|
Post by Sue on May 29, 2011 18:17:00 GMT -5
Nice comparison. I realized in reading it that I'm the Season Six of life: " Once you've defeated ultimate evil, all that's left is ambiguous evil. And ambiguous evil is a lot harder to cope with." That's putting it a bit strongly but I did high school, did college, have "conquered" marriage, childbirth, raising kids, home buying and owning and am now in Season Six: being nit-picked to death by the Nerd Trio of age, weight, inertia etc. Some of us will go out in a blaze like Spike, come felled like Anya, some wounded but carrying on like the Principal, and some will continue to look forward to 'what's next." Feeling a bit philosophical apparently. And, I did watch the final 2 episodes and Cas has clearly fallen into the epitome of "original sin" -- thinking he knows best for everyone else. I really hope the Real God shows up in season seven.
|
|
|
Post by Queen E on May 29, 2011 19:21:11 GMT -5
Nice comparison. I realized in reading it that I'm the Season Six of life: " Once you've defeated ultimate evil, all that's left is ambiguous evil. And ambiguous evil is a lot harder to cope with." That's putting it a bit strongly but I did high school, did college, have "conquered" marriage, childbirth, raising kids, home buying and owning and am now in Season Six: being nit-picked to death by the Nerd Trio of age, weight, inertia etc. Some of us will go out in a blaze like Spike, come felled like Anya, some wounded but carrying on like the Principal, and some will continue to look forward to 'what's next." Feeling a bit philosophical apparently. And, I did watch the final 2 episodes and Cas has clearly fallen into the epitome of "original sin" -- thinking he knows best for everyone else. I really hope the Real God shows up in season seven. Who, Chuck? I will say this...with all my issues with this season, it has certainly given me massive amounts of fodder for more articles on the series. And the way it plays with meta...one could even argue that it represents a metaphor for the shift in showrunners. But I'm a bit too tired for that argument. Also: for being in the Season 6 of life. I don't think I'm there yet; I've not defeated any of the Glorifici of life. (And now I'm thinking of that bit in The Three Amigos where Steve Martin's character talks about defeating "your own personal El Guapo." My brain is an odd place.)
|
|
|
Post by Sue on May 29, 2011 20:12:38 GMT -5
Nice comparison. I realized in reading it that I'm the Season Six of life: " Once you've defeated ultimate evil, all that's left is ambiguous evil. And ambiguous evil is a lot harder to cope with." That's putting it a bit strongly but I did high school, did college, have "conquered" marriage, childbirth, raising kids, home buying and owning and am now in Season Six: being nit-picked to death by the Nerd Trio of age, weight, inertia etc. Some of us will go out in a blaze like Spike, come felled like Anya, some wounded but carrying on like the Principal, and some will continue to look forward to 'what's next." Feeling a bit philosophical apparently. And, I did watch the final 2 episodes and Cas has clearly fallen into the epitome of "original sin" -- thinking he knows best for everyone else. I really hope the Real God shows up in season seven. Who, Chuck? I will say this...with all my issues with this season, it has certainly given me massive amounts of fodder for more articles on the series. And the way it plays with meta...one could even argue that it represents a metaphor for the shift in showrunners. But I'm a bit too tired for that argument. Also: for being in the Season 6 of life. I don't think I'm there yet; I've not defeated any of the Glorifici of life. (And now I'm thinking of that bit in The Three Amigos where Steve Martin's character talks about defeating "your own personal El Guapo." My brain is an odd place.) My kids LOVED that movie. Maybe more than Princess Bride. Certainly at a younger age.
|
|
|
Post by Queen E on Aug 30, 2011 13:18:36 GMT -5
Monnie: Here's my thinky thoughts on the article. I'm a "wait-and-see"-er. I guess it depends on what one views the show as being about. I don't mean what it seems a lot of commentators mean (ie, it's about two brothers, etc), I mean on a thematic level. For instance, I always thought Buffy was not only about how to deal with power, but (and this really came out in Season 7), how to create a new paradigm of power. Which is precisely how the arc ended up; Buffy turned the patriarchal notions of lone wolf power and made it a communal, shared power. It was perfect for what the central theme of the show is. SPN has been more challenging because it's hard to tie it down to one central theme. But a major theme of the series, for me, anyway, is how a person deals with absence: absence of home, absence of family, absence of a moral code, absence of a soul, absence of God. All of the seasons have dealt with this in one form or another. What I found intriguing about Season 6, and the way that Castiel's arc developed, was that he became what was absent, in the same way Dean had earlier. If you look at Castiel as a mirror of Dean, it makes sense. Dean, in the absence of his father, strove to become John (his car, his music, his attitude toward hunting), but in fact was much more like his mother. Sam tried to be everything John wasn't, and became just like John (single-minded, ruthless, etc). So, Cas, in the absence of God, dealt with it in a way that combines both Dean and Sam's arcs: he strove to become what wasn't there: God. The striving is Dean, the success is Sam. That intrigues me, and I am interested to see how it plays out... Anyway, those are my thoughts. Maybe I'm crazy.
