sholio | Supernatural

Entry tags:

Supernatural

I don't have a Winchester brothers icon (yet...) but this one, while technically being John and Rodney, seemed appropriate. *grin*

We're mainlining Supernatural now, and liking it very much!

I haven't developed massive fan-love for it yet. So far, I can't tell if this one is going to do that to me. Some shows do, and others don't. So far, this is feeling more like a "Buffy" or a "Firefly" to me -- two shows that I really enjoyed greatly when I watched them, but never felt particularly compelled to extend beyond canon, the way that I do with SGA. However, we *are* only just finished with the 2nd disc of the DVD set.

I'm relieved to find out that the husband likes it too. I was expecting all manner of mocking due to the pretty-boy factor, but luckily he's distracted by the big guns and damsels in distress. *g*

And it is a marvelously entertaining show with some genuine creepiness. I love the matter-of-fact way that the Winchesters discuss the supernatural things they encounter, in the same sort of taxonomical fashion as biologists talking about the mating habits of sea crabs. ("Well, measuring the width of the claw marks on the wall it looks like we're dealing with a basic type-2 specter here -- but noting the presence of a dewclaw, it could be a small or immature bogeyman...")

Lots of fun banter. The Winchesters ring very true as brothers to me, which means I'm now even more creeped out by Wincest than I was before. *shivers* My husband likes to point out at every conceivable opportunity that they look NOTHING alike. It's TV, though, f'r pete's sake, and actually I *do* think they look at least a little bit alike. I also love their "one step ahead of the law" style of ghost hunting. Although -- correct me if I'm wrong here, but after the episode where the shapeshifter impersonated Dean and then got killed, wouldn't Dean be legally dead now? Because he was using his real name in that episode, and then they mentioned at the end that the blame for the crime was pinned specifically on him (the dead him). Granted, he's got more ID's than the DMV, but I would have expected to see that addressed again at some point, and it hasn't been. Generally the continuity on this show seems to be pretty good, but that bugs me.

I find it amusing that some SGA fans complain so vociferously about Sheppard's much more innocent "Kirking" on SGA, whereas Dean is about ten times worse and a whole lot more up-front about it. There's actually something very disturbing to me about Dean, especially in light of the shapeshifter episode, where he's deliberately trying to isolate Sam from his friends. There's a darkness in him; he seems very much to me in the mold of the classic old western hero -- love 'em and leave 'em, shoot whatever you have to in order to save the day, and then ride along to the next town. It's interesting how in the series, this makes him a total mismatch with the modern world, always on the wrong side of the law and unable to form close relationships with people. He's a classic pulp hero running around in a world where men are supposed to be sensitive and in touch with their feelings, where one-night stands are frowned upon and where problems are typically left to the police to solve. Even the name Winchester suggests that old-west-hero type of character. For all I know, I'm probably treading analysis ground that's been covered again and again by other fans, but I'm new to the show and have never read commentary on it, so it's all new to me. :D

Contrasting the brothers, I guess I would say that I'm drawn to the brokenness in Dean, whereas Sam is much more approachable as a human being. I like Sam as a person; I'm not sure if I would want to know Dean, but I like him as a character, if that makes any sense. And of course, he's hotter than hell. I'm not really drawn to Sam as eye candy because he's just too young-looking; I'm thirty, and Sam trips my cradle-robber-o-meter.

That's all for now; we'll be moving along to the next DVD shortly, so I'm sure I'll have more soon. ^^

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Drive by comments - because y'know, *technically* at work at the moment.

The shapeshifter and legally dead status - definitely gets addressed again (minorly later in the first season, BIG TIME in the second season). And like you, I adore when they do the continuity thing.

The thing I like most about the Winchester brothers is that they are layered, I found that more and more gets revealed about them as the season progesses. I would *definitely* want to know Dean as a person - but I'd really want to be on his good side! I believe that at his core, Dean Winchester is an *extraordinarily* altuistic person - but I suppose it takes a while for that to be revealed. I'm not sure when I latched onto it - and I must admit that I didn't watch the first season completely in order.

And yeah, they are *so* brothers even without all that much physical resemblance (and they don't look much like their dad either - although I do think the actress cast as the mother has a reasonable physical resemblance to Jensen Ackles, so lookswise Dean takes after his mum). And while I get a kick out of actors of completely different nationalities being cast as brothers and really looking like brothers (Sean Bean and David Wenham in LOTR for instance) - I kind of think it's even more impressive that you totally believe the Winchesters are brothers even without the physical resemblance.

