SPN 2 ep review

[oselle]

A few things occurred to me while watching the past 2 episodes. Most of this relates to last night's episode, "Swap Meat."

1. Lather, Rinse, Repeat
The show seems to be treading familiar ground an awful lot lately, and by that I mean, repeating old episodes. "Sam, Interrupted" was such a reworking of Season Two's "Folsom Prison Blues" that those two writers should only get half salary for it. Last night's episode wasn't so much of a redo of a past episode as of past themes, including the idea that Dean finds more companionship and compatibility with strangers than he does with his own brother, a repeat of what we saw in last season's "Sex and Violence."

Another revisited theme was the contrast between the Winchesters' life and the "white picket fence" life that Sam and Dean have alternately both seemed to yearn for and deplore. The "twist" this time around is that Sam and Dean have apparently reversed roles -- it's now Sam who's turning up his nose at an ordinary life, while Dean is feeling wistful about it, virtually repeating each other's dialogue from ancient Season One episodes like "Bugs." More on this later.

2. It's What's Outside That Counts
My biggest problem with last night's episode was the suggestion that Gary, while inside Sam's body, could acquiesce to Lucifer with the same result as if Sam himself had said yes to Lucifer. I won't mince words: this is stupid. I can't believe that it took three people to write last night's episode and not one of them had a problem with this.

On the surface the drama is obvious -- OMG, Sam's meat suit is on the loose and Lucifer can get hold of it! But wow, is that a superficial concept. If this is true, then Sam saying "yes" to Lucifer (or Dean giving in to Michael) is wholly pointless. If the body is all that matters, then there's no reason why Lucifer (or Michael) couldn't kill Sam or Dean and then jump in while the corpse was still warm. Silly me! I still expect at least some depth of thought from this show, and I thought what mattered was the idea of saying yes. Of Sam or Dean, either willingly or through coercion, giving permission to these entities to inhabit their bodies. It ties into deeper concepts like free will and sin, and considering how the show tries to link itself to Judeo-Christian theology, you'd think someone would have thought of this. But I guess not. The meat suit is all that matters. Now, I'll be the first to admit that both of these boys are sporting some pretty fine meat suits but nevertheless, if the idea is "strength" then there's a vast population of bodybuilders, Olympians and WWF champions out there to choose from. I was under the mistaken assumption that Sam and Dean were special, were different. If the show is going to tell us (as it has) that it "always" had to be Sam and Dean to be the respective incarnations of Lucifer and Michael, then you would think that this unusual fate was based on something a little more profound than both of these guys being fit and well-trained. But, no. Their bodies are what matters, their will and their souls are, apparently, irrelevant. Good to know. And also, way to take any import away from the idea of either one of them finally giving up and giving in. They're both just a bag of bones waiting to be hijacked. Nothing more.

3. Chemistry 101
One of the real appeals of this show used to be the chemistry between Sam and Dean but watching last night's episode, I realized that chemistry has all but evaporated into thin air. I don't know if this is something I'm imagining, or if the actors are being directed to behave this way, but whatever I once saw between the two of them is now gone. They just seem like two guys who don't like each other very much and who hardly have anything in common, and yet who are miserably stuck with each other.

Personally, I don't think the show is deliberately doing this, because I don't think the show's that clever. I'm one of those viewers who believes that Sam's remorse has been shallow and that Dean is trying to pretend everything with Ruby never happened. I don't think the show's writers share this opinion. I think they believe that Sam has apologized, and that's good enough, that Dean has accepted the apology, and that's good enough too. End of story, let's move on. But there is a Stonehenge-sized wedge between these two guys that was never there before and it has, in my opinion, changed the whole feel of the show. Sam always had a touch of selfishness about him, but now he also seems mean and wholly self-absorbed. Dean always had that tendency towards self-sacrifice, but now he seems to be sticking with Sam because he knows he has to, not because he wants to. There is no real affection left between these characters and watching them onscreen together has become as painful and depressing as watching any relationship crumble. You just want to look away. I question whether the writers are aware of this at all. If they are, they need to acknowledge it and not with one of their 30-second roadside confessionals, because I don't see how they're going to go another season and a half pretending that two such pitifully estranged characters aren't...pitifully estranged.

4. Happily Ever After
Speaking of another season, just yesterday afternoon, before this episode aired, I was talking with my co-worker and fellow SPN fan about how the series will end. I predicted that it's going to end with Sam carrying on "the family business" and Dean meeting some nice yoga instructor and finally settling down for the whole "white picket fence" life to which the show has frequently alluded. Last night's episode reinforced my theory: I think that was a great big dose of foreshadowing, and I really think that's the direction they're going to go. Sam has become totally creepy and antisocial, I can't see him ever taking up with anyone, and frankly, I see him turning into one of those half-crazy hunters, like Kubrick, who winds up living out of his van. Dean? Oh boy, how many times has the show come out and shown us that a normal life, with wife, kids and soccer games, is what he craves more than anything? Considering how many times the show has also said that a normal life is boring, pointless and pathetic (q.v., "It's a Terrible Life" and "The Real Ghostbusters"), it's going to be a bit of a stretch to claim that regular, "civilian" life is a totally awesome and fitting reward for Dean, but then the show has never had a problem with contradicting itself.