|
|
|
Post by Squeemonster on Aug 30, 2011 13:50:02 GMT -5
Monnie: Here's my thinky thoughts on the article. I'm a "wait-and-see"-er. I guess it depends on what one views the show as being about. I don't mean what it seems a lot of commentators mean (ie, it's about two brothers, etc), I mean on a thematic level. For instance, I always thought Buffy was not only about how to deal with power, but (and this really came out in Season 7), how to create a new paradigm of power. Which is precisely how the arc ended up; Buffy turned the patriarchal notions of lone wolf power and made it a communal, shared power. It was perfect for what the central theme of the show is. SPN has been more challenging because it's hard to tie it down to one central theme. But a major theme of the series, for me, anyway, is how a person deals with absence: absence of home, absence of family, absence of a moral code, absence of a soul, absence of God. All of the seasons have dealt with this in one form or another. What I found intriguing about Season 6, and the way that Castiel's arc developed, was that he became what was absent, in the same way Dean had earlier. If you look at Castiel as a mirror of Dean, it makes sense. Dean, in the absence of his father, strove to become John (his car, his music, his attitude toward hunting), but in fact was much more like his mother. Sam tried to be everything John wasn't, and became just like John (single-minded, ruthless, etc). So, Cas, in the absence of God, dealt with it in a way that combines both Dean and Sam's arcs: he strove to become what wasn't there: God. The striving is Dean, the success is Sam. That intrigues me, and I am interested to see how it plays out... Anyway, those are my thoughts. Maybe I'm crazy. I love your thinky thoughts. If that's the case, and if they allow for redemption for Cas, I'd be ecstatic. I never really thought of it like this before, and it actually makes me feel a bit better about it, if that's possible. I've seen a lot of comparisons of Cas's arc to Dean's, so this makes even more sense. What I fear is that maybe this gives the showrunners a bit too much credit. I fear that they will throw him into the cut-and-dry Big Bad box, do their best to make us hate him and want him dead, then have the Winchesters kill him without a second thought. I loathe all the talk about the show needing to get back to its core, back to just the brothers alone. That's claustrophobic and a regression. Give these guys something to live for, something to hold onto than just each other. They deserve it. They deserve some friends and family that won't die because of them or in spite of them. Maybe your theory about the themes will be revealed to be exactly what they've been reaching for. Maybe the ultimate goal is for the brothers (and hopefully Cas) to grow into their own persons and live their lives not revolved around those absences. If that's how it all pans out, I will buy you a drink next time we meet.
|
|
|
Post by Queen E on Aug 30, 2011 15:27:19 GMT -5
Monnie: Here's my thinky thoughts on the article. I'm a "wait-and-see"-er. I guess it depends on what one views the show as being about. I don't mean what it seems a lot of commentators mean (ie, it's about two brothers, etc), I mean on a thematic level. For instance, I always thought Buffy was not only about how to deal with power, but (and this really came out in Season 7), how to create a new paradigm of power. Which is precisely how the arc ended up; Buffy turned the patriarchal notions of lone wolf power and made it a communal, shared power. It was perfect for what the central theme of the show is. SPN has been more challenging because it's hard to tie it down to one central theme. But a major theme of the series, for me, anyway, is how a person deals with absence: absence of home, absence of family, absence of a moral code, absence of a soul, absence of God. All of the seasons have dealt with this in one form or another. What I found intriguing about Season 6, and the way that Castiel's arc developed, was that he became what was absent, in the same way Dean had earlier. If you look at Castiel as a mirror of Dean, it makes sense. Dean, in the absence of his father, strove to become John (his car, his music, his attitude toward hunting), but in fact was much more like his mother. Sam tried to be everything John wasn't, and became just like John (single-minded, ruthless, etc). So, Cas, in the absence of God, dealt with it in a way that combines both Dean and Sam's arcs: he strove to become what wasn't there: God. The striving is Dean, the success is Sam. That intrigues me, and I am interested to see how it plays out... Anyway, those are my thoughts. Maybe I'm crazy. I love your thinky thoughts. If that's the case, and if they allow for redemption for Cas, I'd be ecstatic. I never really thought of it like this before, and it actually makes me feel a bit better about it, if that's possible. I've seen a lot of comparisons of Cas's arc to Dean's, so this makes even more sense. What I fear is that maybe this gives the showrunners a bit too much credit. I fear that they will throw him into the cut-and-dry Big Bad box, do their best to make us hate him and want him dead, then have the Winchesters kill him without a second thought. I loathe all the talk about the show needing to get back to its core, back to just the brothers alone. That's claustrophobic and a regression. Give these guys something to live for, something to hold onto than just each other. They deserve it. They deserve some friends and family that won't die because of them or in spite of