spnanonhaven

I just like the way it can apply to Castiel too.

Plus Carver apparently doesn't give a flying fuck about whether or not characters are a threat to the boys relationship-- see Amelia.

ayrt

Oh, I think you and I are in disagreement here. I'm upset that they decide to include characters based on whether or not they're 'a threat to the boys' relationship' instead of what works for the story/is interesting.

So I wouldn't really care if every episode had Castiel and Amelia (and Jody, Charlie, hell, even Garth) smack 'in the middle' of the relationship, as long as it was interesting, insightful, relevant to the plot and characters.

The way tptb view female (and poc, but that's a tangent I don't really need to go on) characters is just really frustrating to me, and that's what I was round about getting at in my comment. It's just - it's such a cheap, cynical way to go about business, and then to implicitly blame it on a mostly female fandom just grates my cheese even more.

So yeah, I hope he doesn't give a flying fuck about it. I hope the fucks he gives are about telling an interesting story, and not viewing women in terms of threat/love interest vs nonthreat.

sa

Whatever the fuck 'threat' really means anyway. I guess it means 'x Winchester cares about y character.' Which is a problem because you're only allowed to care about one person at a time, maybe?

na

Often the tone of conversations seem to carry that message (caring about anyone else means less care available for their brother). But in this case, I think "not seen as a threat to their relationship" comes from the relationship being seen as sexual (and monogamous). Or committed to brother-focused celibacy, I guess. It's only Ruby, and briefly Amy, who actually resulted in any conflict between Sam and Dean. And as an aside, I've become thoroughly sick of people who call for less conflict between them (even though there's been less of that cry since S7). A bit of conflict that gets resolved makes ~sparks~ and handholding or whatever you're into more likely.

Well, I watch for the Winchesters and their story, so I don't really care how well-developed the side characters are, except for how it reflects on Sam and Dean and their story. The side characters in the first few years were awesome and are the ones people most-often clamor to have back-- Missouri, Sarah, Layla, etc. If I wanted to watch some random side-character's story I'd be watching L&O or some other ensemble procedural crime-of-the-week show.

I do agree with you about this: it's such a cheap, cynical way to go about business, and then to implicitly blame it on a mostly female fandom just grates my cheese even more.

But it's been that way for the entire run of the show and I think maybe now we see where it's coming from. *coughSingercough*

da

But well-developed side characters would, inevitably, reflect or develop the brothers and their relationship and/or story, because developing them would require interaction with the Winchesters, which would in turn develop both the Winchesters (because you don't act with everyone the same way as you do your brother) and the world they inhabit (oh hey, other people exist, and they have their own motivations and goals and ways of living). Developed side characters also relieve the burden on a single character from giving the Winchesters answers too often.

I think the worst way to develop the brothers' relationship and story would be to limit their interactions to themselves.

I don't disagree with you, but that's not how it's been the past several years with the side characters. The angels and the apocalypse (And Bobby) took over and sidelined Sam and Dean from their own story and if tptb are finally starting to realize that, I'm all for it. I think we NEED at little bit of the focus to go back to the Winchesters and their relationship so it's about them again and not some big angel war in heaven.

da

I don't disagree with you, but that's not how it's been the past several years with the side characters.

I can think of lots of characters who have allowed new angles of both Sam and Dean to come through. Lisa, Jo, Ruby just off the top of my head. (I will forever pine for a world where Ruby was right and survived, and that deals with the fall out for Sam).

Through Castiel we've seen lots and lots of tiny bits of characterization of both Sam and Dean, which we wouldn't have if he hadn't been a significant presence in the story - because they both interact on a much different level with Castiel than they do with each other.

I don't think the angels sidelined Sam and Dean at all. As for the apocalypse, my problem with it is more about a failure of execution and that it actually wasn't large enough to feel like a real apocalypse.

took over and sidelined Sam and Dean from their own story and if tptb are finally starting to realize that, I'm all for it.

In no way do I think the line about her not being a threat has anything to do with what you're saying. I think it's an idea that's expressed fairly often especially in scifi/fantasy, and is more about women and how they're perceived than Sam and Dean and their presence in the story.

