feliciakw | Jump the Shark, Rapture

Watched "Jump the Shark" the other night, and it makes me wonder. It makes me wonder when they started plotting out that Adam would be Michael's vessel. And what makes me wonder if they were in fact planning it this far out is this:

When the end credits started running, Geo turns to me and asks, "What was the purpose of that episode?"

To which I replied, " . . . "

After puzzling a moment, I said, "Well, they introduced Adam. Other than that . . . to show that Sam has become more and more like John?"

And to give Dean angst, of course. But I didn't say that.

So it makes me wonder if they introduced Adam, knowing what they were going to do with the character later, or if they decided Adam was a convenient out of the corner they'd written themselves into. I'm somewhat inclined to give them credit and say that they at least had a notion of what they were going to do.

Truly, though, there's a lot that I like about the ep, and much of it has to do with Dean. *nods*

The same question could be asked about "The Rapture." Don't get me wrong; I enjoyed this look at what Castiel's vessel is like. And I kinda wish we could have had more of Claire!Castiel. And there were good bits throughout. But it seems that the whole upshot of the ep was Castiel being re-oriented to his primary duties, and Dean discovering about Sam and the demon blood.

So I guess if that's the jumping off point ("We need to do A and B. What's the most interesting way we can do that?"), then the ep served its purpose. And of course we have the ending with Sam in the panic room.

Which brings us to the final stretch of the season.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I don't think the Adam-as-Michael idea came up until mid-way into Season 5. I think Jake Abel said something at one of the cons that he was surprised to be called back.

The show compared Dean to Michael way back in Season 2's Houses of the Holy, but there's no way they thought of the Dean being Michael's true vessel or him being Michael's sword back then.

"It'd be an interesting question to ask, though I'm not sure we'd ge a straight answer from them at this stage in the game."

I don't think we'd ever get a truthful answer from Kripke or anyone else. After some of what Kripke said at Comic Con (not spoilers), I don't think I want to read or hear anything he says again. I think I've been watching a different show than him.

I don't think we'd ever get a truthful answer from Kripke or anyone else. After some of what Kripke said at Comic Con (not spoilers), I don't think I want to read or hear anything he says again.
This seems like the wisest course of action. Not to disparage Mr. Kripke too much but he does seem to be quickly dwindling into George Lucas territory of BUH-ZUH?!Dom (yes, BuhZuhdom is a word!) when it comes to grasping his own creation. His "Yes, we always indended this or that" is the new "Yes, Greedo was always meant to shoot first!"

"Yes, Greedo was always meant to shoot first!"

LIES!!!! LIES, I TELL YOU!!!! I was there the first time around! Before it was "A New Hope," even!

Geo heard that Lucas has gone back and tampered with THX1138 the same way he has SW. Aside from ruining any historical value the movie might have, it's now worse for the tampering, apparently.

Why does Mr. Lucas insist on re-writing history?

This is why it's good Sera Gamble has taken the reigns. I don't think any of us want a revised edition of "All Hell Breaks Loose Pt2" where the YED shoots first...

I don't remember the show specifically comparing Dean to Michael in "Houses of the Holy," but they were certainly more accurate in their description, and much more in keeping with Dean's general awesomeness. At that point, the claim was no angels would be making an appearance.

I know that fans have been comparing Dean to Michael for ages. (SPN: Where wing!fic is canon. O.o)

I don't think I want to read or hear anything he says again.

As I explained to someone else, I make it a habit of not listening to or reading interviews with the writers until after the fact (if I read or listen at all). I want the work to speak for itself. Also, the writers write something, then the actors get a hold of it, and the director, who then also edits it, and it turns out differently than the writer originally intended. (Especially, I think, when Jensen gets a hold of something. Hasn't Sera said that sometimes she gets a bit lazy with her writing, knowing that Jensen will make it awesome? Seems I heard that somewhere.) Anyway, my point is that what the writers say and what actually ends up on screen are two different things. And I'm more interested in the final product. Which is why I'm more interested in what the actors have to say, because they're interpreting the writing.

Does that make sense?

So I'd suggest that people who are getting freaked out and angry with Kripke stop listening to him and wait until we see what actually happens, and draw our own conclusions. Because as you say, we're not necessarily watching the show Kripke thinks he's writing. :-)

Edited 2010-08-12 00:03 (UTC)

"I don't remember the show specifically comparing Dean to Michael in "Houses of the Holy," but they were certainly more accurate in their description, and much more in keeping with Dean's general awesomeness."

When the Winchesters are in the Church and the priest is talking about the pictures or stained glass windows and the camera would pan to Dean as the priest was talking about Michael. After the episode aired, there was an interview with Sera Gamble about it and I think she pretty much came out and said yes it was about Dean.

You're right in that, TPTB say that angels were not going to be part of the story, so I think it was just a matter of dumb luck that they'd already had an episode a couple of seasons earlier that fit perfectly with the angels and Dean storyline.

Re: may comments about Kripke. Sorry, I wasn't clear, when I said "After some of what Kripke said at Comic Con (not spoilers)" I meant that the Kripke comments that annoyed me were not about spoilers, but rather the characters themselves and past seasons. He made some remarks about how Dean had to learn to love and forgive Sam, which, I'm sorry, I think Dean has always loved and forgiven Sam, so that wasn't a lesson Dean needed to learn.

When the Winchesters are in the Church and the priest is talking about the pictures or stained glass windows and the camera would pan to Dean as the priest was talking about Michael. After the episode aired, there was an interview with Sera Gamble about it and I think she pretty much came out and said yes it was about Dean.

Ah, okay. I don't recall being struck with "Oh, they're talking about Dean!" the first time I saw it, pre-S5. In retrospect, of course, it's obvious. Sera wrote that ep, didn't she? Interesting that she was comparing Dean to Michael even before angels were involved in the mytharc. Serendipity, I think it's called.

I think Dean has always loved and forgiven Sam, so that wasn't a lesson Dean needed to learn.

Love? I'd have to ask Kripke what show he thinks he's writing.

Forgive? That one I'll go along with. Back at the beginning of S5 when all of this was going down, I wrote extensively about Dean's need to forgive Sam. That it would take time, but that he needed to do that. I'd have to re-read my entries, but I think it was that Dean needed to forgive Sam, and Sam had to realize that it was going to take time and he was going to have to earn Dean's trust. They . . . never followed through with that quite to my satisfaction. I mean, I think they touched on it, but I wanted more.

I'm not overly impressed with what Kripke said, because what he (thinks he) wrote and what showed up on the screen are two different things. I'm apparently not watching the show he thinks he's writing. Or things aren't reading to me the way he thinks they are. Or something . . .

*shrug*

Jump the Shark, Rapture

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject