MovieChat Forums > Supernatural (2005) Discussion > Why is Supernatural a bad show?

Why is Supernatural a bad show?

posted 4 years ago by TMC-4 (19412)
29 replies | jump to latest

https://www.quora.com/Why-is-Supernatural-a-bad-show/answer/Jon-Mixon-1

Some thoughts:

They ran out of “story” a few miles back - The series had enough quality material for 7–8 seasons, but it has lasted more than 14. The quality has been plummeting for years; however the ratings and the lack of a solid replacement has kept in on the air.

The ancillary characters have often been better than the leads - Jensen Ackles and Jared Padelecki have on occasion been the least interesting parts of the series that they co-lead. Characters like Castiel, Crowley, Bobby, Rufus, and Chuck have often been better than the series’ protagonists, which is never a sign of good television.

Its religious allegory can become cloying sometimes - Basically “Yahoo! Christianity” seems to be the underlying narrative, and that’s a rather limited (and limiting) trope.Frankly the decision to make Christianity the “go to” religion of the series’s universe was a poor idea from which the narrative never recovered.

The lack of long-term female characters (Who weren’t demons, angels,relatives, or lesbians) is disappointing - Despite having been on air for fourteen seasons, the series only long-term female characters were demons (Meg), angels (several), Charley (lesbian portrayed by a straight actor primarily for male fan titillation) and their Mom. Yes, I get that the series is about the two brothers; however that narrative was always thin and two male siblings approaching 40 living together isn’t very exciting, nor interesting. Supernatural needed women…and it rarely had them for more than bit players.

It’s predictable - Basically you can guess all but a few of the program’s endings within minutes of tuning in to the programming. The show’s narrative is extremely predictable and while that’s appealing some fans, other people want or need a little more. Unfortunately, the series rarely provided that “more”, and it grew stale as a result.

[–] Truthtalker (1870) 4 years ago

Agreed

[–] Bella-UK (1282) 4 years ago

That is a very negative take on this show. The author clearly isn't a fan.

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

It becomes clear by their belief that Rufus was a better character than the leads and the comment that it needed more females that the author is another of those woke SJWs that only wants shows that have minorities or women in the leading roles.

At that point they have lost credibility.

The only thing I can agree with is they only had enough material for maybe 8 full seasons. Their has been way too many seasons when they throw in filler shows that are pointless and don't move the story appearing to only be made to fulfill their required number of shows for the network.

They have also taken a few turns that they should have backtracked from much quicker than they did... but the biggest problem is that the characters that get killed don't stay dead. It would have been a far better show if a character's death was permanent... yes it would have changed the whole direction of the show, especially when one of the leads was killed which has happened so many times now its hard to count them all, but the show would have been better overall. I suspect if that was the case they would have probably also been a little more judicious in when they decided to kill off a character as now it has become so easy to bring them back that the writer dont' seem to give much thought to killing off a character as it is probably of as little real consequence to them as it would be to write in that a character sneezed.

[–] Reeveman (178) 4 years ago

I have to mostly disagree with the article. First, to say that the show is "bad" because it's running out of steam after 14+ seasons is just lazy writing on part of the article's author because that rule applies to EVERY SHOW EVER MADE that lasts beyond five seasons. It's just the nature of the beast. Supernatural has more than enough great characters to write for that keeps the series interesting which leads me to the second point.

How can having a plethora of great characters be a detriment? All of the characters the article listed could legitimately have their own spinoff show but where the author sees that as a negative because he/she believes they occasionally overshadow the leads I see it as a brilliant move from the show's writers/producers. To have the main characters step back into the background occasionally and flesh out the ancillary players only adds to the richness of the show and brother did Supernatural create some memorable characters. I never saw it as the author sees it. It reminds me of, and bear with me here, how Stevie Ray Vaughn acted when onstage with other talented players. He knew it was always about the show and the audience and not him. Even though he could blow away damn near every guitarist up there he always differed to them and played second banana. That's the way I think the show's writers, producers, and even J&J felt about the show by not making it solely about the two brothers. Thank God because we'd never have had "Weekend at Bobby's".

[–] Reeveman (178) 4 years ago

Now, the paragraph about the lack of long-term females in the show is, in my opinion, just the author injecting some PC BS into the discussion because that's the thing to do these days and it's an argument that has no end. If there wasn't a lesbian character then they were being homophobic but since it does have a lesbian character then now it's just for male titillation. Can't win. The author conveniently omits Jo, Ellen, Jody Mills, and others to make his/her point. The show has had female characters ranging from just the bit player for that episode to the ones listed above that lasted several seasons but still the author simply throws out there that the show needed women without bringing anything specific to the table. Supernatural is not a female driven show which leads me to the astonishingly shallow statement that author makes while conceding that the show is primarily about two brothers but "THAT NARRATIVE WAS ALWAYS THIN"! I don't know what show the author is speaking of but clearly it isn't Supernatural.

[–] Bella-UK (1282) 4 years ago

Sorry Reeveman, I don't know what show you are watching. One of the reasons I started watching this show a mere 12 years ago was the fact of the relationship between the TWO BROTHERS. The second and major fact was their chemistry between each other. You can clearly see its about two brothers and the stories nearly always centre around them or mainly what they've done wrong to get them out of a scrape.

Women on this show has never worked. I hate it when the boys get love interests because of the nature of their job. They can't settle in one place, and be around their kids growing up. They mere nature of the job isn't suitable to rear a family because of the shear violence which surrounds the job.

Your list of women, you have forgotten to mention Charlie, Claire and Alex.

[–] Reeveman (178) 4 years ago

You misunderstood me. The author wrote "Yes, I get that the series is about the two brothers; however that narrative was always thin..." and I was commenting,poorly, that the narrative of their relationship was never "thin"; it's foundation of the show. I was pointing out that the author knew little to nothing about the show if making statements like that.