At one time this resolution would have annoyed the living shit out me -- the only satisfying end I ever envisioned for this series was Sam and Dean indomitably driving off into the sunset to the strains of some wonderfully pounding classic rock. But going back to what I was saying about Sam and Dean's relationship, this ending doesn't really appeal to me so much anymore. I'm not sure I want to see Dean attending PTA meetings, but I think it would be dreadful for him to spend the rest of his life with Sam -- who frankly, does not even like him, much less love him. Dean has been through enough and deserves a little happiness with someone who actually does love him and doesn't secretly (or not-so-secretly) think he's a worthless mook. Sam? Sam has a lot to atone for and probably deserves a life of solitude and penance. Maybe that's just the Catholic in me coming out, but that's the only way I see it right now. And God help the writers if they think it's shocking or funny to close the series with Dean's wife immolating up on the ceiling, or any suggestion that that's about to happen. No...just no.

Comments

[oselle.livejournal.com]

I almost preferred them fighting because at least they were putting feelings behind it.

There's an old saying that hate isn't the opposite of love, apathy is. What we're seeing here is growing apathy. I honestly don't see Sam having any care or concern for Dean at all, and I see Dean gradually beginning to realize that and resigning himself the the fact that he can't do anything about that. I've had my doubts about Sam ever since he put that fucking iPod in the Impala while his brother was rotting in hell. Most people chalked Sam's indifference last season up to Ruby's evil influence (erm, she was evil right? Never figured that one out.), but I think that was Sam, all Sam.

Kripke's spitting in the wind if he thinks he can return to an S1 feel now that he's effectively destroyed the relationship that was the heart of the show. Of course, considering how little regard the writers have for their audience, I'm sure they'll think they can slap together some half-assed reconciliation and we'll just buy it and move on.

[ghyste.livejournal.com]

I've had my doubts about Sam ever since he put that fucking iPod in the Impala while his brother was rotting in hell. Most people chalked Sam's indifference last season up to Ruby's evil influence (erm, she was evil right? Never figured that one out.), but I think that was Sam, all Sam.

You see, that's what I mean when I'm always harping on about the lasting effect of having an unconvincing perfomer in the role of Ruby in S4. If you can't believe that she was the one manipulating Sam into doing those things, you're just left with the fact that Sam is as unpleasant and uncaring as he appeared to be.

[oselle.livejournal.com]

You know, Katie Cassidy was sometimes wooden and stilted as Ruby but at least she had a certain...compelling flintiness about both her looks and her performance that made her Ruby more ingtriguing. I think if she had stuck around, S4 Ruby would have been a whole different creature. As soon as I realized they'd recast Ruby with a sultry brunette, I knew she was going to be having sex with Sam, and once they introduced that into the dynamic, forget about it. KC's acidic brittleness at least made her appear cunning, but GC from the very start was just a big doe-eyed, simpering lump of mush. The very fact that Sam fell for her tells us that Sam can be instantly turned into a bad guy by anyone who's willing to give him adoring looks and stroke his ego (not to mention stroking other things), and that right there proves he's of weak moral fiber. It never ceases to astound me that the writers just did not see this. They need to put some theologians or philosophy professors or Jesuits or something on that production team to brief the writers about good and evil, especially on the easy banality of the latter. Jesus Christ!

AND speaking of writers...(and I know you're sick of me harping on this LOL!) you know that the writers couldn't make up their minds at all about what the fuck Ruby was doing, especially once they recast the role. So I think that GC's bland and baffling performance as Ruby was the result of a perfect shitstorm of poor concept from the very beginning, poor writing, poor acting, and GC's own hilariously trite "artistic" decisions about Ruby's motives. But you know, that was "an actor thing" that she was doing there, and we were all just too stupid or jealous to appreciate it. Oh, the pearls she cast before us swine! LMAO, man, LMAO.

[ghyste.livejournal.com]

Katie Cassidy’s inexperience meant that her Ruby never reached its full potential, but at least I could see her goading Sam into doing stupid things because it’s been established that he has buttons that can be pushed and the bad side know about them. GC’s unconvincing lump of mumbling mush just served to make Sam’s ultimate fall unforgivable.

Kripke’s post S4 “Ruby was always bad” statement notwithstanding, I think if enough of the fans had embraced S4 Ruby/Sam he would have changed the plot and made her good so he could get that permanent love-interest in the back of the Impala that he’s been gagging for since S2 and Jo. Personally, I think he was hoping for a Spike, but forgot that it was evil!Spike that people fell in love with not morally ambiguous!lovelorn!Spike, and that James Marsters could act well enough to sell the part unlike GC.