them. Maybe your theory about the themes will be revealed to be exactly what they've been reaching for. Maybe the ultimate goal is for the brothers (and hopefully Cas) to grow into their own persons and live their lives not revolved around those absences. If that's how it all pans out, I will buy you a drink next time we meet. I can understand what you mean, but considering the way the show has shown both the way good characters are compromised (Dean, Sam, Mary, oh, and let's say Pa Campbell) and "bad" characters as having surprising depths (with perhaps the exception of Yellow Eyes and Lilith), such as Lucifer's daddy issues, Crowley's sense of humor, and Ruby's double-double agent role, I would be very surprised if Cas was put into the "bad only" box. The one thing that bugs me (and I'm not directing this at you in particular, because I've seen it all over the place) is it seems like female showrunner's tend to get a lot more flax for bad decisions than male showrunners. There was a lot of hate for Season 6 of Buffy, with people tearing Marti Noxon a new one for its perceived missteps. To his credit, Joss stepped in and took people to task, saying "blame all of us" if you've got a problem with the season. I wish Kripke would do the same; the show was created by him, after all, and I'm certain he has some say in it. But it is part of a larger problem I have with the show itself in the way women are treated, either killed (Bela and Ruby) or mocked (Becky). And it may be tied to a larger issue of some degree of resentment towards fans of the show in general, particularly female fans. ETA: I just want you to know I'm not calling you sexist by any means, because I know if Kripke was at the helm with this story, you'd rip him a new one too.
|
|
|
Post by Squeemonster on Aug 30, 2011 15:47:30 GMT -5
I love your thinky thoughts. If that's the case, and if they allow for redemption for Cas, I'd be ecstatic. I never really thought of it like this before, and it actually makes me feel a bit better about it, if that's possible. I've seen a lot of comparisons of Cas's arc to Dean's, so this makes even more sense. What I fear is that maybe this gives the showrunners a bit too much credit. I fear that they will throw him into the cut-and-dry Big Bad box, do their best to make us hate him and want him dead, then have the Winchesters kill him without a second thought. I loathe all the talk about the show needing to get back to its core, back to just the brothers alone. That's claustrophobic and a regression. Give these guys something to live for, something to hold onto than just each other. They deserve it. They deserve some friends and family that won't die because of them or in spite of them. Maybe your theory about the themes will be revealed to be exactly what they've been reaching for. Maybe the ultimate goal is for the brothers (and hopefully Cas) to grow into their own persons and live their lives not revolved around those absences. If that's how it all pans out, I will buy you a drink next time we meet. I can understand what you mean, but considering the way the show has shown both the way good characters are compromised (Dean, Sam, Mary, oh, and let's say Pa Campbell) and "bad" characters as having surprising depths (with perhaps the exception of Yellow Eyes and Lilith), such as Lucifer's daddy issues, Crowley's sense of humor, and Ruby's double-double agent role, I would be very surprised if Cas was put into the "bad only" box. The one thing that bugs me (and I'm not directing this at you in particular, because I've seen it all over the place) is it seems like female showrunner's tend to get a lot more flax for bad decisions than male showrunners. There was a lot of hate for Season 6 of Buffy, with people tearing Marti Noxon a new one for its perceived missteps. To his credit, Joss stepped in and took people to task, saying "blame all of us" if you've got a problem with the season. I wish Kripke would do the same; the show was created by him, after all, and I'm certain he has some say in it. But it is part of a larger problem I have with the show itself in the way women are treated, either killed (Bela and Ruby) or mocked (Becky). And it may be tied to a larger issue of some degree of resentment towards fans of the show in general, particularly female fans. ETA: I just want you to know I'm not calling you sexist by any means, because I know if Kripke was at the helm with this story, you'd rip him a new one too. No worries. LOL, where as I get so mad at people who say I can't complain about Gamble *because* she's a woman. Trust me, I would call to task whoever is head showrunner, be they male, female, alien lifeform, whatever. I don't care that she's a woman, I don't think that's why, IMO, she sucks as showrunner. And for the record, I *do* blame all of them (except for Edlund, I can never believe he actually likes what's happening with Cas, if what's happening is what I fear is happening). I just bring her name up more because she's the one leading them all. And no matter who was in charge of this all I would be bitching and moaning just as loudly. Sorry, you hit on a sore topic with me because I've felt a bit under attack and being accused of sexism this hellatus just because I dare to criticize a female in charge of something. Last summer? I was one of the ones telling people to be excited about Gamble as a showrunner and I was anticipating the fresh perspective, while some of these same people who are accusing me of it now were bitching about her taking the helm. It's been a very frustrating time to be a part of SPN fandom, unfortunately.
