Supernatural #3 - No Chick Flick Moments - Page 37

Ginnna · November 6 2009, 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GregNickRyanFan

Is Zach an arch angel though or just a regular one?

From what I've read, no, I don't think Zach is an archangel. I read on Wikipedia that Uriel is an archangel, though. Was that mentioned in the series? Was that even canon, or did they change Uriel into a "regular" angel?

Oh, I have a question about angels, by the way - why is it that Castiel and Anna are portrayed as mostly humorless and emotionally stunted while Zachariah, Raphael, Gabriel, etc, are all snarky, sarcastic, capable of intense anger and sadness and triumph and amusement, etc? Are the higher-ups "allowed" to feel their feelings, or is it that Castiel has never experienced the desire to rebel (until now), which means he retains more of his angelic characteristics (such as NOT feeling his feelings), while Zach, Raph and Gabe HAVE been rebelling against God and their own nature?

Dragonfly · November 6 2009, 09:34 PM

Oh my freaking goodness... I loved it! Seriously!

I hate having to wait until the next day to watch Supernatural. Plus, by the time I get here, everything's been said already. So I won't bore you all with my own recap of the episode, as it's all been said before, but I really, really loved this one!

I think it was Baba who commented on the writers' ability to do both comedy and serious in one episode, and I just have to agree. It takes great talent to do the things they do on this show. Props to them!

BabaOReilly · November 6 2009, 09:36 PM

^^^ Ginna, Maybe jerks just have more perosnality?

OK, here's my take, especially after this episode... Gabriel said that these two (Sam and Dean) were always the ones who were going to bring the end. I believe he said something like "Ever since dad turned the lights on down here." Therefore, they are not really to blame, are they? All this blaming Sammy for releasing Lucky, Dean for breaking the seal- it's all moot. It was (unbeknownst to them) a bigger, pre-ordained plan; totally out of their hands + they didn't know about it.

So now I'm thinking, maybe because they know what's supposed to happen, maybe now they can change it. Before they just seemed to be pawns on the chessboard, but now, knowing what they know, shouldn't they be able to change it?

Also, I think Gabe's going to come around in the end. No matter what he's done to them, I'm betting he felt a grudging respect for them at the end.

Ginnna · November 6 2009, 10:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BabaOReilly

^^^ Ginna, Maybe jerks just have more perosnality?

*chuckle* Maybe, maybe. It's still very strange to me, though, that Cas is all but INCAPABLE of feeling anything but shadows of the emotions we humans know, like Anna said he is, unlike the higher-ups. It's either intentional, with an explanation behind it, or it could just be a creative decision by Kripke since he wanted the majority of the angels to be dicks, and they can't be dicks without being, well, what they are.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BabaOReilly

OK, here's my take, especially after this episode... Gabriel said that these two (Sam and Dean) were always the ones who were going to bring the end. I believe he said something like "Ever since dad turned the lights on down here." Therefore, they are not really to blame, are they? All this blaming Sammy for releasing Lucky, Dean for breaking the seal- it's all moot. It was (unbeknownst to them) a bigger, pre-ordained plan; totally out of their hands + they didn't know about it.

I think they'll still be asking the question "but why US?" I have to ask the same thing. I can understand that there's been an endgame all along, and I can understand the idea of certain humans being "destined for big plans", but... why Sam & Dean? Why did it have to be them? Because of their parents? Because God made them that way? Because of... I don't know what else! Seriously, what makes them special? Why couldn't it have been a pair of brothers in Guam or Zanzibar or Australia, etc? Why Sam & Dean specifically?

And also, Dean has been up and down on this whole "predestination" concept, as far as I can tell. In Monster At The End Of This Book, he had significantly fewer doubts about the reality and accuracy of Chuck's prophecies than Sam did. But in Sympathy For The Devil, Dean is vehemently opposed to the idea that he HAS to be Michael's vessel, insists that there's got to be another way, and keeps up that attitude even after The End. And he didn't seem very willing to say "alright, I get it, resistance is futile, it's our destiny, it's inevitable, and all that crap" in last night's episode.

