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

[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. :-)