|
|
|
Post by Queen E on Aug 30, 2011 16:24:43 GMT -5
I can understand what you mean, but considering the way the show has shown both the way good characters are compromised (Dean, Sam, Mary, oh, and let's say Pa Campbell) and "bad" characters as having surprising depths (with perhaps the exception of Yellow Eyes and Lilith), such as Lucifer's daddy issues, Crowley's sense of humor, and Ruby's double-double agent role, I would be very surprised if Cas was put into the "bad only" box. The one thing that bugs me (and I'm not directing this at you in particular, because I've seen it all over the place) is it seems like female showrunner's tend to get a lot more flax for bad decisions than male showrunners. There was a lot of hate for Season 6 of Buffy, with people tearing Marti Noxon a new one for its perceived missteps. To his credit, Joss stepped in and took people to task, saying "blame all of us" if you've got a problem with the season. I wish Kripke would do the same; the show was created by him, after all, and I'm certain he has some say in it. But it is part of a larger problem I have with the show itself in the way women are treated, either killed (Bela and Ruby) or mocked (Becky). And it may be tied to a larger issue of some degree of resentment towards fans of the show in general, particularly female fans. ETA: I just want you to know I'm not calling you sexist by any means, because I know if Kripke was at the helm with this story, you'd rip him a new one too. No worries. LOL, where as I get so mad at people who say I can't complain about Gamble *because* she's a woman. Trust me, I would call to task whoever is head showrunner, be they male, female, alien lifeform, whatever. I don't care that she's a woman, I don't think that's why, IMO, she sucks as showrunner. And for the record, I *do* blame all of them (except for Edlund, I can never believe he actually likes what's happening with Cas, if what's happening is what I fear is happening). I just bring her name up more because she's the one leading them all. And no matter who was in charge of this all I would be bitching and moaning just as loudly. Sorry, you hit on a sore topic with me because I've felt a bit under attack and being accused of sexism this hellatus just because I dare to criticize a female in charge of something. Last summer? I was one of the ones telling people to be excited about Gamble as a showrunner and I was anticipating the fresh perspective, while some of these same people who are accusing me of it now were bitching about her taking the helm. It's been a very frustrating time to be a part of SPN fandom, unfortunately. Hence the addendum, my sweet! I absolutely think that you have the right to criticize the showrunner and direction of the series no matter whose running it, and I know that's the perspective you're coming from. Because the difference is, you are not critiquing her as a showrunner BASED ON her gender. It's people who can't make that distinction (on both sides of the argument) that are the problem. And I'm back in the Buffy place again, because it's funny how when things went right, there were segments of fandom who were all "that's Joss" and when it went wrong, Joss was considered blameless. But you're absolutely right, it's a shared vision, because all television is written by committee. And it means that, for instance David Fury's Spike was always a little bit more evil, and Doug Petrie's Spike was more emotive, and, of course, Marti's was always slightly more shirtless. One of the things I've always loved about our little community is that we always made those distinctions, and knew that with such a diversity of writers, episodes or characters would come off somewhat different in the hands of Jane Espenson than they would with Joss Whedon, but managed to stay true to the core of the character. To be honest, I'm not entirely sure that SPN always manages that. It doesn't mangle character for plot to the same degree as say Torchwood, but it treads on the edges at times. It's interesting that you put Edlund as different from the rest, because I agree that he does approach things differently (on all kinds of levels), perhaps due to working in the Mutant Enemy environment. There just isn't the same sense, both in the way things are written on the show, or what you read about the show online etc, that there is that same level of cohesiveness among the writers that existed on Buffy et al.
|
|
|
Post by Queen E on Aug 30, 2011 16:29:07 GMT -5
(And this is why I shouldn't post when revising my thesis; I get incredibly verbose. And, I am not shitting you, I ALMOST PUT A FOOTNOTE IN MY POST.)
