*invites the COMMENT TO ENTRY of doom*

Apr 23, 2008 14:13

So. I've just heard Kripke's spoilers for the character casting in Season 4. And unlike some others, I am not altogether pleased.

Here's why. )

kripke: quit jossing my peeps!, tv talk: spn, fandom talk

Leave a comment

Comments 65

frikatilhi April 23 2008, 20:24:56 UTC
I don't like it either when the creators listen to the fans too much. What they see is the most vocal part of fandom, and it doesn't represent my experience of how fandom on the whole felt about Bela. I think the character had a lot of potential, just like Jo did, and I'm not too fond of the trend to kill everyone off. I like to invest in characters, and I would like to see a lot of them recurring.

But I also like Kripke's comment that he's never wavered from the overall story and mytharc he plans to tell. That's good to know. :)

Reply

nevcolleil April 24 2008, 14:10:15 UTC
That's good to know.

Yes :) I hope he doesn't lose that dedication.

Reply


littlepunkryo April 23 2008, 20:25:13 UTC
The problem with Supernatural having a lot of long-standing secondary characters is that this show built itself on being about Sam and Dean. So adding secondary characters, whether you love them or hate them, is kind of tricky. Plus, where would any new characters fit in? They already have their hunter resource(s) in Bobby and Ellen, and what else would realistically fit in? They kind of boxed themselves into a corner where that is concerned.

As for Bella - I don't like her, and I used to. I actually like Ruby more now. But let's face it, to be able to tell the story Kripke wants to tell, there isn't much room for secondary characters. That's kind of what happened to Jo - fans didn't like her, yes, but in the end, there wasn't enough room for her anyway.

Reply

nevcolleil April 23 2008, 21:11:15 UTC
I like how the show focuses on Sam and Dean myself, but realistically, there's only so much story you can tell about two people isolated from everyone else. Art has to imitate life to some degree, and no one can live the life that Sam and Dean do without seeing someone more than once or twice. I'm not saying that the secondary characters we get need to be added into the main cast, or anything - just that they shouldn't be killed off right away and never allowed to recur (and thereby develop).

Reply


astri13 April 23 2008, 20:26:31 UTC
While I`m quite satisfied with this development I don`t think the deciding factor was fan reaction. All the signs pointed to the writing staff waiting to see how the reception would be after 3.15 with the proposed turnaround where finally, finally she would be made to look the fool and not the brothers again - which with 4 episodes straight of the reverse has been my biggest peeve with the writing of her ( ... )

Reply


titti April 23 2008, 20:32:01 UTC
I'm very happy that she's leaving and it has nothing to do with the fact that she may or may not become a love interest. I have a problem with the character per se. She's not even fun to hate how it's supposed to be ( ... )

Reply

dementedevoted April 23 2008, 21:02:47 UTC
I agree with everything you've said, Titti. With Bela, it was like reading really bad fanfiction with the OOC actions of the boys.

The proposed character had potential but was poorly executed in my opinion. I think it's been difficult for the writers to introduce reoccurring female (and sometimes male) characters that are close to the guys' ages. Personally, I like Ruby. But I couldn't stand Jo and Bela is one of the few characters I've ever hated on a show I've loved.

And I think the possibility of an episode focusing on a secondary character is a pipe dream. Roadkill, from what I've read and heard from others, was not well-received and it focused on the female guest star over the guys.

The show didn't begin with following an ensemble. It was just the brothers and it should damn well end with just the brothers so it's difficult to get attached or want to follow any other characters for long periods of time.

Reply

titti April 24 2008, 20:43:10 UTC
See, I think the secondary characters work when they are tied to the mythology. We love Bobby, John, Ruby, even Madison. They were tied to the boys and that's why we care. If they aren't tied to Sam and Dean, then they are just irrelevant.

Reply

(The comment has been removed)


coolgrin April 23 2008, 20:32:46 UTC
I think that the issue with Bela was that she made the guys look like idiots and really who the hell needs that? I do wish they had show more of Jo and Gordon and Hendrickson. Gordon and Hendrickson where good opposition with out being overbearing. Bela to me is just awful and not because she a female but because she is just selfish and dangerous. I wanted to like her she was kickass and had some spunk but the last few times she was on the show I began to dislike her, she doesn't add to the story at all. Ruby is cool though and she can move the myth arc along.

Reply

nevcolleil April 23 2008, 21:26:19 UTC
I think that the issue with Bela was that she made the guys look like idiots

But see - that's what scares me about Kripke's acknowleding the fan reaction to characters like Bela. If we off every character that challenges Sam and Dean - yeah, we lose the character that made them look bad. We also lose that glimpse at the side of our boys that is capable of making mistakes and being idiots and pulling through. We lose the moments that define Sam & Dean as ordinary guys on an extraordinary mission - not super heros who can only be thwarted by super villains like Lilith. Getting rid of Bela, I think, is a cheap and easy fix for the momentary discomfort we feel when she gets one over on the guys. Seeing them learn from their mistakes with her and somehow influence her development for the better would be a much more satisfying approach to her character.

Reply

static_pixie April 24 2008, 02:33:04 UTC
But the thing is, every time she's gotten one over on them, it just hasn't made sense considering what we know about their characters. I mean, Dean Winchester, soldier of the family, shows Bela exactly where they're keeping their valuables right before he and Sam are going to be knocked out for a very long time, knowing that she knows how to pick a lock? That's so stupid it really is OOC. That it wouldn't occur to him that she'd filch the hand in Red Sky after proving that she's a thief who collects potentially valuable items also just doesn't make sense either. It would have been one thing if she'd really used clever means to outsmart them, but all that happened was the boys lost a few IQ points. Sure it makes sense that Sam and Dean slip up every now and then but not to that extent.

I wanted to like Bela, I really did, and to some degree, I am resentful of the fact that they're just removing her like this, but they did have issues writing her (though I think those could have been corrected).

Reply

bc_calling April 24 2008, 04:58:37 UTC
Sorry to just toss myself into the conversation here, but this point really intrigues me. Though I totally see where you're coming from, I actually got the feeling that, yeah, they did a few stupid things around her, but at the same time, I think there may be a sense on their end that she's not as big a threat as she makes herself out to be. Yes, the boys are well trained to hunt and fight evil, but Bela isn't evil. She's kind of indifferent. I guess maybe there's a sense that they believe that they are smarter than her, and therefore they're more likely to let their guard down a bit, because they still can't wrap their heads around her. For both Sam and Dean, I think there's a sense that, because she's not downright evil and she is human, there must be some kind of moral side to her that will keep her from doing some of the things she's done. Yeah, it's stupid to keep letting her get away with it, but I think that every time it happens, they believe they're prepared for the next time she comes around, but there's still a piece ( ... )

Reply


Leave a comment

Up