(no subject)
Feb. 11th, 2008 07:40 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
oselleI read today a reference to an interview with Eric Kripke (don't have a source or direct quote), that claimed that he and the writers enjoyed using Bela's character to "get out their inner smartasses." In other words, they enjoy using her to get one over on the Winchesters now and then.
Now, if this is true, it shows why I don't always trust Kripke the way some of you do. I have no problem with poking fun at the Winchesters now and then, but there's a right way to do it and a wrong way. The boys getting one over on each other? Fantastic. Bobby calling them morons? Bring it on. I'll even take a character like the Trickster playing pranks on them or Madison telling them that their car is pretty conspicuous for a stakeout (which it is!).
But if you're using a new, untested character (one whom you expect the audience to admire and identify with) to make the heroes of your story look like morons again and again? That to me signifies a deep weariness with the characters and the story. A sort of, "fuck it, we all know this is bullshit" approach that makes you want to deflate your main characters. It's fun to let Bela trump them again and again because you're bloody sick of them and want to see them get one-upped. It's funny. Of course if you're a viewer who's NOT sick of Sam and Dean, you might not find it so funny.
If you like your characters, you can still poke fun at them now and then but, as I said, there's a right way to do it. You can have the fun-poking come from a supporting cast member that we know holds some affection for these characters. That's why Bobby calling them morons isn't offensive, it's amusing. It makes us laugh, because we know that Bobby has the same deep affection for them that we do and that he knows them like we do. Or you can have it come from some one-shot guest star. Supernatural did that with the Trickster -- not my favorite episode, but I did love the way he played on the boys' understandable irritation and comically exaggerated views of each other. The X-Files also used to do this with great success. We loved and understood Mulder's intensity, but we could also enjoy the occasional guest star who viewed him as a bug-eyed nutcase. If the guest star had become a regular who constantly tried to show us that Mulder WAS a bug-eyed nutcase, the joke would have gotten old real fast.
And that's what's happened here. Why should we find it amusing when Bela makes fun of Sam and Dean or gets one over on them? We don't know her, she's been thrust upon us and we're supposed to enjoy the fact that she makes them look silly? Especially when she doesn't know them. She presumably doesn't like them. Would we find it funny if an obnoxious stranger mocked our friends in real life (and I'm not even getting into all the other vicious shit she's done to them).
That's the thing -- Bela doesn't poke fun at them, she mocks them and in so doing, I feel like Kripke and Co. are mocking us for caring about them. She makes them look like idiots who deserve to be duped, like buffoons who aren't worthy of our regard. Kripke thinks we're in on the joke. Well, I don't know about you, but I'm not.
This show still does a lot of things right. God knows I loved this week's episode. But these writers are going to have to find another outlet for their "inner smartasses" because making your supposed heroes the butt of your jokes is no way to run a show.
Now, if this is true, it shows why I don't always trust Kripke the way some of you do. I have no problem with poking fun at the Winchesters now and then, but there's a right way to do it and a wrong way. The boys getting one over on each other? Fantastic. Bobby calling them morons? Bring it on. I'll even take a character like the Trickster playing pranks on them or Madison telling them that their car is pretty conspicuous for a stakeout (which it is!).
But if you're using a new, untested character (one whom you expect the audience to admire and identify with) to make the heroes of your story look like morons again and again? That to me signifies a deep weariness with the characters and the story. A sort of, "fuck it, we all know this is bullshit" approach that makes you want to deflate your main characters. It's fun to let Bela trump them again and again because you're bloody sick of them and want to see them get one-upped. It's funny. Of course if you're a viewer who's NOT sick of Sam and Dean, you might not find it so funny.
If you like your characters, you can still poke fun at them now and then but, as I said, there's a right way to do it. You can have the fun-poking come from a supporting cast member that we know holds some affection for these characters. That's why Bobby calling them morons isn't offensive, it's amusing. It makes us laugh, because we know that Bobby has the same deep affection for them that we do and that he knows them like we do. Or you can have it come from some one-shot guest star. Supernatural did that with the Trickster -- not my favorite episode, but I did love the way he played on the boys' understandable irritation and comically exaggerated views of each other. The X-Files also used to do this with great success. We loved and understood Mulder's intensity, but we could also enjoy the occasional guest star who viewed him as a bug-eyed nutcase. If the guest star had become a regular who constantly tried to show us that Mulder WAS a bug-eyed nutcase, the joke would have gotten old real fast.
And that's what's happened here. Why should we find it amusing when Bela makes fun of Sam and Dean or gets one over on them? We don't know her, she's been thrust upon us and we're supposed to enjoy the fact that she makes them look silly? Especially when she doesn't know them. She presumably doesn't like them. Would we find it funny if an obnoxious stranger mocked our friends in real life (and I'm not even getting into all the other vicious shit she's done to them).
That's the thing -- Bela doesn't poke fun at them, she mocks them and in so doing, I feel like Kripke and Co. are mocking us for caring about them. She makes them look like idiots who deserve to be duped, like buffoons who aren't worthy of our regard. Kripke thinks we're in on the joke. Well, I don't know about you, but I'm not.
This show still does a lot of things right. God knows I loved this week's episode. But these writers are going to have to find another outlet for their "inner smartasses" because making your supposed heroes the butt of your jokes is no way to run a show.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-02-12 03:08 am (UTC)The guys who created Lost had a good thing going, but then they brought in a bunch of characters that I really disliked, and nothing they did could make me like them. Eko was the only one of the "Tailies" who interested me, and they frakkin' killed him off. And the Others who've been so dominant in the past season and too much of the new one don't interest me one bit. Kirpke should take a lesson.
no subject
Date: 2008-02-12 03:35 am (UTC)I had little feeling for Ruby one way or the other before the witches episode two weeks ago. After that I warmed up to Ruby -- it now seems like she has some genuine part to play in this universe. And like you said, there's some respect for the Winchesters there, or at least, not outright disdain. Frankly, if anyone should cop a superior attitude over the Winchesters, it's Ruby, not Bela. Ruby's a supernatural, immortal being who somehow managed to hold onto her humanity after centuries in Hell -- what's Bela done that can top that?
And yes, I do suspect that Kripke thinks she's adorable and "stylish" and heaven knows what else, and he seems mystified by fans not feeling the same way. That's where I'm starting to think he's tired of the whole thing. If you still care about your show and your protagonists, you probably shouldn't think it's amusing or endearing to make them look stupid.
no subject
Date: 2008-02-12 07:42 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-02-13 12:35 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-02-12 08:37 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-02-13 12:36 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-02-13 05:11 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-02-14 02:05 am (UTC)