This is why I don't do spoilers . . .

[feliciakw]

Yes, my laptop is turned off and getting ready to be put away. I'm at the big computer. :-)

I started to read a TV Guide article that my mom sent, and I couldn't finish it. I am really disappointed--like, phenomenally disappointed--with the direction said article indicates SPN is going to take things this season.



Per the article, Lucifer is going to be the most sympathetic character this season. He's all misunderstood by everyone. I . . . cannot get behind that. At all. Humans are the virtuous ones? If that's the case--and I understand this at the beginning of the series, where humans, with all their faults and flaws, are nonetheless championing the side of Good. But I always wanted them to have something bigger than themselves to help them fight an evil bigger than themselves--but if humans are the ultimately virtuous ones, I rather wish they'd never touched on angels at all. Because if angels and demons are equally detestable, what's the point? It makes the distinction between Good and Evil irrelevant. It means Dean is right--go down swingin', end bloody, that's it. End of story. And there's nothing hopeful or redeeming about that. What does it matter if Good triumphs over Evil, if Good essentially means nothing in the grand cosmic scheme of things? Which is exactly what this article is telling me.

"Get off our planet" works in Stargate SG-1. It does not work with SPN.

I just . . . am really, really disappointed. I don't find this exciting at all; I find this to be a cop-out. It is not original, it is not thought provoking, it is not fun. Lucifer is the genesis and instigator of all Evil. He plays sympathetic with the best of 'em. To the detriment of those who buy into the act. And if I thought Kripke & Co. were capable of playing that through, I might not be as bothered as I am. I might even be looking forward to watching it play out. But considering how wishy-washy they made Ruby, I'm not convinced. I'll hold onto the hope that he will do the storyline justice, but considering how he weakened Castiel during the course of S4, I'm not holding my breath.

Kripke has killed my squee.

*mutters mantra "Kripke always lies. Kripke always lies . . . "*

It is Kripke's story, it's true. And I am free to turn it off if I want to. (But for Jensen, I'll probably continue to watch.) And I'll be glad if Kripke proves me wrong. But I don't trust him. He was skating on thin ice with me last season. This might be the final crack.

This also means that SPN holds to my Rule of Five. It's my experience--from shows that I've watched from the beginning in first run--that a TV show cannot sustain itself and its interest level for me beyond five seasons. Indeed, it's lucky if it makes it that far. I might continue to watch, but it's with less interest and enthusiasm than before.

Comments

[kimmer1227.livejournal.com]

I think you're taking that statement at face value, but missing the big picture. No. That's not what I mean. I don't know how to explain what I mean. Just because he's writing him as sympathetic doesn't mean he's not going to make him the ultimate evil. I kinda like Kripke's spin on this, and am excited to see it play out.

Let it play out on screen. Don't already decide you'll hate it, 'cos you probably will.

[feliciakw.livejournal.com]

I understand what you're saying. And this is exactly why I shy away from spoilers--so I don't get ticked off at something before I see how it plays out.

And if Kripke & Co. can write it in such a way that Ultimate Evil can appear sympathetic and still be seen for what it is (because that's exactly what I've been saying Sam needs to be careful of all along--evil masquerading as good--or at least sympathetic) . . . I could go along with that.

I'm just not convinced that Kripke can do this in a way that I'll buy without Raelle Tucker on the writing team anymore.

Believe me, I don't want to go in hating it, or expecting to hate it. But I've been burned by so many favorite shows in the past that I can't help but go in skeptical. To have Kripke say in writing that he's gonna go exactly where other of my shows have gone that have left me with a bad taste in my mouth . . . I'm not enthused.

*breathe*

[izhilzha.livejournal.com]

But he's still got Sera Gamble. ;)

I dunno. Milton managed to make Satan sympathetic enough ("better to reign in hell than serve in heaven") that scholars have been arguing for centuries over whether Milton was some brand of heretic--having read his text, I'd say Milton was pretty orthodox, but his treatment lent itself well to entertainment, and he never forgot that Satan was in fact evil.

Not that Kripke and Co. are anywhere near Milton's level of brilliance, but if they take a cue from him (rather than, say, from Phillip Pullman), we might end up all right in the end.

[feliciakw.livejournal.com]

Waiting for the laundry to finish. *sigh*

I know you love Sera. And I like her stuff, too. But my favorite of her stuff? Was done with Raelle, iirc. Do with that what you will.

