Michael did say that Free Will was an illusion, that the millions of choices and random events that led to John and Mary meeting (yes,I watched that episode last night) always were going to lead to the same ending.

I'm pretty much with Bev on loving the characters but suspecting Kripke may be an idiot. I draw the idiot conclusion from him talking. Maybe its just immaturity or something, I dunno, but he grates. I can't cognitively put him together with the characters that I love.

I haven't trusted him with those characters for a couple years now, but still I watched. I'm not sorry he is leaving. However, it sounds like he still has the same level of creative input according to Sera interviews.

The angels (sans Cas) had a very clear agenda that involved the boys having no choice. I figured it was clear the whole point of the story was that they were wrong.

There was a pattern that needed to be played out...and Sam and Dean didn't, so they won. The world lives.

I don't see the "everybody dies" end as a betrayal. Cause everybody dies saving the world. And they did have another choice - being meatsuits, and letting the world end. God is a dick for making those the only choices (unless he is not omnipotent). But sending Lucifer and Michael into the pit and sealing it so they could not get out, even if it meant going to hell was triumph as well as tragedy. If the series had ended that way, the tragedy would have been earned. And Sam and Dean were willing to go to hell to accomplish that. It was in character for them to be willing to go to hell. And Bobby was willing to die and go to hell for the same cause. And Castiel was willing to be destroyed for that. So if we did not have the new season, that would have been (to me) a satisfying ending.

To some extent maybe it is my family history, but I take it for granted that much of the time in the real world the good guys die too young, poor, and in great pain. If you can accomplish something to make the world a better place before it happens, really that is a triumph.

I'll always think that the whole point of the story is "the epic love story of Sam and Dean." In the Sera way,not the wincesty way.

...and Sam and Dean didn't, so they won.

But the possibility was already put out there that maybe that was the plan all along. They showed rebellion in the right places. It was implied that God was rooting for them to throw a kink into the plan, because Chuck was helping them out with inside information.

Maybe its just immaturity or something, I dunno, but he grates.

I go on the theory that Kripke is a massive comics/RPG gaming fanboy who, like many guys of that type, hasn't really spent a lot of time thinking through the larger implications and connections of what they've created other than "Dude, I've got an AWESOME idea for a campaign!"

In other words, Kripke is a regional LARP storyteller writ large. My theory is reinforced by the Supernatural convention episode, trust me.

unless he is not omnipotent

I think he is. And just opting out. He didn't make it so that there were only those choices. But that they were among the choices.

But the possibility was already put out there that maybe that was the plan all along

But if it was the plan, it wasn't the plan of anyone espousing one. Everyone who stated a plan, stated something else. God didn't state a plan at all, and told them to do what they wanted. So free will or destiny doesn't apply any more heavily to this than to anything else--if the people who think they're acting out destiny don't get their way, fuck destiny.

Kripke's definitely not an auteur of the sort Whedon is, but hey...in ways that is a good thing. He's a kid playing with toys and playing with the audience and who has a story to tell. I think Joss tends to have a thesis. I don't judge either of the approaches. I just see how the stories turn out.

Really, I'm not sure that save the Earth or don't, but Sam dies either way were the only choices. At the end, sure, but if they had the opportunity to "replay the level", if you will, there were choices they could have made earlier to change how things went.

Now I'm imagining how the past 2 seasons would play out if they got a Mulligan.

I wasn't fond of "Swan Song" for the most part, but my take on the whole predestination thing was the opposite of Bev's. According to those in the know, Lucifer and Michael were destined to face each other wearing Sam and Dean, fight, and bring about Armageddon. Instead, Dean refused, Sam overcame his possession, and the two archangels got history's most extreme time out with the world continuing on just fine in their absence. If that was a predestined outcome rather than the result of free will, God played it pretty close to the vest.

And, given the existence of other God's and a 'Death' as old or older than God who will reap God someday I'm taking it that this Universe's God is neither all-powerful or all-knowing - which means he is not responsible for Lucifer's fall or humanity's.

I think Death is the unreliable narrator in this, perhaps focused on its own function to the exclusion of all else. It's clear that death isn't a final end in the Supernatural cosmology - we've seen a presumably eternal afterlife, as well as lots of special cases where the dead don't rest in peace. And both God and a number of His lesser servants (and even demons under certain circumstances) have proven capable of undoing death and restoring people to life.

My problems with Swan Song have nothing to do with free will and destiny, but with how bored I still get watching Lucifer taunt Sam, and Michael & Lucifer whine at each other. Love the first 15 or 20 minutes, and then I start drifting.

And while I realize it's not his show, I still am a bit unsatisfied with Cas was utilized, or not utilized, and the near complete absence of any follow-up to his and Dean's break-up [of their friendship] - so that last part I'm looking a little stink-eyed at the previous ep as well.

Kripke's definitely not an auteur of the sort Whedon is, but hey...in ways that is a good thing. He's a kid playing with toys and playing with the audience and who has a story to tell. I think Joss tends to have a thesis. I don't judge either of the approaches. I just see how the stories turn out.

I find I prefer his epic "WHEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" to Whedon's fits of "LET ME SHOW U I R SMRT! SMRTR THAN U! O HAI!"

Kripke's a raw storyteller, not a craftsman. He gets certain things at a gut level, anything deeper he's pants at, and I'm okay with that.

Helps, probably, that we're almost exactly the same age, came up through what appear to be similar subcultural circles, and therefore have ALMOST EXACTLY the same references/touchstones/shorthands.