I think we NEED at little bit of the focus to go back to the Winchesters and their relationship so it's about them again and not some big angel war in heaven.

I think the seasons where the angel wars were going on were definitely season where there was a huge emphasis on Sam and Dean and their relationship, so I'm not sure where you're going there.

Yeah, them being the meatsuits for WWF Angel Smackdown was all about them? Castiel's little heaven civil war was about them?

Tell me what insight Lisa brought to Sam? Or Jo brought to Sam? And sorry, but Ruby's death wasn't prolonged or bloody or soon enough for me. (Interesting that you picked a bunch of love interests. Or was that on purpose?) I don't think the show needs more love interests. It need more well-rounded characters period, irregardless of gender. Gender shouldn't be the most important thing about the side characters.

Yeah, and why didn't Ava develop Dean more? **shakes fist**

You are just being wanky, nonnie. The ayrt mentioned Castiel as well as Ruby, Jo and Lisa, who probably were mentioned because they were all recurring characters with significant interactions with a brother. And the ayrt was responding to the idea that the show doesn't need developed secondary characters.

So again. You are being wanky.

I disagree, so I'm the one being wanky? I've already given my opinion about Castiel. Good to know that anyone who doesn't toe the party Cas/het stan line gets called names around here.

You were deliberately skirting around the ayrt's points and inserting random love interest umbrage. No one called anyone any names.

This is when we call it a night. Night nonnie!

Re: Extended TV Guide spoilers

(Anonymous) - 2012-07-10 07:02 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Extended TV Guide spoilers

(Anonymous) - 2012-07-10 07:10 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Extended TV Guide spoilers

(Anonymous) - 2012-07-10 07:24 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Extended TV Guide spoilers

(Anonymous) - 2012-07-10 08:48 (UTC) - Expand

ayrt

It need more well-rounded characters period, irregardless of gender. Gender

I think the show needs more well-rounded characters, regardless of gender, too. I just also think the way to do that is to actually spend some time on them and develop them. And I don't think the way to go about doing that is by starting off with the cynical view that the female characters are either love interests and 'in the way' or they're fun, interesting characters. People can be both, you know?

Interesting that you picked a bunch of love interests. Or was that on purpose?

Uh, well I also picked Castiel, so? I first mentioned those three because I remember really liking/being interested in their interactions with Sam and/or Dean. Lisa might not have had too much to do with Sam, but she had an entire arc with Dean. And through Jo we got to see a softer, more vulnerable side of Dean just in season 7. A side that I at the time thought might get explored, so he could start to heal. But then, I got to take that insight into him from that episode, and use it to view the interactions between Sam and Dean.

a AYRT rt

Well, clearly, I should have refreshed a little more often and just given this a +1.

+1

ayrt

I could see the argument that the Michael and Lucifer took over too much toward the end of S5, but I'm not sure what you mean elsewhere. What do you define as Sam and Dean's story?

I don't think Bobby sidelined Sam and Dean. I think he was occasionally ill-used. Part of that was low number of recurring characters (for example, if Ash, Jo and Ellen had all lived, they could have become sources of info or occasionally crossed paths with the Winchesters). Part of that was me disagreeing with Bobby's refusal to go with the reaper and the cheap emotionalism of his double death. :)

The angel war was in S6 and wasn't shown. But S6 had a ton of plot problems. The side characters may have been tied to that, but I think it was an issue of there being too many of them/a lack of development for most of them, and dumb or boring development where effort was made/piss-poor plotting.

S7 also had its issues, but I'm not sure "lack of Winchesters" can really be said to be one of them. I'm not really sure what focusing on them would entail, or why developing side characters couldn't help give the brothers good stories.

da

why developing side characters couldn't help give the brothers good stories.

At this point, I feel like their main relationship arc has been almost successfully completed. Without substantial side characters, it's almost like Sam and Dean are stuck in this limbo where they are supportive of each other and also unable to fully help each other through their individual traumas. They're generally speaking, pretty comfortable and conflict-free. (I know there was the Amy thing, but it definitely felt pretty light weight to me - just think of how much more powerful it would have been had she been around for a few episodes first).