So... I guess my point is that with the exception of Chuck, he doesn't believe that people are destined to do or be anything, and therefore will probably continue to blame Sam for what happened.

Wait, were you talking about the brothers accepting that it was all pre-ordained and out of their control, or the audience accepting it?

Also, I think you may have meant to say "Luci" instead of "Lucky"... unless you think Lucifer IS lucky.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BabaOReilly

So now I'm thinking, maybe because they know what's supposed to happen, maybe now they can change it. Before they just seemed to be pawns on the chessboard, but now, knowing what they know, shouldn't they be able to change it?

Wasn't last night's "big reveal" an indication that they are still pawns? I get what you're saying, that the boys figure they can "un-pawn" themselves, but... that was the whole lesson of the episode, that they have to play their roles. Then again, Dean was supposed to learn that same thing in The End and DEFINITELY didn't walk away having learned the lessen Zach wanted him to learn...so I guess this is the same situation. If anything, every time the angels put them through one of these "ACCEPT YOUR FATE" lessons, it causes the boys to become even more entrenched in the their resolve NOT to accept it. The angels should knock it off. They SUCK at teaching these lessons!

I hope the boys can change their destiny, but I keep getting this awful feeling that they won't, that it really will come down to brother versus brother, Lucifer!Sam versus Michael!Dean. Because Kripke is gonna turn out to be an evil genius like Joss Whedon who loves epic resolutions to his epic stories, but also loves killing off main characters.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BabaOReilly

Also, I think Gabe's going to come around in the end. No matter what he's done to them, I'm betting he felt a grudging respect for them at the end.

Agreed.

BabaOReilly · November 6 2009, 11:04 PM

I think when an angel says you're pre-destined to be/do something, it's because it's God's will. He chose Sam and Dean, and that's just the way it is, in theory. Why them? Why not them? He picked them, and that's that, is my understanding. Doesn't mean they have to like it though!

Plus, it will always be in our nature to ask, "Why me?"

And no, I meant to say Lucky. It's just an ironic nickname I like to use for him. Makes him seem less threatening!

Another thing I was wondering... do you think Kripke always had it planned that The Trickster would end up being Gabriel, or he just got so much positive response from the fans on that character that he wanted to be able to use him again? Hopefully someone will ask him that one day.

Ginnna · November 6 2009, 11:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BabaOReilly

Another thing I was wondering... do you think Kripke always had it planned that The Trickster would end up being Gabriel, or he just got so much positive response from the fans on that character that he wanted to be able to use him again? Hopefully someone will ask him that one day.

I think he has the general outcome planned, and the ultimate destiny for his main characters all mapped out, but the rest of the details can change with his mood, or the mood of the audience.

As for whether or not Trickster/Gabriel was the plan all along, I really couldn't say. I know that he kept Castiel on as a main character due to favorable fan response to the character, so... it's possible that the Trickster became someone more important to the main story arch due to being a fan fave.

Hey, have any of you read this interview with Kripke (from a TV Guide interview at the beginning of September)? -

Quote:

You have Lucifer [Mark Pellegrino] as a character. How about God? Where’s the High Holy been?
I know it sounds nuts, but God will be a character on Supernatural this season. He’s vanished from Heaven, which is why the Angels have taken over the joint, but we’re planning on God’s return, probably around the end of the season. This story thread has generated much hilarity in the Supernatural writer’s room. We ask ourselves questions like, “Well, what’s God’s motivation in this scene?” And then we start laughing, cause, you know, Gossip Girl just ain’t having these problems.

How will God enter into the battle?
Tune in.

Who will play Him—or Her? (Well, why not?)
You’ll see.

So..... God is a character? Like... an actual character that an actor/actress portrays?

Wow.

BabaOReilly · November 7 2009, 12:30 AM

Hah- "What's God's motivation in this scene?" Classic!

It'd be interesting to find out it was someone who was there all along... like Bobby!

Yeah I know, I know- I doubt it. But somehow it wouldn't surprise me if God was an hornery old coot.