Anyway, as you know, I can go on and on about Supernatural, but I should be working. Hope to chat more when you've got some more eps under your belt.

Oh and I've almost finished a vid for Supernatural. Big time spoilers for the end of the season and the beginning of the next though. Dunno if you might wanna wait until you see those eps...

I'm *really* glad to hear that they get back to the legally-dead thing, because it had seemed to me that they'd just dropped it and it was bugging me.

About Dean ... I think it's just that so far, most of what we've seen of him has been the dark, obsessive side. We know that he'd do a lot for his brother, but even though his whole life is dedicated to helping people, so far it seems that he doesn't have a lot of use for people as *individuals*. It almost seems that in his black-and-white morality, he pursues ideals (saving people; maintaining the integrity of the family) without really understanding what those ideals actually *mean*. Whereas Sam doesn't have those high ideals; for him it's all about saving *this* person, about sticking with Dean because he loves Dean and not because he wants to keep the family intact.

Not that Dean doesn't love Sam. It's just that I get the feeling that he puts ideals ahead of people, whereas Sam does the opposite. And it's interesting to think what might happen if Dean was brought into a situation where his ideals run at cross purposes to his loyalty to an individual.

Again, this is just my impression based on a handful of episodes, and I do like flawed characters. Paragons of virtue are utterly boring; flawed heroes are interesting. I'm definitely looking forward to seeing how things progress.

Your thoughts on early Dean and Sam are interesting because I don't see Sam being all that interesting in helping people at all to start with. He spends a lot of the early episodes harping on about finding their dad and Jessica's killer and almost seems to resent stopping to help complete strangers. It seemed to me that Sam took about half a season to get over what I call his "youngest child syndrome" and start seeing things beyond his own personal issues. Sam's about *his* grief over his girlfriend and the search to find *his* father and going off on a crusade to help one of *his* friends (and his brother ends up "legally dead" over the issue - and one thing that the series didn't address is the fact it was *Sam's* problem but *Dean* was the one who ended up making the sacrifice - and he just jokes about it at the end, as if this means nothing to him).

And I never saw Dean's morality as being particularly cold and black-and-white to start with (I actually think he got darker later on, for reasons that're a whole other spoiler-fest). Yes, I do think that he helps people simply because he was raised to think "that's what y'do". His father taught him that you protect people from the dark things even if you get no thanks in return - just coz y'do. But I also saw him making personal connections with the people they helped from very early on. He was drawn to Hayley in "Wendigo" and I think he wanted to help her on a personal level because he identified with her fierce need to protect her family. Similarly he bonded with the young boy Lucas (I think it was the next episode). Sam makes comments that this caring about the child is somehow unlike Dean ("Who are and what have you done with my brother?" I think he says). But watching the series develop, it seems that this would more indicated how much Sam misjudged his brother, rather than Dean acting out of character. (I also think it might have been a case of the writers being guided by how the actors' performances began to shape the characters).

And yeah, they are both flawed - but they are both truly "good" people too. Honestly, they are two of the most interesting characters that I've come across in recent times. Pretty boys or not, they really make me *care* about what happens to them and dammit I want a happy ending eventually. But to be honest, this could totally be a series that ends in a big tragedy. And to be honest, the most likely tragedy for it to end on would be Sam finally losing his brother (and being Dean, he'd probably do it in some self-sacrificing heroic way) and then Sam rides off into the sunset to find his "new life". It would almost be cliche really. But dammit, I WANT A HAPPY ENDING!!!

Um... where did my lunch break go?

It's really interesting to compare our readings of the characters, because we tend to hit the mark so incredibly close on SGA ... but there's a lot here that I hadn't really seen in the characters, or see somewhat differently.

I guess that my readings of the characters so far is colored by the idea (which I hadn't even realized that I *had*, until reading your comments above) that Sam's desire to have a normal life is more mature than Dean's tilting at windmills. Which isn't really true ... and in fact, given the world in which they live, it's pretty evident that the world *needs* people like Dean, who are willing to sacrifice their hope of friends, family, etc. in order to save the world. Still, I find that I sympathize more easily with Sam's search for personal fulfilment than with Dean's desire to keep the family together, and save the world, at all costs, even if it means sacrificing happiness, love, or one's personal hopes and dreams in the process. It's an incredibly heroic decision to make for onesself -- but kind of a lousy decision to make on someone else's behalf, which is basically what he's done with Sam.

