I just want to reiterate that that Mary/Anna fight was COMPLETELY BADASS.
Mary with the knife was completely badass and hot.
(ita, please don't tell me if she was doing it wrong)
[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.
I just want to reiterate that that Mary/Anna fight was COMPLETELY BADASS.
Mary with the knife was completely badass and hot.
(ita, please don't tell me if she was doing it wrong)
Mary with the knife was completely badass and hot.
Esp. knowing she's fighting while knocked up.
Which puts this episode at probably late May, early June 1978.
Sneak Peek for next week.
I thought Anna did a complete 180° from her former characterization. Previously she'd been the one arguing for the end not justifying the means. While Castiel has a personal stake that's prompted him to rebel, I'd expect her to do so out of a desire to do what's right, and murdering innocent people in the name of expediency shouldn't fit that bill.
Also not thrilled with Michael's revelation that the Winchesters have some extra-special blood that makes them suitable hosts. I much preferred it when it looked like the echoes of Dean & Sam's relationship were what made them the perfect agents to act out his issues with Lucifer.
I'd expect her to do so out of a desire to do what's right, and murdering innocent people in the name of expediency shouldn't fit that bill.
I'm actually a fan of sacrificing the few to save the many, so that transition doesn't seem out of place to me.
As for the magical Winchester blood--they're not the only extant brothers with daddy/sibling issues. Why can't any of them be used as vessels instead?
Michael's line about raising Lucifer is kinda hinky. Angels need raising? That's taking the parenting metaphor a bit far.
Michael's line about raising Lucifer is kinda hinky. Angels need raising? That's taking the parenting metaphor a bit far.
I thought Michael was doing a ham-handed job of pushing the similarities between him and Dean. Whether that ham-handedness was meant to be a character note or just the writers being sloppy, I have no idea.
I'm actually a fan of sacrificing the few to save the many, so that transition doesn't seem out of place to me.
Yeah, but I got the impression that she wasn't - until now.
I got the impression that she wasn't - until now.
If heaven's re-education camp doesn't work, whose can? Her motives are similar, her means have changed.
Also not thrilled with Michael's revelation that the Winchesters have some extra-special blood that makes them suitable hosts. I much preferred it when it looked like the echoes of Dean & Sam's relationship were what made them the perfect agents to act out his issues with Lucifer.
That's not a revelation, though. I mean, not this season. That was a revelation with The Rapture last season.
If heaven's re-education camp doesn't work, whose can? Her motives are similar, her means have changed.
They needed to be better about connecting those dots, I felt.
No, he's a feminist. I read that on the Internet, so it must be true.
I think I read that same essay. Is that the one that said that since he made sweet tender love to Cassie and fogged-up-windows Titanic love to Anna that Dean is 100 percent always a gooey romantic? So that all those barmaids and one night stands he's supposedly enjoying are apparently being treated to the best in candlelight, soft touches and tenderness while he's banging them in the alleyway or the backseat or wherever. (The article I read was doing a black/white comparison -- that is, since Dean was a feminist and a tender lover, therefore Sam was a misogynist and made love like a mostly uncaring rampaging bull. Despite the evidence that he'd been in a happy loving relationship for a year and a half.)
Also not thrilled with Michael's revelation that the Winchesters have some extra-special blood that makes them suitable hosts.
Midi-chlorians! That would explain so much!