Admittedly, I'm not familiar with Milton. (Yes, we established long ago that my knowledge of classic literature is, in a word, lacking.)

And apparently I tossed the article away in a fit of "I don't want to know this yet!" pique earlier this morning. Huh.

Anyway, while looking for said article on-line, so that I could show you exactly what set me off--it wasn't the Lucifer thing alone, but that combined with the whole "angels are dicks" mentality--I found Kripke saying something that makes me feel a little better. "But—we’ve always kept in our back pocket that despite these particular angels being the bureaucracy of Heaven, there are potentially higher and more benevolent forces in the universe." This makes me feel better, though I really, really don't expect Kripke to pull that out of his pocket.

Looks like I'll have to read Paradise Lost in the next week. Meh.

Why, yes. My previous experience with TV has taught me to expect the worst. Why do you ask?

[izhilzha.livejournal.com]

....I totally read the TV Guide magazine article. O_o Now I know things that I sort of didn't want to, oh well!

But I laughed when Kripke actually referenced Paradise Lost. Ha. \o/

(Doesn't mean it will be likable by me--I'm not at all a fan of this angels vs. demons and humans caught in the middle thing. B5 already did it and did it better, but even then it was kind of a copout.)

[feliciakw.livejournal.com]

I'm not at all a fan of this angels vs. demons and humans caught in the middle thing. . . . but even then it was kind of a copout.

Yahtzee! I don't know about B5, but they kind of did a similar thing with the Gou'auld (or however you spell it; I forget) and the Asgard on SG-1, if you want to look at the demons vs. saviors thing. (We won't even get into the problematic Ancients storyline on that show.)

I just . . . *sigh* . . . yeah. Meh.

[mtee.livejournal.com]

I would just wait and see how it goes. You can't decide to be unenthusiastic just because of one article.
I think Kripke is going to show us a Lucifer that is not just evil evil evil. I believe he is trying to go beyond that -- delve into the fallen angel that is Lucifer.
He was God's favorite before he became jealous of man. That could be interesting. I for one don't want the cliche devil... but evil that developed from goodness? That's fascinating.

This is a character that was truly good, had God's love and then turned against all that. Went darkside. How do you portray that?

I have a degree in psychology, so maybe that's just my "thing" -- but I'm going to give it a chance. It's a huge undertaking and not everyone will like... but he's taking a risk and that's better than any "formula" show that's out there.

For me that's what makes SPN so special. It's not your fun of a mill horror/drama/sci fi show.

[kimmer1227.livejournal.com]

Thank you. I wanted to say something similar, but my brain wouldn't go there.

I for one don't want the cliche devil... but evil that developed from goodness? That's fascinating.

*nods*

[feliciakw.livejournal.com]

I think I've admitted in the past that I need someone to talk me off the ledge from time to time where Show is concerned, right?

[feliciakw.livejournal.com]

I would just wait and see how it goes. You can't decide to be unenthusiastic just because of one article.

Which is why I stay away from Eric spoilers. He's bad news. :-)

I for one don't want the cliche devil... but evil that developed from goodness?

The thing is, imo, depicting the Satan as a deceiver is both accurate and intense. I'm just not convinced that Kripke will follow through to the end. Making Lucifer appear sympathetic but ultimately evil is one thing. I'm just not convinced it's going to play out.

Isn't the evil developed from goodness what we've been doing with Sam? Using demon-given powers to try to save the world? And that turned out so well. ;-)

The thing is, the "formula" I see so prevalently in today's pop culture is taking a traditionally evil character (especially vampires, for example) and making them sympathetic. Even good. Once or twice, it's interesting. When it becomes the norm, it's no longer original or engaging. That's what I see happening here. Take the embodiment of Evil (whether it be Dracula or Lucifer) and make him sympathetic. To me, this isn't new, and it actually is becoming the modern "formula."

I'll wait to see how it plays out. See what kind of backstory they decide to go with. See if the angels actually become the villains in the scenario. There are so many ways this could go so very wrong for me, and I'm not convinced Kripke has the finesse to play it out.

We'll see.

*breathe* Thanks for the input. I'ma need people to talk me off the ledge from time to time.

[izhilzha.livejournal.com]

The Rule of Five doesn't mean you're going to end up deserting N3, too, does it? Because that would make me sad. (SPN, if it does go in this direction, I could understand.)