I hadn't really seen Sam's unwillingness to derail his personal quest for total strangers until you pointed it out here -- or, I guess that I saw it a little differently, as a tendency to get emotionally involved with the people they encounter, to a much greater extent than Dean. I guess I've got it backwards, though: it's actually that he *needs* that involvement in order to risk himself for them, which I hadn't noticed. Dean, meanwhile, is a hero to the core, throwing himself in harm's way for anyone -- but holding everyone around him at arm's length on a personal level. Although you're right that this isn't always true -- like with the little kid in the drowning episode. It just takes a lot to pull him past his "don't get involved" mantra. Whereas Sam seems to get involved a lot more easily, but if he *doesn't* have that, he's more inclined to keep going than to stop and help. Which, of the two of them, makes Dean clearly the more "heroic" person. But there's still that pesky problem of "ideals over people" ...

Oh, I do agree with you that they're both good people -- and that Sam still has a lot of growing up to do. I guess I'm still uncomfortable with the apparent absolutism of Dean's moral code, though. The two episodes where I was struck by that were the shapeshifter episode and the one with the Indian burial ground under the housing development (heh). In the first, Dean was trying to sever Sam's relationships with his friends (although it's true that he did end up helping -- and losing a lot in the process, as you pointed out). In the second episode, he was harping heavily on the "keep the family together at all costs" idea. Now, don't get me wrong here -- first of all, I *do* like Dean, and second, I come from a very close-knit family myself. But there's something very oppressive about the way that Dean really doesn't seem to care what Sam wants or needs. Dean (and their father) have this ideal in mind for what Sam *should* be, and they seem determined to force Sam to fit into this mold, whether or not he actually *can*. Granted, Sam's absolute turning his back on his family is cold, to say the least. But confronted with this kind of pressure from his father and brother, I can't really think what else he *could* have done, except just capitulate and become what they wanted him to be. Because he was never given a choice.

You've got to be right about the layered complexities of these characters, because I'm already getting *this* much analysis out of it and I've only seen a few episodes! And you know what? I think I feel more positively towards Dean than I did at the start of this conversation -- and a LOT more interested in seeing how the future interactions of the Winchester boys develop.

Hmm ... I may get fannish about this series after all. :D

Er, and not to intrude on this discussion but there's so many interesting points being raised (to be honest I haven't been involved much in SPN fandom, it's been more a personal friends-fanning experience, so I'm still all bright and eager to have new people to discuss it with ^^) but concerning Sam getting closer to people than Dean - it's not something one notices right away, but Sam doesn't get as close as one might think. Of the two, Sam is far and away the better liar. Watch them sneak into places and bamboozle people - Dean doesn't find lying/cheating/conning morally wrong, while Sam protests at using illegal credit cards and such. But Sam is better at it. And Sam is capable of lying to the people he loves - he loved Jessica, undeniably, and yet never told her a thing about his life before. Dean can lie to the people he's close to - i.e. Sam - but not nearly as comfortably. He doesn't get close to women or their 'clients' because if he did, he'd probably end up spilling his guts...

*grin* You're not intruding at all -- the more the merrier!

And that's a good point about Sam. Actually, it's *very* interesting in light of the episode we just watched, the one in the haunted insane asylum -- because that episode directly addresses the point you make above. And while Dean is (as I said upstream a ways) sort of disturbingly obsessive on the whole family-destiny issue, he also seems to be a pretty straightforward guy. What you see is what you get. Whereas Sam ... isn't. It would have been interesting to see the anger thing reversed, with Dean getting hit with the aggression enhancement ... because what that episode seems to bring out is that Sam has all this deeply buried rage and resentment that doesn't show at all on the surface, whereas Dean's rage seems to be pretty close to the surface to begin with -- I don't know how much more you would have gotten than what's already there.

In fact, the episodes we watched tonight (and the discussion with Derry) have made me do almost a complete flip-flop on Sam and Dean ... from finding Dean creepy and obsessive, and taking Sam at face value, to finding Dean almost comfortingly straightforward compared to Sam's much more subtle and passive-aggressive messed-up-ness.