It's substantial, relevant side characters who can help tease out new levels and depths to Sam and Dean individually and together.

ayrt

I pretty much agree. Sam and Dean have been on more or less good terms since the return of Sam's soul. Their problems in S7 were the collapsed wall and depression, respectively, not a conflict between the brothers. Side characters could be incredibly helpful and illuminating at this point (and I mean both brand new and established).

da

Yeah but the problem wasn't even really S7 lacking side characters. It was the writing. I mean, they still had tons of guest characters throughout the season, probably as many as usual, but the problem is the writers didn't use them to tell us anything new. For the majority of the season, it was Dean and Sam giving the same two respective speeches to different people: "my life sucks" and "my life sucks but it could be worse." The only character I can think of that I felt brought really insight other than that constant repetition out from the brothers was Krissy. Even Osiris, who was basically created solely to provide Dean insight, just told us all the same issues we already knew Dean had. (Have I blocked anyone else out? I honestly may have.)

So at this point I'm imagining Sam and Dean could interact with no one but other people for a whole season and, with these writers, there still be a snail's crawl of development with them. :|

Re: Extended TV Guide spoilers

(Anonymous) - 2012-07-10 07:01 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Extended TV Guide spoilers

(Anonymous) - 2012-07-10 10:48 (UTC) - Expand

And I disagree. Sam and Dean don't talk to each other anymore. They don't support each other except in dire emergencies. Dean was swimming in the bottom of a bottle for most of the season and Sam was supposedly battling Lucifer-- not that we ever saw that-- no, he's fine! How many times have we heard that they could be any two random hunters driving around in a car together? There needs to be something that unites them, that they both have to fight against together.

Re: Extended TV Guide spoilers

(Anonymous) - 2012-07-10 14:08 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Extended TV Guide spoilers

(Anonymous) - 2012-07-10 19:04 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Extended TV Guide spoilers

(Anonymous) - 2012-07-10 19:11 (UTC) - Expand

da

At this point, I feel like their main relationship arc has been almost successfully completed.

Oh, that makes me so sad. I'm usually an independent!boys kinda fan, but for some reason, that just pings to me in the most terrible way. Not because I think you're wrong, at least, not where the writers are concerned, but because it explains so well the general lack of dynamic writing that we've seen for Sam and Dean recently.

It shouldn't be that way. Sam and Dean had their conflicts in S1-S3 but they were mainly on each others sides. The spark in their relationship didn't come from the conflict, anyway. It came from the mutual protectiveness and the genuine affection between them. Even in S4, when the tension took whole new meaning, that affection and protectiveness still felt in play to me. S1 had the conflict over John and S2 had the conflict over monsters and S3 had the conflict over whether Sam should trust Ruby or even try to break Dean's deal at all, but at the same time, those conflicts could have been removed and an interesting relationship left in effect.

S7 doesn't have that interesting relationship anymore. There's no conflict either to keep things spiced up.

I want more side characters, I love the side characters, and I think that there could have been some really fantastic exploration of Sam and Dean through side characters and still can be - exploration of Dean through Cas and exploration of Sam through Kevin, that sort of thing - but that shouldn't be a replacement for exploring Sam and Dean in light of each other.

ayrt

Well I guess my response to that would be if this were a movie or a book I would expect it to be just about wrapping up. Story told, brothers finally coming back to each other, on the same side, and maybe on the path to healing.

On the flip side, imagine if Pride and Prejudice were a tv show that went on after the resolution and Elizabeth and Darcy are just hanging out, being married, happy but without tension. Their arc finished by the time the book was over. It wouldn't be very exciting, unless some other supporting character came in and caused mayhem and/or conflict and/or something interesting.

So I don't think there's anything wrong with where Sam and Dean are right now - it's just the perils of a tv show going on indefinitely.

In S1-3, a lot of the interesting development to me didn't come so much from the light banter as it came from their underlying issues with each other, their dad, the hunting lifestyle, self worth, etc. And now that it's been dealt with, what's left is occasional light banter and an external force causing the central plot obstacle. So to tie their relationship to the plot again, we'd need relevant, substantial supporting characters. Otherwise we're left with Elizabeth and Darcy (I can't for the life of me think of his first name) hanging out, being married and kind of dull.

da

I want more side characters, I love the side characters, and I think that there could have been some really fantastic exploration of Sam and Dean through side characters and still can be - exploration of Dean through Cas and exploration of Sam through Kevin, that sort of thing - but that shouldn't be a replacement for exploring Sam and Dean in light of each other.