[feliciakw.livejournal.com]

It has indeed occurred to me that N3 has reached it 5-season Rule of Five limit. And given that SPN was so thoroughly able to divert me from LA and the Eppes . . . Don and Charlie really need to get on the ball. :-D

Seriously, though. I stuck with CSI through 9 seasons (we'll see about the 10th). If N3 doesn't make their ensemble so unwieldy that they lose the focus of Don and Charlie, we should be good. I'm a little disappointed that math doesn't figure in as awesomely into the cases as it used to, but that comes with the age of the show, I guess. We'll see.

I think as long as Rob Morrow gets a good amount of story and screen time, I'll be good. :-)

[leelust.livejournal.com]

I say don't panic yet. For me making Luci sympathetic doesn't make him good it makes him worse evil so to speak. If you expect an evil guy and meet a sympathetic one who tells you sad story or points out unfairness of the world you tend to believe him or feel for him - that's when you catch you - very good tactic.
As for angels are dicks - i cringe every time they use that word but it seems they use it to describe everyone with it. hunters are dicks, demons are dicks, angels are dicks and even Dean was a dick once. I stopped pay attention to that word.

[feliciakw.livejournal.com]

it makes him worse evil so to speak. If you expect an evil guy and meet a sympathetic one who tells you sad story or points out unfairness of the world you tend to believe him or feel for him - that's when you catch you - very good tactic.

Exactly! And if Kripke goes in this direction, I'll be biting my nails for the Boys and yelling at the screen, "Don't listen to him!"

We'll have to wait and see, I guess. I just . . . Kripke makes me nervous . . .

[sarcasticval.livejournal.com]

Everyone's pretty much said everything much more eloquently than I could hope to with the sleep I haven't had. Sometimes it pays being late to the party ;)

I really enjoy the dichotomy of the heaven/hell relationship that Kripke's built. I think it's just plain neat that the angels (from what we've seen) kind of suck, because to me at least, it's a new and interesting angle. The sympathetic role-reversal villain may not be the freshest of concepts anymore, but I still find it far less formula than the mustache-twirling bwahaha option, and mtee makes some great points about the psychological structure of a fallen angel, which sums up part of my squee nicely. (I love quoting others instead of having to formulate my own thoughts!)

[feliciakw.livejournal.com]

I see where everyone is coming from, and it's keeping me away from the ledge for now. Really. :-)

I'm still peeved at the way Kripke is playing angels because for the longest time, I've wanted the Boys to have some sort of supernatural Good backing them up in their battle against supernatural Evil. That's why I was so excited when Castiel--this powerful and frightening force for Good--showed up. And then they spent the season not letting him live up to that.

I'll wait and see, but . . . I have reservations.

[sarcasticval.livejournal.com]

for the longest time, I've wanted the Boys to have some sort of supernatural Good backing them up in their battle against supernatural Evil

Yeah, that's exactly how I feel about witches.

Also, I do agree that Show, for all of its grand ideas, does have a propensity for dropping the ball when it comes to the overall execution of things. I love my Supernatural, but sometimes when it journeys out to the deep end of the pool it tends to doggy paddle instead of butterfly stroke.

[izhilzha.livejournal.com]

That's the thing, though--it's neither new nor (to me) particularly interesting. Babylon 5 did it (albeit with a scifi twist), Hellraiser (John Constantine) did it and other comics have at least touched on it, and Philip Pullman did...some truly original (in the sense of truly crap storytelling) stuff with a similar theme.

I dunno. I'm not against the sympathetic-Lucifer angle, because that could go in some very interesting ways. But making good as bad as bad pisses me off, especially on a horror show that usually knows better.

[sarcasticval.livejournal.com]

I'm confused as to what they should "know better" about? I mean, there are two story options, you either go one way or the other. For all the times good guys have been bad there are twice as many stories using the original formula. Also, it's not like every single angel out there is evil or that we know how far the conspiracy goes--but if Lucifer fell doesn't that open the door for the possibility of discontent among the ranks? I, of course, speak purely from the mythology the show has given us to play with, not a basis in actual Christianity.

I do agree with Fee's point, though. It would be nice to see some good supernatural forces at work once in a while.

P.S. Speaking of good versus evil, I'm beginning to suspect that the upstairs children are possessed.

[just-ruth.livejournal.com]

I am not watching. He is demeaning and belittling everything that has kept me putting one foot in front of the other since Jack died.

I'm sure your friends won't approve of that statement; I'm not sorry.

[feliciakw.livejournal.com]

I saw that on your LJ, but I had no idea what you were referring to. Having read the article, I think I understand. No need to apologize.