And I probably shouldn't be doing so much analyzing of the characters, having seen no more of them than I have ... I'm sure all of this will change as the season wears on.

Ah, lunchtime! I've been thinking about what you said overnight though - yeah, always dangerous.

I must admit that I never considered what Sam did in the early episodes to be very "mature". I always thought of wanting to assert your independence as more of a sign of adolescence than adulthood, like part of the process of growing up but not actually having reached there yet. The actual "maturity" I see is when you take responsibility (preferably not only for yourself but also for others around you) and to be honest, that's what I thought Sam's journey really was at the start of the season.

Don't get me wrong - I liked him, but I didn't see him as at all "mature". In fact, I kind of liked the immaturity in the same way as I liked it in characters like Buffy's sister, Dawn and Angel's son, Connor. These kids definitely had their pouty bratty moments (and IMHO so does Sam) but they have good reason to do so. Like Sam, with Dawn I ascribe it to "youngest child syndrome" (with Connor it's more like "hey I was raised by a vengeance-obsessed psycho in a hell dimension" syndrome). What I really love about Sam's journey is the way he (quite subtley, I think) begins to see how much he was protected (rather than just stifled) by his brother in particular, and you can pretty much see him resolving to return the favour. Actually, it's interesting to find out how much Sam doesn't know about the family history. I think you've seen "Home", right? Sam didn't even know that Dean was the one who carried him out of the house during the fire, and when he learns that you can see him process the info and he seems a little wowed by it (those looks of dawning understanding seem to be something that Padalecki is particularly good at, as he does it again in "Something Wicked" which late in the season but one of my favourites because it's huge in terms of explaining Winchester family dynamics). I don't think that Sam is an innately selfish individual. He's just someone who's been coddled more than he realised thus far, and he's learning to truly take responsibility. I actually find that quite admirable.

But in some ways both the Winchester boys' biggest flaw (well, at least at the start of season one and I am trying so hard not get spoilerly here!) is selfishness. Sam wants to selfishly cut himself off from his family while Dean wants to selfishly hold onto his family .

And to throw you a paradox - Dean's selfishness stems actually from a form of selflessness - and in this case, the selflessness is more of a flaw than a virtue. And I see you rolling your eyes! Yes, I do love a paradox. The thing is that Dean actually doesn't have any sense of identity beyond his roles within the Winchester family - dutiful son and protective older brother. At the risk of spoiling, when Sam asks Dean whether he wants anything for himself, he answers that he wants his family together again. Really, that's all he wants. He doesn't have a sense of identity of Dean Winchester as an individual separate from his family. Trying not to spoil, but Dean's childhood experiences taught him that he couldn't afford to put his own needs before his family duties - and I think he's lost the ability to form a personal agenda beyond looking after his family.

And I've also been thinking about the brothers' different viewpoints about having a "normal" life. Sam's never had one. He was 6 months old when normality went out the window for the Winchesters, so I think he's always had a "grass is always greener" longing for the normality he never had. He's seen "normal" from the outside and craved it all his life because it was always denied him. Whereas Dean was four, he might not have a good memory of what "normal" was actually like, but I do think that he remembers, at least on an emotional level, what it was like to have a "normal happy childhood" ripped away from you. To Dean, "normal" along with "safe" became an illusion, a cruel lie even. So Sam grasps for "normal" as an ideal he's never known whereas Dean violently rejects it as the lie he sees it to be.

You guys gotta keep in mind that you're getting a complete stream-of-consciousness on my impressions of the characters as I (and the writers) get to know them. This is in constant flux, as usual. I mean, heck, I actively *disliked* Sheppard in the early episodes of SGA. (Hard to believe now, I know...)

And tonight? We just watched the scarecrow episode and then "Faith" and ... OMG. DEAN. I want to take you home and hug you and make all the bad go away. In the first couple of episodes of the series, Dean weirded me out -- I saw him as cold and scary. Now, though ... now ... his puppy-dog-eyes, and the way he'll jump between someone and danger no matter what, and the way he says what needs to be said even when he really doesn't want to, and most especially the way that he didn't even run away from the reaper ... oh, Dean. You really need a friend. Or at least a hug.

