First impressions of Supernatural
Jul. 5th, 2007 06:57 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
selenakI finally gave in and started to watch Supernatural. So far so entertaining; it reminds me of the early X-Files with its monsters of the week and the backstory trauma as a red thread, not surprising, since I recognized one of the writers (Chiban), one of the directors (Kim Manners) and of course Mr. Cigarette Smoking Man himself guest-starring.
As with the X-Files, it has a complete focus on its two leading characters (though I take it father John is going to play a greater role, given he's![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
vaznetti's favourite character) and gets talked about as much as Sydney's mother "Laura" did throughout the first season of Alias before Irina Derevko made her triumphant return. With the exception of Dr. Who (which has recurring characters but mostly a two-character-focus as well, the Doctor and the Companion du jour), I've been watching only ensemble shows in recent years, and I think it has spoiled me, because I find myself missing the ensemble feel. I mean, shows like Alias have of course a clear leading lady, but they also have an assortment of other fleshed out characters; this goes for all three Jossverse shows; and my newest obsession, Heroes, is defined as an ensemble show in the title. Now with the exception of Firefly, where I really love everyone equally, I do play the favourites game; there are characters and storylines I love better than others. But I still dig that the others are there. And I miss this about Supernatural, which is perhaps unfair of me, as it's defined as a two-leads show, not an ensemble one.
Also, I can see where the gender critique comes from, what with the women all either victims or evil, but at least some of the victims of the case du jour do get to help with fighting the bad guys, so we're not quite back to the dark pre Buffy ages. Still. When seeing a scene where a guy sneaks into a building with a girl in tow who cautions him, it's impossible not to think of how brilliantly Joss set that kind of scene up once and for all in the very teaser of the very first BTVS episode, in which the fearful blonde girl turns out to be the monster (and none other than my beloved Darla). And here it's played straight. Hm.
The boys: are believable as brothers. I can see why Dean is the universal fan favourite, which naturally makes me route for Sam a little.*g* But so far, I'm not really involved with either of them, though as I said entertained enough. I shall conclude by stating cryptically they are not Italian.
As with the X-Files, it has a complete focus on its two leading characters (though I take it father John is going to play a greater role, given he's
vaznetti's favourite character) and gets talked about as much as Sydney's mother "Laura" did throughout the first season of Alias before Irina Derevko made her triumphant return. With the exception of Dr. Who (which has recurring characters but mostly a two-character-focus as well, the Doctor and the Companion du jour), I've been watching only ensemble shows in recent years, and I think it has spoiled me, because I find myself missing the ensemble feel. I mean, shows like Alias have of course a clear leading lady, but they also have an assortment of other fleshed out characters; this goes for all three Jossverse shows; and my newest obsession, Heroes, is defined as an ensemble show in the title. Now with the exception of Firefly, where I really love everyone equally, I do play the favourites game; there are characters and storylines I love better than others. But I still dig that the others are there. And I miss this about Supernatural, which is perhaps unfair of me, as it's defined as a two-leads show, not an ensemble one. Also, I can see where the gender critique comes from, what with the women all either victims or evil, but at least some of the victims of the case du jour do get to help with fighting the bad guys, so we're not quite back to the dark pre Buffy ages. Still. When seeing a scene where a guy sneaks into a building with a girl in tow who cautions him, it's impossible not to think of how brilliantly Joss set that kind of scene up once and for all in the very teaser of the very first BTVS episode, in which the fearful blonde girl turns out to be the monster (and none other than my beloved Darla). And here it's played straight. Hm.
The boys: are believable as brothers. I can see why Dean is the universal fan favourite, which naturally makes me route for Sam a little.*g* But so far, I'm not really involved with either of them, though as I said entertained enough. I shall conclude by stating cryptically they are not Italian.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-07-06 07:25 am (UTC)BTW, I do see what you meant when you wrote that the difference between the Winchesters and the Petrellis is that the Winchesters are screwed up through what happened to Mom whereas the Petrellis are screwed up in themselves, with or without superpowers!
