Also, ITA with ita ! that I hope they spend little time in purgatory. Mainly because I think the storytelling is mostly better when the boys are together.
Supernatural 2: Why is it our job to save everybody?
[NAFDA]. This is where we talk about the CW series Supernatural! Anything that's aired in the US on TV (including promos) is fair game. No spoilers though — if you post one by accident, an admin will delete it.
While I was initially excited over the idea of Dean and Cas running into old foes in P-town, I kind of like old finished storylines to remain finished.
Also, unless Sam joins them there, the P-town scenes can't last long. Dean and Sam have never been physically separated for more than an episode (if I remember right). Sometimes not even a full episode when they enact their seasonal breakup.
Unless, upon escaping, they bring a past character with them, hmmm . . . fic, methinks.
And staying on one place for a few weeks to save someone is not in their oveure?
In order to put in place an infrastructure to prevent a monster they had just hunted but are leaving alive from killing again? Yes. Do you have a contradictory citation?
That would be them taking on a pretty clear responsibility for someone in an untested scenario with only evidence to support that she is a danger. They're hunters. They're killers. They routinely slay demon hosts instead of taking the time or extra effort or risk to exorcise them.
If they had seriously considered the cage alternative and Madison had still said no
But it's just a reading that it wasn't "seriously considered". It's also possible to read the exact same text as her having seriously considered it, so I'm not sure why you're blaming the text for a shortcoming that's neither explicit nor implicit. You're setting a personal bar for "seriously" and not even sharing what it is as part of your argument.
Madison seemed totally OK with being saved as long as it seemed that she would not kill anyone else
She seemed okay with being cured.
You're taking a lot of agency out of Madison's hands here. Why is she not informed? Because she decided not to investigate the option of locking herself up once a month to this arbitrary degree?
If she decided she couldn't live with the pain of having murdered her boss and her ex-boyfriend and the remotest chance the monster within her could take control and kill someone else, even someone she doesn't know, is that an uninformed decision? Because the text supports that just as much as your position. I'd even argue it supports it more, since she said "I can't live like this." It seems clear to me that her state was causing her distress. Which she chose to end, with the only means she felt she had to hand.
It was mentioned and dimissed with other possiblities in a *single sentence*. If instead of dismissing it, Dean had offered it as an alternative, don't you think she might have considered it.
It was mentioned and dimissed with other possiblities in a *single sentence*
No, it wasn't. It got a whole sentence all to itself. Does that mean it passes the bar for seriously considered?
I think you're underestimating the impact that being a murdering monster, even one that doesn't kill again, is supposed to have to a character.
It's repeatedly posed throughout the series as a horrible thing, something that Sam would rather die than be. Now, there's a scenario where containment was not considered, seriously or otherwise.
For a show that consistently presents monsterhood as a fate worse than death, why is choosing the death instead of werewolf cake uninformed, dismissive, or unconscionable? Is it the current American societal prejudice as suicide being worse than any other option, ever?
Even before you come to the risk of killing again, there's a) being a monster and b) having killed already weighing on Madison. Removing a threat against innocents added to that? What's the uninformed angle again? Remember, she's living this. It's not a thought experiment for her.
Going back to what Kristen explained about the process: I get that, I respect that. It's crazy and fluid and there are no take-backs.
That also struck me (maybe wrongly) as a way to say "don't ever complain about TV Show writing because it's hard".
I'm grateful for the perspective.
And if, in the end, Amy was a deliberate choice to provide conflict for the brothers, alright. Did I enjoy it or the lingering ramifications? No. And not in the "that was a wonderfully uncomfortable arc". And I think a lot of the dislike is that this riff is repetitive before anything comes of it, and that it's over a character I didn't know. I didn't mind the aftermath of Sam finding out. I didn't mind Dean being hypocritical and possibly rash. It was the prelude to that that had me rolling my eyes at the "previouslies".
And I'm shutting up now.
And if, in the end, Amy was a deliberate choice to provide conflict for the brothers, alright
I don't understand how it could be anything else. I mean, it was deliberate, it was a source of conflict that persisted...what else could it have been?
I don't understand how your other objections could have been fixed, either. By taking her out of the previouslies? I mean, they can't make her a character you already know without spending even more time on her, or I guess they could retcon someone...
I'm kinda confused of anything other than "I didn't like Amy. I thought it was boring." Or are you saying it failed to set up a realistic conflict?
I mean, having *Gordon* himself in purgatory seems unfair. Madison wildly more so. Did they just stop being worthy of judgement to Heaven or Hell because they got dinged by another monster?
It seems unfair to me too, but the show has repeatedly established that the unfairness is canon. Of course, even Supernatural's Heaven seems kind of sucky to me in the long run unless Ash is wrong about only a relative handful of souls finding out how to interact with their loved ones and others.
Oh, yeah--I didn't mean to imply going to Heaven was a good thing, just that so far they've kind of implied you got to earn your way wherever.
Okay, I am catching up on Supernatural, and just finished "There Will Be Blood". I know that vampires are powerful and can be discreet, but trust me that a black guy is going to be noticed in North Dakota. My brother was there for 6 months and was able to COUNT the black people. And then the "retreat" was in Montana? Oh, no one's going to notice the black guy there!
Although I suppose I should appreciate the color blind casting. I did love the bit about seeing them next season.