assume that there's been no thought put into any continuous character or myth arc journey. And it's clear now that he didn't. I'm not saying that's a bad thing (and I don't think it would be if you don't watch the show for overall themes or character arcs), just disappointing. To keep throwing the boys into these ethical, moral and personal dilemmas without some sort of resolution is just frustrating. If you make Dean do something like he did at the beginning of S9, surely it has to end some sort of comment about it. Jensen believes that the MoC story started for Dean at 9.01 (which I agree with), but I never got the sense that the show/writers thought that. They both suffered as a result of it and yet neither seem to have come away with any understanding it. Though, maybe there's a plan in that. If they understood any of that they would be too "healthy" to be our beloved, screwed up Winchesters…;)

Aaanyway. I could yabber on about all that for ages, but I'm not sure there are any answers. If they don't write in answers (and jump from idea to idea) then I'm just not sure it's even worth nutting out. Though I'll always be interested in fanon ideas… :D

Comments

[fanspired]

I've finally recognized that what we're watching now is an action soap opera. Which is fine if you like soap opera, I suppose. What I find disturbing is the recent conversation about this show being marketed to young me between 18-30. I believe the original 5 seasons told a morality tale about the dangers of the hero myth. It highlighted the corrupting effects of living with a wartime mentality. The intention was to highlight a contemporary problem. Now the show has become part of the problem. It troubles me that it is rubber stamping increasing levels of violence and marketing it to young men as heroic behaviour.

[ash48.livejournal.com]

Both these points are very interesting.

Firstly, I still struggle with believing the show is marketed to men between 18-30. I don't doubt the info, it just seems crazy - considering the "soap" element surely isn't appealing to that demographic. I know the thing my hubby hates most about the show is all the "chick flick" moments (and that's from S1!). I would have said this demo would be into lots of action, less bromance and more kick ass women (maybe?).

I hate the thought that Show is promoting or rubber stamping the boys level of violence and world endangering behaviour as heroic. I still think there is a level of "comment" about all that, even though it's not obvious - or perhaps it's they way I am choosing to read it. I think there is definitely a level of heroism portrayed by the boys, but it's been a long time since I've consider them as actual heroes - they just do to many things that put others and the world in danger due to their selfish need to keep the other alive. That said, I think it's that theme that's still interesting to me and I sincerely hope they do explore that much more next season.

[fanspired]

What's probably more the case with the marketing is that the show wants to keep all its balls in the air. Yes, they want that lucrative male demographic, but they also know that the twitter and tumblr trends are important for keeping the show high profile and that's mainly dominated by young girls. So they make sure to include episodes that'll satisfy both those audiences. And they probably imagine that the soap opera element will take care of most of the show's original core audience of mature women. In other words, they're aiming for a broad demographic appeal. What they don't seem to be interested in any longer is the kind of analytical audiences that followed shows like the X Files, Buffy the Vampire Slayer or Supernatural in its first 5 seasons. I presume that's working for them. Well, it's got them up to 10 seasons and beyond which is more than Buffy and the X Files got. On the other hand, I thought I read that the show's viewing figures were never better than in its first season, but maybe things were different back then, I don't know.

> I still think there is a level of "comment" about all that, even though it's not obvious.

I'd agree with that, more so in some writers than others though, but I'd say that moral comment is very low priority and certainly not worth alienating the viewers that think BAMF is cool or sexy, or those that think that the brothers 'saving' each other justifies any amount of (other people's) bloodshed. (I remember a time when 'saving' each other meant something a bit deeper than merely keeping each other alive). Overwhelmingly these days I feel the impression the show leaves glorifies rather than condemns violence. All the characters the audience is inclined to trust pat the Winchesters on the back and tell them they're good men, heroes fighting the good fight. And the casualty list is regrettable collateral damage, but it's all for the greater good, isn't it? How many actually look at the ledger and weigh the damage the brothers have done over the years against the comparative few people they've saved? Sure, Crowley has made that point a few times but he's a demon. Who listens to him? (They should). And, granted, Dean made it, too, but he was totally under the MOC and about to kill Sam at the time so we can dismiss that, too. Sam's still insisting that Dean's a good man, it's just the thing on his arm that's evil (never mind that for years longer than he's had the mark the family business has been "hunting things - saving people's a bonus but, meh - let's just kill something.") The impression I get is that the vast majority of the audience take it all at face value: Sam and Dean are heroes. They don't question that. There was a while back last year when I started wondering if the writers were conducting a social experiment to see how far they could debase Dean's character before the audience recognized that he'd become a monster. And they gave up when they accepted it would never happen.