I don't think development can be an all or nothing thing, but I think fresh blood could give Dean and Sam the impetus to have their relationship grow a bit, as they each adjust to new circumstances, relationships, etc. Character growth shouldn't be entirely dependent on new relationships, of course, but they could carry back to Sam and Dean in interesting ways/help give the brothers a story that grows them both as individuals and in relation to each other. (It's not the only way to do it, but after S7, I think it would be one of the easier ways).

Re: Extended TV Guide spoilers

(Anonymous) - 2012-07-10 13:20 (UTC) - Expand

da

I don't think that Michael and Lucifer took over toward the end of S5, but I disagree with you on Bobby. Bobby got the heavy emotional story in S7 after Sam's hallucinations were wrapped up and there was A LOT of Bobby that season. SO MUCH BOBBY. We got the walk through his head, we had several episodes of ghost!Bobby, we had Bobby's sink towards being dangerous and opting go to into the light, two tearful send offs - SO MUCH BOBBY.

The problem with S5 was that they focused on Sam and Dean TOO much, to the point where instead of having something new to focus on, they turned the freaking end of the world into a blown up version of the Winchester family feud, right down to the older son being devoted and dutiful, the absentee father, and the younger feeling like he's being punished and exiled for wanting to be himself. S5 was nothing but a retelling of the Stanford argument through early S1 and the blatant hammer-level bomb droppings made it unenjoyable and overdone.

S6 felt very focused on Sam and Dean to me. Almost too focused on it, to the point where I kept having to ask if Dean (and RoboSam but he was a RoboSam and not Sam-Sam for most of it) even cared that Raphael was trying to rekindle the apocalypse. IDK how anyone could say that S6 didn't have a significant amount of Sam and Dean focus. Sam wasn't even there for half the season but his absence was clear as anything and the way RoboSam reacted did a significant amount to inform the audience of what Sam would have done. RoboSam was a really interesting look into Sam himself. We say Sam wasn't there, but that's not really true; it's not like Sam was replaced by another character entirely for a half season. As far as RoboSam was concerned, he was Sam.

S7 though, I agree and disagree with your last paragraph. S7 was not a good season but it wasn't because of a lack of Sam and Dean on our screens. IMO, one of the failings of the season was that it did a piss poor job of developing most of the secondary characters (Bobby included, since he was overused and the writing was too poor to make the audience really care about him), but it also gave us a generally flat and boring view of Sam and Dean.

I know they were trying to go for Sam and Dean being so comfortable with each other that the big drama and moments of seasons past weren't necessary but it just made it look like the writers didn't care about them. They came across as dull and disconnected, barely going through the motions, and there wasn't anything to liven it up at all and to make it clear why we should care about them or their bond.

More focus on the side characters would have been a good thing, if only to develop Dick and the Leviathans into something that was actually scary, but they fucked up on the Sam and Dean front too. I wish they'd done a better job with both aspects.

ayrt

I was talking about secondary characters in particular, not every problem I may or may not have found with each season. :)

I don't think that Michael and Lucifer took over toward the end of S5, but I disagree with you on Bobby.

It sounds like you're disagreeing with me on both, except on S5 I said "could see the argument," not that I necessarily adhere to it.

I think on Bobby in S7, we are disagreeing because you think there was just too much of him, whereas I think he was ill-used. But I also said I hated that he didn't go with the reaper, which would have eliminated the ghost Bobby storyline. So we are talking to the same end by different means.

I think S6 was focused on Sam and Dean and still had way too many useless secondary characters introduced, when few had anything interesting to offer and most received zero development (and again, I was specifically talking about secondary characters). I wasn't saying that the whole season revolved around the secondary characters to the exclusion of Sam and Dean.

On S7, you agree with me, because I only said one thing: that the problem wasn't a lack of Winchesters. I didn't say anything about how they were written, though I wouldn't pinpoint the same problems that you do. :)

da

Who clamors to have Missouri back?

/missing the point entirely