*cough* Sorry, what? We were having a discussion? I appear to have gotten ... distracted, somehow.

The thing is that Dean actually doesn't have any sense of identity beyond his roles within the Winchester family - dutiful son and protective older brother.

I'm *totally* starting to see this. And he really does both admire and resent that about Sam -- that Sam *does* have the ability to decide for himself what he wants and who he is. Dean, I think, doesn't have that. And he simultaneously recognizes the selfishness of it in Sam (because it *is* selfish), and wants it for himself, but can't have it.

I must admit that I never considered what Sam did in the early episodes to be very "mature". I always thought of wanting to assert your independence as more of a sign of adolescence than adulthood, like part of the process of growing up but not actually having reached there yet.

Keep in mind, again, that you're getting my ever-changing stream-of-consciousness impressions. Watching the first couple of episodes, my sympathies were almost totally with Sam -- what I saw, basically, was someone who was being pressured and pushed around by a family that are, themselves, stuck in a kind of perpetual adolescence: fulfilling a kind of macho fantasy, two guys with a gun and a car against the world, unwilling to grow up and face the real world -- and trying to push Sam into that mold. Now that I'm seeing the wider picture, it's a far, far more complex situation, and my sympathies are aligning more and more with Dean. I feel for Sam, stuck between a rock and a hard place, but the way he's reacting to it is more as a kid throwing a temper tantrum than an adult making rational decisions. Dean's the one who's facing up to his responsibilities, while Sam is running away. And in the first couple of episodes, I'd seen the exact opposite.

I do agree with you about both brothers' point of view being selfish in their own way. I mean, heck, that's *people*. And it wouldn't be interesting at all if it was a simple case of good brother/bad brother. The fact that they both have legitimate reasons for what they want, from life and from each other ... and yet those motives bring them into constant conflict ... that's what makes good drama.

And you'd said a little while back that you saw Dean as a very altruistic person. There is nothing really to say to that but yes, after the last couple of episodes. Dean is pushing all of my fan buttons right now in a major way.

Hehehe...

Okay, I'm trying to finish up at work here so I can finally ~~escape~~ go home. But I just couldn't resist one comment.

What you say about changing perceptions? TOTALLY!

In fact, the thing I love absolutely the most about the Winchester brothers is precisely that most of what they "project" to the world is exactly the opposite if you dig deeper. Makes for absolutely fascinating characters!

Oh, and once Dean takes a hold of your heart, he just doesn't let go. Even when he starts to go a widdle bit dark... But that's a whole other story.

Am I trying to push you into watching the series faster? Would I do that? *blinks innocently*

And yeah, "Faith" is still one of my all time favourites. Not only Dean! But also dear sweet loyal mega-determined Sam! He's just started to really realise what his family means to him, no way he's gonna let his brother die!

And just you wait until "Something Wicked". You will be goo, I tell ya. A total quivering puddle of goo!

But not pushing! Nah, not me!

*snicker*

And did I say one comment?

*face palm*

But wait! There's more! (Always is, right?)

I actually didn't think Dean was actively trying to cut Sam off from his friends. He was just pooh-poohing the idea because, as you say, his mantra is not to get involved. He knows he's a "freak" but thinks that's the way it has to be. Mind you, that blonde chick who was Sam's good friend from uni? So not worth the time and effort. Yeah, like any human being, worth saving from being murdered etc, but worth maintaining a friendship with? Not so much. Okay, maybe I'm projecting but she so reminded me of those rich, self-absorbed, condescending "my parents spend half the year in Europe" types that I knew at uni. So okay, maybe those are *my* issues. LOL!

Trying to make Sam do stuff he doesn't want to though? Yeah, Dean definitely does that. There definitely a sense of "I'm older and I know better than you", but Dean doesn't ever really domineer Sam - possibly because Sam doesn't let him and I suspect Sam never has. In some ways, it's a bit like the fallacy about Rodney McKay being victimised. Sam, like Rodney, is just too strong-willed to take any crap like that. Maybe they'll accept some bullying from someone they love like a brother *wink*, but they never ever play victim. No, not ever.

Heeheeheee~!