:D And now you can get in on arguments on which set of brothers would win in a fight (Winchesters, at the moment, since Peter is too likely to faint, and calling out a hit on someone doesn't technically count as "fighting"), and who is more codependent (hard to say, but the Petrelli codependency is definitely less explicable and less brotherly).
no subject
Date: 2007-07-06 12:08 pm (UTC)Oh, agreed who'd win in a fight, though I think Nathan would probably roll his eyes and try to hire the Winchesters as bodyguards instead of fighting.*g*
Co-dependency: like I said, the Winchesters aren't Italian.*g* (Apparantly, Manly Men from Kansas do not touch, huh?) Seriously though, they're very believable siblings, and given the way they're raised, it's entirely understandable they are so dependent on each other. Whereas with the Petrellis, you have the age gap and a couple of alternate possibilities to fixate on and bond with, so yes, a far less self evident development. I'd say the level of co-dependency is the same, but the expression of same is different, not to mention that emotional manipulation is entirely a Petrelli trait and the Winchesters seem to be pretty straightforward with each other.
no subject
Date: 2007-07-06 06:44 pm (UTC)Ahahaha, you would not believe what a sore point that is for the fandom. I think there may have actually been a fan campaign to get them to hug. Of course, I don't think most fans quite got the hug they wanted. *eg*
Whereas with the Petrellis, you have the age gap and a couple of alternate possibilities to fixate on and bond with, so yes, a far less self evident development.
That's actually one of the reason's I'd say the Petrellis are a little more codependent (or at least dysfunctional). The Winchesters had no other options, but Peter and Nathan could have fixated on plenty of people -- parents, nannies, school friends, girlfriends -- but chose the brother they hardly ever saw for half their life, and who was at a competely different life stage, instead.
but the expression of same is different, not to mention that emotional manipulation is entirely a Petrelli trait and the Winchesters seem to be pretty straightforward with each other.
I'm not sure I'd call the Winchesters straightforward, exactly. There's no manipulation, but I think their own lack of emotional awareness (a flaw the Petrellis absolutely do not have; they are incredibly emotionally literate, which is why they are such fantastic manipulators) makes it hard for them to truly be straightforward. And their emotional vocabulary just isn't up to the task for expressing quite what they are feeling. Leading to misunderstanding among the three of them...
no subject
Date: 2007-07-06 07:14 pm (UTC)LOL. Now I understand why in that screencap post (where they use caps from Jared Palecki and Milo V. from Gilmore Girls) where there's a big brother argument Sam's "my brother would do everything for me" is countered by Peter's "my brother hugs me".
That's actually one of the reason's I'd say the Petrellis are a little more codependent (or at least dysfunctional). The Winchesters had no other options, but Peter and Nathan could have fixated on plenty of people -- parents, nannies, school friends, girlfriends -- but chose the brother they hardly ever saw for half their life, and who was at a competely different life stage, instead.
*ponders freedom of choice as higher degree of dysfunction*
You could also say that the Winchesters still don't have much choice, given their lifestyle, and again, Peter and Nathan do. And between Nathan's marriage and fatherhood of two children he's aware of and Simone presumably not being Peter's first girlfriend, one can safely say they did and do engage in a couple of other relationships which could and should take a similar degree of emotional commitment and intensity. But it just hasn't happened yet. Which yes, is probably evidence of a higher degree of co-dependency.
There's no manipulation, but I think their own lack of emotional awareness (a flaw the Petrellis absolutely do not have; they are incredibly emotionally literate, which is why they are such fantastic manipulators) makes it hard for them to truly be straightforward.
I'm assuming John's annoying "I'm telling you nothing to protect you" tendency fits into this? But the brothers do tell each other "I'd do anything for you" every third episode...
no subject
Date: 2007-07-07 03:32 am (UTC)Additionally, Sam and Dean actually have a pretty healthy relationship with each other that has helped them with their few relationships outside of the family. Sam and Jess were pretty functional, and there's an episode in the latter half of the first season with one of Dean's girlfriends that he was actually very committed to.
The two families come at these things from opposite side, so it's a bit hard to judge sometimes. Sam and Dean rarely ever have relationships outside the family, but the few they do have are normal and functional. Peter and Nathan frequently have relationships outside the family, but they are shallow, unfulfilling, and seem to follow their basic dysfunctional pattern.
I'm assuming John's annoying "I'm telling you nothing to protect you" tendency fits into this? But the brothers do tell each other "I'd do anything for you" every third episode...
John is the king of emotional illiteracy. The boys really only have trouble saying what's wrong with them, not what's right as well. And Sam's a bit better about it, but he still communicates better when he's acting like it's Dean's issue, not his.