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Sept 4, 2011 22:10:40 GMT -5
Erin and Monnie -
Love the thoughts, love the exchange.
Erin, especially loved:
Buffy turned the patriarchal notions of lone wolf power and made it a communal, shared power. It was perfect for what the central theme of the show is.
===
Charisma Carpenter was on Burn Notice last week. She is quite voluptuous. 40, you say?
|
|
|
Post by Squeemonster on Sept 14, 2011 9:27:04 GMT -5
No worries. LOL, where as I get so mad at people who say I can't complain about Gamble *because* she's a woman. Trust me, I would call to task whoever is head showrunner, be they male, female, alien lifeform, whatever. I don't care that she's a woman, I don't think that's why, IMO, she sucks as showrunner. And for the record, I *do* blame all of them (except for Edlund, I can never believe he actually likes what's happening with Cas, if what's happening is what I fear is happening). I just bring her name up more because she's the one leading them all. And no matter who was in charge of this all I would be bitching and moaning just as loudly. Sorry, you hit on a sore topic with me because I've felt a bit under attack and being accused of sexism this hellatus just because I dare to criticize a female in charge of something. Last summer? I was one of the ones telling people to be excited about Gamble as a showrunner and I was anticipating the fresh perspective, while some of these same people who are accusing me of it now were bitching about her taking the helm. It's been a very frustrating time to be a part of SPN fandom, unfortunately. Hence the addendum, my sweet! I absolutely think that you have the right to criticize the showrunner and direction of the series no matter whose running it, and I know that's the perspective you're coming from. Because the difference is, you are not critiquing her as a showrunner BASED ON her gender. It's people who can't make that distinction (on both sides of the argument) that are the problem. And I'm back in the Buffy place again, because it's funny how when things went right, there were segments of fandom who were all "that's Joss" and when it went wrong, Joss was considered blameless. But you're absolutely right, it's a shared vision, because all television is written by committee. And it means that, for instance David Fury's Spike was always a little bit more evil, and Doug Petrie's Spike was more emotive, and, of course, Marti's was always slightly more shirtless. One of the things I've always loved about our little community is that we always made those distinctions, and knew that with such a diversity of writers, episodes or characters would come off somewhat different in the hands of Jane Espenson than they would with Joss Whedon, but managed to stay true to the core of the character. To be honest, I'm not entirely sure that SPN always manages that. It doesn't mangle character for plot to the same degree as say Torchwood, but it treads on the edges at times. It's interesting that you put Edlund as different from the rest, because I agree that he does approach things differently (on all kinds of levels), perhaps due to working in the Mutant Enemy environment. There just isn't the same sense, both in the way things are written on the show, or what you read about the show online etc, that there is that same level of cohesiveness among the writers that existed on Buffy et al. Oh god, we are in SO MUCH AGREEMENT. It frustrates me so much when the boys are written out of character just to serve the plot or make a joke. It's so inconsistent at times that I can tell immediately that it's not a regular writer. I don't understand how the head writers/showrunners can let stuff like that slip by. As you say, Mutant Enemy did such a good job at keeping things consistent overall. A character trait may have been a bit more enhanced with certain writers, but they always stayed true to the core of the characters. Not so with SPN. Slightly off-topic, I got an email from Amazon that the SPN book is being released a bit early! SO EXCITED FOR YOU!