GregNickRyanFan · November 7 2009, 12:57 AM

Maybe Chuck is God's vessel.

Or how about Ed? Can you imagine AJ playing God?

Dragonfly · November 7 2009, 01:03 AM

^ But if Chuck is God's vessel, who would write everything down? Although I like the idea of AJ playing God

But if it's not someone already in the show, do you think they've got someone specific in mind for the part?

Something_wicked · November 7 2009, 05:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragonfly

^ But if Chuck is God's vessel, who would write everything down? Although I like the idea of AJ playing God

But if it's not someone already in the show, do you think they've got someone specific in mind for the part?

at the thought of AJ being God

I totally agree with everything that everyone is saying on here

I'm another who thought the trickster was actually Zachariah. With the way he was talking in some parts seemed like Zachariah and his douchebaggery

I've watched this episode about 6 times already, I think it's my favorite of the season. Not sure whether or not to look forward to the next one or not

^ Priceless ^

GregNickRyanFan · November 7 2009, 05:08 AM

Love those banners, Nikki. Both guys did Horatio very well. But it's funny that they were doing Horatio, yet it was night time. I don't think the sun ever sets in Miami. It's always daytime on there.

Ginnna · November 7 2009, 11:06 AM

I made it through the first season! Huzzah!

But it was 2am when we finished, so we didn't get to the second season premiere... and I wanna see what happens to them after the crash! UGH!!

So... as for the final few episodes... saw Meg die, met Bobby for the first time (yay!!), experienced SPN vampires, watched Jeffery Dean Morgan play John AND Azazel, saw Dean stand up to his father, saw the Colt... good times all around. Great finale, too.

I hate seeing my boys all bloody, though.

As for John Winchester, now that I've actually met the character properly... I'm not sure I like the guy. This probably goes against popular fan sentiment, but he ticked me off quite a few times and it rubbed me the wrong way. The whole "that's an order" stuff made me feel like I was gonna crawl out of my skin. I hate people telling me what to do, and I especially hate being blatantly bossed around, so the barking of orders really didn't do much to win me over. The opposite, in fact.

By the way, I found the CW forum for SPN. Not that it's hard to find, but... OK, I mean that I did one search for "supernatural forums" and it was the first link. *shrug* Anyway, I asked this question there and thought I'd ask it here:

If John managed to appear to Dean (as a spirit or a dream or whatever), and he told Dean to say "yes" to Michael... would Dean do it?

And yes, before y'all bring it up, he somehow convinces Dean that it's REALLY him and not another lame angelic attempt to screw with Dean's mind.

So... any speculation?

_Hush_ · November 7 2009, 11:09 AM

About the whole God could need a vessel thing. Dean and Sam are the vessels of the fighting brothers Michael and Lucifer, right? God is Michael and Lucifer's absent father. Guess who else have an absent father?

Wouldn't it be great if John Winchester could return as God's vessel? Okay, it wouldn't be John anymore, but still we could catch a glimpse of him.

*eternal optimist*

ETA:Ginnna, I'll reply to your post later. Just got up. Need coffee first.

BabaOReilly · November 7 2009, 09:04 PM

^^^ Hey now, I think you might be on to something there. Good idea!

Although technically I think they have to pick someone alive and he has to agree to it, this IS God we're talking about, so something makes me think he can be whoever he wants, right?

Why not John? That'd be perfect!

GregNickRyanFan · November 7 2009, 11:13 PM

As much as I'd love to have John back (didn't mind the orders thing, he's the father, that's the way they're supposed to be lol), I don't think God should use him as a vessel. It would be too much for the boys. I think it would hurt them too much.

You know how Lucifer told Sam that this vessel isn't strong enough to sustain him indefinitely? Well, it'd have to be someone strong to sustain God for sure. Who do we know that is that strong? John's dead, so he's out. I said bring Patrick back and have him be the vessel. He's a witch, so he should be plenty strong, right?

Then again, God is all powerful, so couldn't he actually make his own form?