I should give due warning that while I enjoyed the show/brotherliness from the first eps, I didn't really fall fannishly for the show myself until more than halfway through 1st season. Around "Nightmare" and then "Shadow" (hmm, 2nd season ep titles are so much more interesting...) Which, not coincidentally, is when the focus of the show starts shifting more from Sam's angst, and what Sam knows and is learning of his brother, to Dean himself, and what's really up with/wrong with him. I adore Dean for a large part because not only does he have a lot of darkness and problems, but the show starts delving into them in a major way. Because yes, there is a paradox in how deeply Dean loves his brother (in the brotherly sense! I am not for the Wincest. Even if certain writers make it difficult >_>) and yet what he wants of Sam is not what Sam wants, nor what is best for Sam... (I like Sam, but I'm liking him even more 2nd season, which is easily explainable but I won't want to spoil ^^)

Hah, I spent most of my first watching of the show complaining that they look nothing alike! (I do think Dean looks like his father, but no one else seems to agree with me, so, um...I'm bad at facial recognition? ^^;) But they do act so terrifically like brothers! The actors get along as such too, according to the interviews I've seen. Ackles and Padalecki are the same ages as their chars, which happens to be the exact same ages as me and my little sister - like you, I come from a very close family, and for all the unreal events around them, the brother relationship rings true to me, the teasing and the closeness they don't usually even need to mention.

Funny, that you mention Kirk for Dean - in one interview Kripke calls Sam Luke Skywalker and Dean Han Solo...

--Incidentally, depending on your tastes, you might want to start watching the writer credits. SPN has a small stable of recurring writers, and it sometimes can give you an idea of what to expect out of an ep.
(Most significantly, if plot holes bother you, you need to watch for the name "John Shiban" - he writes great brother interaction but his plots make no sense. He wrote "Bugs" as well as a couple 2nd season eps which are...masterpieces of Swiss cheese - we're talking plot holes jumbo jets could comfortable fly though - but totally worth it for the brother scenes.)

So, yes...looking forward to your reactions as you move along! (heee! ^_^)

If "Bugs" is the one with the haunted burial ground and the housing development, then that makes me laugh because my husband and I turned to each other after that episode with identical "WTF?" looks at the utter incomprehensibility of the last 10 minutes or so of plot.

I like how they don't just push the reset button on the angst at the end of these episodes (which SGA is notorious for doing) -- you can tell that events from one episode are going carry through into future episodes, and I like that.

*laughs* Yup, that's "Bugs". Get used to it when you see Shiban credited as writer. (he's story editor sometimes too and does fine then, it's only when he's responsible for plot that the trouble starts) (he's also the writer I was talking about when I mentioned the Wincest - I don't read fic for it but he writes it into the show! "Bugs" had the gay couple jokes, after all...)

And yes, SPN only has passing plot arcs mixed in with the Monsters of the Week, but the character arc is pretty solid. It's a nice balance.

"Bugs" had the gay couple jokes, after all...

That made me laugh so hard! And of course, in the *real world* (as opposed to the slash world, where different rules apply), it's just hilarious because you, the viewer, know how ludicrous the whole idea of it is. (And Dean playing it up, by way of messing with his brother, made it all the funnier.)

Two young men who don't have much physical resemblance to each other turn up and say they want to buy a house? Yeah, you can see how the developer gets the wrong idea. And yeah, that's what makes it FUNNY. If they actually were a gay couple, it wouldn't be funny. And the humour is in the awkwardness. I adore the higly disturbed expression on Dean's face when he first recognises what the guy is talking about. But when it happens the second time, he's ready for it and hence has the presence of mind to use it against Sam. Hilarious. Perfect. But without the irony of it being so very not true, there's nothing.

Why do people not get that?

Why do people not get that?

*sigh* It baffles me, it really does. The latest example of that sort of thing I ran across -- and I'm going to slip into a certain amount of vagueness here, because

xparrot hasn't seen SGA yet but she's planning on watching it this winter (SQUEE), so I don't want to spoil her too much -- had to do with the "love you" scene in "Tao", and particularly the little "... like a friend" caveat. There are actually people out there in slasherland who were upset, *really* upset, that their slash OTP have basically stated in no uncertain terms in canon that they love each other *like friends*. I mean, WTF? I can see (and respect) how slashing canonically straight characters can appeal to a lot of people as a fantasy. But fans getting distraught over the affirmation of their slash OTP's canonical straightness ... I mean, HELLO! Reality check! How thick do your slash goggles have to be, in order to have your personal intrepretation of canon diverge that far from reality? What show have these people been watching for the last three seasons, exactly?