Yeah, I didn't have them on my list because I haven't made it to that part of the series yet. The last season I finished years ago was S7 and have been watching random episodes from S1 to S7 from time to time. I've started the series over and am in S5 now with plans to watch them all up to S14.

[–] Bella-UK (1282) 4 years ago

Thanks, sorry for misunderstanding you, I do this sometimes. You are spot on, the author clearly doesn't know the show's make up. Very early on in the season is clear as light and day how they were estranged but get back together and the bond so clearly grows into something we see today. I am so pleased Dean turned his car round and went back to Sam's flat and dragged his brother out. His instinct must have been so damned strong that day.

Got you about the female actresses. Good work in re-watching. I've been thinking about this, and am going to attempt re-watch once the series ends in May. I can take my time, and remember the good and not so good times at my own pace. God, I am gonna miss these two men.

[–] Reeveman (178) 4 years ago

I heartily recommend restarting the series. You get to see the how the actors, characters, and even the show itself grow into something unlike anything else on TV. Supernatural is one of my all-time favorite shows and I have it up there with the iconic TV shows from decades past. Right now I'm in S5 and I consider seasons 4-6 the "golden era" of the show but that's only because I haven't gone past S7. I know there are great eps in later seasons, 'Fan Fiction' and 'Baby' to name a couple but these seasons are just gold to me. The show means many different things to different people. If i may take a guess, I believe what resonates with you is the relationship between the two brothers. What resonated with me was the initial perception of absolute freedom they have which was perfectly described by Chuck in 'Swan Song'. Of course, after watching the show for a while the irony and tragedy is that they really aren't free at all. I'm curious, Bella, do you like the meta episodes?

[–] Bella-UK (1282) 4 years ago

Do I like Meta episodes? Good question. When I first started watching I really did hate them and had a really bad, corny vibe with them. But as corny as this might sound as years have passed and you re-watch with different eyes some are very good. My least favourite of all is Fan Fiction less said .... I do enjoy the French mistake and my all time favourite was Frontierland I felt so really bad for the Phoenix, felt he got a raw deal. I think this show has always loved to poke fun at itself, and the actors really understand how to set it off and help make us see their funny side.

To me the golden era of the show is S1-S5. Season 6 for me is totally off as is 7 which many fans say is the worst. Sera didn't know how to plot a season or consider what was important to its leads. In her early days she was a fantastic writer, but many felt becoming a show-runner wasn't her best move.

You are right in what resonates with me is the Brothers, more so their relationship and not in a sexual way. I understand your words about freedom, and their irony. Its a bit of a, bittersweet feeling. Chuck has manipulated all this for so long how much do we know is his work, and his alone?

[–] Longrain (37) 4 years ago

I only watched this show once when I heard there was an HP Lovecraft episode called "Let It Bleed" from season 6 and it was so disrespectful to Lovecraft fans I never watched this show again. In it the lead guy in the show is told about HP Lovecraft, but he didn't know of him. When he was told he was a writer of fiction in the 1930s he replies with something like I wouldn't know because I was into girls.

[–] Bella-UK (1282) 4 years ago

Sorry Longrain you feel this way. Usually this show does do its home-work and tries to stay loyal to what its ever trying to re-produce. It sounds like something Dean might have said. S6 is a while back now, and feel the show has matured a lot since then. The actors are much older and more sympathetic towards things around them. (I should say, writers) Its not the actors fault they are only acting the lines written by the writer of that episode.

[–] Reeveman (178) 4 years ago

Yep, that sounds like something Dean would have said. My take on the line is the writers weren't poking fun at the HP Lovecraft fans but maybe illustrating that Dean didn't pay attention to or cared about anything but girls while he was in school. Just my take.

[–] TheAdlerian (2092) 4 years ago

The show has been great the whole time.

This is a show that doesn't need a massive plot. That's because it has always had witty writers that make even mundane, regarding plot, episodes fun to watch.

The show is also about love which is a huge theme. The brothers love each other, people love them, and even "evil" characters will become their friend because they get sucked into the love. So, the interaction between the characters, due to the great writing, has been a major story line.

You have to "get" the show in order to understand how good it is. I could literally watch this show forever and and enjoy it. The writers could have the guys go shopping for 15 episodes and it would probably be funny/interesting.

[–] SageMaster33 (857) 4 years ago

Winchesters puting up a fight against archangels and Winchesters struggling against mere vampires is really annoying...

[–] Costumer (1786) 4 years ago

No offense, SageMaster, but it is archangel, one word.

[–] SageMaster33 (857) 4 years ago

typing error

[–] Costumer (1786) 4 years ago

no problem. Happens to all of us.

[–] SammiWin (1112) 4 years ago

There's been "bad episodes" and "bad storylines" but that doesn't equal a series to being a bad show.

I don't think there is a "lack of long-term female characters" because there were plenty. I think there is more of a lack of unlikable female characters, but that is not the same thing/complaint.

Although I'd have to say Supernatural's uniqueness and ongoing storylines began to go downhill a few seasons ago, longtime fans can still enjoy what they get. Shows that make it this far in seasons can be great, but none of these shows were what they once were: Supernatural, Criminal Minds, Grey's Anatomy, Law & Order SVU. Also, The Simpsons and South Park. The Walking Dead is in their season 10 and it's not as much of a fad it once was, but that show adapts into their storylines..

[–] Bella-UK (1282) 4 years ago

Why does this thread keep being bounced back to the top of the thread pile with no comments added?
Is someone trying to tell us something?

[–] SammiWin (1112) 4 years ago

Page 2

[–] Bella-UK (1282) 4 years ago

Not with you?