|
|
|
Post by Queen E on Sept 16, 2011 22:40:27 GMT -5
Hence the addendum, my sweet! I absolutely think that you have the right to criticize the showrunner and direction of the series no matter whose running it, and I know that's the perspective you're coming from. Because the difference is, you are not critiquing her as a showrunner BASED ON her gender. It's people who can't make that distinction (on both sides of the argument) that are the problem. And I'm back in the Buffy place again, because it's funny how when things went right, there were segments of fandom who were all "that's Joss" and when it went wrong, Joss was considered blameless. But you're absolutely right, it's a shared vision, because all television is written by committee. And it means that, for instance David Fury's Spike was always a little bit more evil, and Doug Petrie's Spike was more emotive, and, of course, Marti's was always slightly more shirtless. One of the things I've always loved about our little community is that we always made those distinctions, and knew that with such a diversity of writers, episodes or characters would come off somewhat different in the hands of Jane Espenson than they would with Joss Whedon, but managed to stay true to the core of the character. To be honest, I'm not entirely sure that SPN always manages that. It doesn't mangle character for plot to the same degree as say Torchwood, but it treads on the edges at times. It's interesting that you put Edlund as different from the rest, because I agree that he does approach things differently (on all kinds of levels), perhaps due to working in the Mutant Enemy environment. There just isn't the same sense, both in the way things are written on the show, or what you read about the show online etc, that there is that same level of cohesiveness among the writers that existed on Buffy et al. Oh god, we are in SO MUCH AGREEMENT. It frustrates me so much when the boys are written out of character just to serve the plot or make a joke. It's so inconsistent at times that I can tell immediately that it's not a regular writer. I don't understand how the head writers/showrunners can let stuff like that slip by. As you say, Mutant Enemy did such a good job at keeping things consistent overall. A character trait may have been a bit more enhanced with certain writers, but they always stayed true to the core of the characters. Not so with SPN. Slightly off-topic, I got an email from Amazon that the SPN book is being released a bit early! SO EXCITED FOR YOU! Joss should run a class, seriously. Because so many showrunners could really use a good lesson in how to maintain both plot and character consistency. He could also provide some "attitude" lessons. Do you remember the furor (well, small furor) over Joss saying, basically, "I write what the audience needs, not what it wants"? I never understood the problem; for me, that's the prerogative of the writer...they have a story they want to tell, and they should be able to tell it. I thought Veronica Mars did that pretty well, for instance; the show was a noir show, and despite a lot of fans wanting a happy ending for Logan and Veronica, that's not what noir does. On the other side of the spectrum, a show like Heroes listened WAY TOO MUCH to poll numbers and audiences, and completely muddled their stories and characters to give the audience what they thought the audience wanted. That being said, Kripke and Co have a distinctly odd way of dealing with fans and audiences. The fans really made the show; it's very rare for a show like SPN to really pick up the notice and steam it did halfway through its run. And while on one level I can empathize with a certain level of frustration on the writers' part, I don't think that mocking the audience (as they sometimes do), is really the right tack. Joss and Co. might not have always taken their stories in the directions we wanted them to, but they were always respectful of the audience. They knew art (in any medium), lives and dies on its audience. I get the sense that Kripke and Co resent that.
|
|
|
Post by Queen E on Sept 16, 2011 22:41:07 GMT -5
And THANK YOU FOR THE SHOUT-OUT!
I've not gotten my copy yet, but I'm so excited to see it.
|
|
|
Post by Queen E on Oct 2, 2011 0:17:18 GMT -5
Well, I have to say, the pacing of the season so far is so much better! It's moving along like a bullet train; very little padding in these first two episodes. It's also opened up numerous intriguing questions, while not dragging out other ones. For instance, Lucifer really is in Sam's head (very glad they didn't go the "season 6 was a dream" route, and "Morning Star Productions"? Oh, Edlund, you clever clogs!). The other two major ones: Is Cas dead or alive? (And the scene with Dean clutching his coat? Heart-breaking.) and where is Bobby? weren't over the top.
A vast improvement over the first two episodes of season 6, which for me felt a little flat.
|
|
|
Post by Karen on Oct 4, 2011 19:35:03 GMT -5
Well, I have to say, the pacing of the season so far is so much better! It's moving along like a bullet train; very little padding in these first two episodes. It's also opened up numerous intriguing questions, while not dragging out other ones. For instance, Lucifer really is in Sam's head (very glad they didn't go the "season 6 was a dream" route, and "Morning Star Productions"? Oh, Edlund, you clever clogs!). The other two major ones: Is Cas dead or alive? (And the scene with Dean clutching his coat? Heart-breaking.) and where is Bobby? weren't over the top. A vast improvement over the first two episodes of season 6, which for me felt a little flat. I'm loving the Lucifer angle. (The actor was awesome on The Closer, too.) I want Cas back soon. If they can bring him back once, they can do it again. I am not loving the gore of the Leviathons eating hearts and livers, but am getting a kick out of their whole plan of hiding their 'food source' by pretending to be doctors, and being all proud of themselves for thinking of it. Pride goeth...and all that.
|
|