I think the first half of season 9 was the last genuine attempt to address moral issues and the attempt was abandoned because the majority of viewers just didn't want to hear it. And, one by one, the writers who still care about story and meaning are leaving. As for the one or two still hanging on . . . well, I think some of the comments Robbie Thompson made in his Q&A recently spoke volumes.

[ash48.livejournal.com]

I think some of the comments Robbie Thompson made in his Q&A recently spoke volumes.

Ooh, do you have a link to those?

I so often fluctuate in my thoughts about what the writers/show are/is thinking. There are times when it seems like that they are really aware of the conflict between them being heroes and them, well, not. The fact that it's mentioned and even explored suggested that there is definitely an awareness. This season was supposedly about seeing both of them as monsters - Dean as a demon and Sam prepared to do whatever it takes to save Dean. The only problem is, they seem to lack the conviction to see that theme through. Whether it's because it's too soon to fully address it (leaving it for the series finale) or because they are too scared to, it's hard to know. The fact that Sam even talked about them being "good" suggests that it's something that remains a theme.

I think the Show treads a fine line. How to portray the protagonists as "heroes" (or the good guys who we connect to) and yet show them in all their tainted glory because of the evil they are surrounded by. I sometimes wonder that the sheer fact that we are discussing it means that conflict or dilemma is being successfully examined. I know not everyone pulls it apart like we do - but I think the danger they put other people and the world in, is made pretty obvious. The fact that Sam and Dean don't see it, doesn't mean we can't. The fine line is there again when we want to see that ridiculous love and devotion to each other (well, I know its what I want to see), but we also want to see that THEY become aware of how dangerous their co-dependency. I would love to have an outsider pov episode where we really get to see the impact of their relationship outside of what the winchesters see.

I swear if I was a writer I would be able to articulate that better. I just watched a vid by secretelytodream and it reminded me that this is an epic love story between two brothers. We can see the damage, the pain, the hurt, the sacrifices, the utter screwed up nature of their relationship but we also see them as people we love and cheer on. What the casual viewer sees I'll never know, but maybe they do see past them as badass heroes and rather as a dark and dangerous force.

But yeah. At the moment I think we are seeing half hearted attempts to really examine those important themes. But maybe the fact that those themes are still on the table is potentially encouraging.

[fanspired]

Bit of an afterthought: I think the aborted "Bloodlines" pilot kind of provided a means of taking the moral temperature of the current writing team when it had its lead character shoot a human being out of revenge in the first episode. Compare that to the story arc that had Sam wallow in steadily increasing moral grey areas for four years to bring him to the point where he unequivocally and premeditatedly took a human life, and Sam had to cast himself into the cage for all eternity to redeem himself from that crime. The producers of Bloodlines had the 'hero' kill a human character in the first episode, without blinking. There was no sense that they were making a moral issue of it. The impression I got was that they just didn't see anything wrong with it. I think it was interesting that the episode bombed so badly because it indicated what the fans really thought of the current writing when, for once, they didn't see it through the lens of the enormous good will that the characters of Sam and Dean bring with them from the original show.

[ash48.livejournal.com]

*nods* For me the thing they do now that they didn't do before is kill off meat suit by the dozens. Remember when killing ONE meat suit was a major issue?! Remember when Sam wanted to save meat suits by using his powers to exorcise their demons rather than us a blade or gun?! Innocent people are simply no longer an issue. It's one of the saddest things for me about how the show has evolved. That episode where they made Mrs Tran kill her demon captor was truly horrifying. No attempt at saving the innocent people trapped inside. She was made to murder an innocent person.

It's sad that the "saving people" is really not part of their motto any more. It seems that the act of killing is much more important, in terms of story telling, than the act of saving.

And Bloodlines was truly dreadful. You make a good point about what's acceptable from our heroes. Sam and Dean get away with A LOT because we've been on the journey with them. Though I'm sure Carver is determined to make them as unlikable as he can. There was a time that I was sure he hated the characters. I'm still not convinced he actually likes them that much.