And I honestly don't think Dean would fall for it if John came to him in a dream and told him to say yes. Dean is a lot like his dad in that respect. John would never have said yes either unless it was the only way to save his boys. But knowing that if the fight goes down that way, the world will end anyway, I think John would say no. I think Dean would think that it was Zach screwing with him to try to get him to say yes just as Lucifer did with Sam coming to him in Jess' form. I'm sure Sam told Dean about that, so Dean would be on high alert that someone would try that with him. Dean hasn't loved and lost a lover, so the only thing they could use would be one of his parents.

lyric · November 8 2009, 03:53 PM

On the who will be God's vessel: What about Mary? Her actions in "In The Beginning" set the brothers' destiny in motion. The series basically started with her. So why not end this chapter with her?

GregNickRyanFan · November 8 2009, 05:35 PM

I don't think God should use either of their parents as a vessel. It would hurt the boys too much. It would kind of be like having their mom/dad back, but not having them back. Lucifer using Jess to talk to Sam was mean, but then again Lucifer is the devil, so he's supposed to be mean. God isn't. I think using one of the boys' dead parents would just be cruel IMHO.

Maybe though, he could use one of their grandparents which they never knew.... although Dean met Samuel and Deana Winchester when he went to the past that time. And the actor who played Grandpa Samuel was pretty well known I think. I can't remember his name offhand though. But, he might be good to use for God's vessel if God could use someone who was dead.

Ginnna · November 8 2009, 06:11 PM

The guy they used for Grandpa Samuel is Mitch Pileggi... I know that because I used to be a huge X-Files fanatic and he played Mulder and Scully's boss for a long time.

I dunno if I'd wanna see him or either of the boys' parents act as God's condom. You're right, it'd probably more painful than anything. It wouldn't help the boys cope, it would make it worse. Besides... like GNRfan and Baba said, maybe he can just say the word and create his own vessel!

Another question for y'all... do you think it's possible that Castiel is Dean's Ruby? There are people on the CW forums who think this is a distinct possibility, who think that Castiel is sneaky and manipulative and secretly evil. Anyone think there's any truth to that?

Vildis · November 8 2009, 06:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ginnna

Another question for y'all... do you think it's possible that Castiel is Dean's Ruby? There are people on the CW forums who think this is a distinct possibility, who think that Castiel is sneaky and manipulative and secretly evil. Anyone think there's any truth to that?

There is always the possibility, but I do not think Castiel might be Dean's Ruby. Maybe I am wrong, but I got the impression that Ruby did what she wanted to do. She did not care about anyone, not even Sam. Even if we found out later that she was Lucifer's helper. But I can not see how Castiel can be compared to Ruby. Castiel seems to care about both brothers, although he mostly hang out with Dean. Okay, maybe the wrong word. But he mainly talks to Dean.. And he tries help both Sam and Dean. As in the last episode of season 4, before Lucifer was released. In a way Ruby never did helped them. Ruby had selfish intentions. Castiel doesn't seem to have those selfish intentions.

Oh, forgot that Ruby always told the brothers (mainly Sam) what they should do. Castiel let the brothers do almost whatever they want, as long as they have good intentions. Which means as longas they do what they should do, it doesn't matter HOW they do it. I have got that impression anyway.

BabaOReilly · November 8 2009, 07:07 PM

About God not doing stuff to Dean and Sam that would seem too cruel... but didn't all of this go down because it was God's will? At least, that's what Gabriel said. Also, the angels aren't exactly sweethearts, are they? Something tells me that God can't be that sensitive and nice if a fair chunk of the angels are dicks!

And I think somehow that's going to play out with Lucifer too- I mean he's just another angel who felt let down by God right? And I think his usage of Sam's late girlfriend was meant to be more seductive than cruel- I think that's the method of this particular angel- Lucifer: lure people in. He's represented that way a lot of the time, so...?

Anyway, that's just my two cents. If the angels are any indication, I don't expect God to be real swell guy (or gal.

I think that idea of Mary ending the whole thing since it seemed to start with her is an intriguing idea!)