I'm really starting to agree with you on the whole "avoiding fandom and chatting with friends instead" issue. I haven't been seriously involved in fandom in years, and now I'm starting to remember some of the reasons why I left before. It's frankly just more fun to seek out like-minded people and chat with them; every time that I get drawn into the groups and discussion boards and reading episode meta, I end up feeling frustrated and unhappy rather than filled with fannish squee. It ain't worth it, I tell ya...

There are actually people out there in slasherland who were upset, *really* upset, that their slash OTP have basically stated in no uncertain terms in canon that they love each other *like friends*. I mean, WTF?

*boggles* I've got to agree with you. W. T. F???

I mean, surely if you want to slash them you could just see it as them "being in denial" when they say that stuff? Isn't that what shippers of any description do when canon goes against their OTP. Like "Sure he *says* he loves Buffy, but that's just because he's *in denial* about being hot for Spike!" *snicker*

I mean what do they expect? I know there was "The Kiss" for the McBeck shippers way back when, but do the McSheppers honestly expect the show will one day categorically state that Sheppard and McKay are "so doing it"? The degree to which fans believe that they can dictate what actually *is* canon... just... just... *total bewilderment*

Yeah ... the thing about the "in denial" argument is that it simply can't be disproven by canon. No matter how strongly canon makes the case that both men are completely straight and are JUST FRIENDS, you can still slap up the "denial" argument and ... well, there you go.

I mean, you *could* argue that "Real World" is the true story of what's really been going on for the last three seasons -- it's all Elizabeth's delusion. And there's nothing in canon that can successfully contradict this; it's a hallucination, after all. There are some interesting AU possibilities that could be spawned by this. But to really, truly BELIEVE that, in canon, Atlantis is really a hallucination, and to go through canon looking for bits of evidence to support your point of view, and getting upset with canon for apparently contradicting it ... that's just ... well, sort of delusional, really. And it makes my jaw drop to see slashers basically doing that exact thing. Can there possibly be anyone out there who genuinely believes that TPTB intend Sheppard and McKay as a couple despite all the (ample) evidence that both of them are perfectly straight and FRIENDS?

Hi! You don't know me, but we seem to have a mutual friend who speaks very highly of you :-)

I read your comment above about being less "in the fandom" when it comes to this show and more just wanting to have friends to talk about it with. I am SO with you on that. Frankly, this seems like a "big and scary" fandom that I think I'll want to just skirt around the edges of.

So, as I said, hi! Nice t'meetcha!

I think I know what you mean about second season Sam. It's an extension the journey that he took towards the end of season one - taken in leaps and bounds! I don't want to say too much here and spoil certain people but let's just say - the shifting family dynamics! WOW!

I must admit that I watch this show pretty much for the character interactions. Logical plots not so much. I think I watch through a veil of tolerant scepticism when it comes to the plot storylines. I like logic and I love continuity, but when faced with giant plot holes I generally shrug them off. Mind you that didn't stop me from spending half of the opening episode of season 2 going "but wasn't he...? and didn't he...? and wouldn't someone call the police about...?" but I still loved the episode for the sheer family drama! LOL!

Oh, and I have just made my first SPN music vid which is very spoilery for that season 2 opener (and has clips right up until the latest episode). Don't want to push it on our mutual friend, coz she'd be hideously spolied by seeing it. But if you are at all interested, I just posted it up at my own LJ here (http://derry667.livejournal.com/81726.html)

I must admit that I watch this show pretty much for the character interactions. Logical plots not so much.

Rather like a certain other show I could mention here...

I don't know if it's a rule or something that the shows with fantastic character interaction have to have the absolute silliest plots. *grin*

And I can't watch your video yet! WAAAH! But at the rate we're going, we'll be there before too long. Halfway through Season 1 already! (And Emilie, if you're still around, you should go watch her video. Really! I can say that even without seeing it! Her friendshippy SGA vids were what originally made me want to watch the series ... seriously!)

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Supernatural

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

eeeee!

Re: eeeee!

Re: eeeee!

Re: eeeee!

Re: eeeee!

Re: eeeee!

Re: eeeee!

Re: eeeee!

Re: eeeee!

Re: eeeee!