[oselle.livejournal.com]

Ruby was always bad

See, this is why I don't seek out interviews with Eric Kripke (or any of the other behind-the-scenes) folks on the show. I get annoyed enough by these snippets. If Ruby "was always bad" then a good writer (and a good performer) would have found a way to at least make the audience wonder if she really was always bad. It's not enough for Kripke to say after the fact, oh yeah, she was no good because the whole season (especially mid-season episodes like the dreadful "Heaven and Hell") were so fucking wishy-washy about her. Maybe the writers thought they were being fascinatingly ambiguous but I think it's more of what you say -- they didn't know how much of a love interest they were going to have to build her into, so they could never commit to her character one way or the other. Which goes back to my whole ancient argument of why I don't want women on this show. If the writers don't find a way to make them romantic partners, then the writers never know what the fuck to do with them and they get written out or killed off or just stand around spunkily doing nothing. People talk about sexism in the fandom but there's your goddamn sexism right there -- a whole team of writers who can only manage to fit women this show as available sex partners. Yay grrl power.

[ghyste.livejournal.com]

Writers who withhold information from the viewers/watchers and then pat themselves on the back for springing something out of left-field always bugs me because a good writer doesn’t need to fool their audience to make an impact. S4 Ruby was a prime example of that – the writers went out of their way to portray her as good and then though they were clever because they leapt out of the closet at the end of the series shouting “gotcha”. Of course, Ruby 2.0 was a double fail because 99% of the audience didn’t buy into it and got labelled “stupid” by GC for their pains.

I so agree with you on the recurring female characters. The sad thing is that S1 was chock full of interesting one-offs that the fans would have been happy to see develop into love interests, but they junked them in favour of their parade of uni-dimensional Maxim girls.

[oselle.livejournal.com]

a good writer doesn’t need to fool their audience to make an impact

SPN often makes me think of that exquisite line from This Is Spinal Tap: "There's a fine line between clever and stupid."

It's funny 'cause it's true! What I think the writers consider terribly clever more often comes across as either stupid retconning or stupid making-it-up-on-the-fly or stupid mistake fixing or just plain old stupid. I think I consume enough entertainment to be able to tell the difference between a plot twist and a plot bungle. A great twist leaves my mouth hanging open, wondering how the hell they did that. The latter just produces a "Bzuh? Really?" effect. I hate saying this because it can be interpreted as me saying that stories should be predictable -- I'm not. But surprising twists, surprising as they should be, should still make sense.

One of my favorite shows is Rescue Me (don't know if that's on in the UK) and last season ended with a truly horrifying and unexpected cliffhanger, just one of those "Holy shit!" moments that are so great. In retrospect, though, you could see how the whole season, and previous seasons, were all building up towards such an explosive ending. It wasn't like the writers just smacked it on us out of nowhere and then said, "Well that guy was always bad, we just didn't let you know it, isn't that clever?" A writer has to build something. "Gotcha!" isn't enough.

got labelled “stupid” by GC for their pains.

You know, you're just gonna have to link me to this interview. I've never read the whole thing (although thanks to you I have been privy to her lofty thespian musings). Didn't Jared also back her up on this theory? That's rather gallant of him but very unprofessional of them both. I think I've seldom heard an actor blame the audience for their own failings. There's a gracious way to accept criticism and this sure isn't it.

What really bothers me is that I think GC's statements reflect an entrenched behind-the-scenes culture of the show. Comments like this, and others from Kripke and the writers, and episodes like "The Real Ghostbusters" have firmly convinced me that the members of the show are contemptuous of at least part of their audience -- a part that happens to include me. I can't tell you how much this has influenced my attitude towards the show. They want to produce lazy, careless television week after week and then say it's my problem, not theirs. That's some serious fucking chutzpah if you ask me.

[ghyste.livejournal.com]

GC did a number of interviews around the time, all on pretty much the same theme. The main three are here, here and here. If you can get through those without wanting to punch her in the face then you're a better woman than I am :)

Yes, Jared did back her up in response to a question at Asylum - when she was lurking around backstage. Let's face it, he wasn't going to disagree, not if he ever wanted to have sex again!

In retrospect, though, you could see how the whole season, and previous seasons, were all building up towards such an explosive ending.

Precisely. Another, much gentler, non-genre example I'd cite is Dinnerladies where pretty much everything that happens in the last few episodes has been subtly seeded throughout the two years of the show.

If Rescue Me is shown in the UK, I haven't come across it.

[oselle.livejournal.com]

LOL, I only skimmed your first link and I came across that tried-and-true word, "protective." The fans are "protective." That's a behind-the-scenes dogwhistle euphemism for "crazy" that Kripke and Gamble have been using since Season 3, at least -- nice to see that it's being passed on to new cast members. Also love the bit about how she's "not trying to be liked." There are a great many unlikable, even despicable characters on television that viewers LOVE -- Al Swearengen on Deadwood immediately comes to mind. It wasn't that the fans didn't like Ruby, Genevieve, it's that you sucked. LOLOLOLOL. OMG.

Let's face it, he wasn't going to disagree

Ah, no finer spectacle than the cuntstruck male.

As for Rescue Me, it is brutal, but brilliant television. The creators are comedian Denis Leary and his writing partner, Peter Tolan, and it centers around the lives of NYC firemen. It is very, very New York, and very, very vulgar and it has received a lot of criticism for its own depiction of women because almost all of the women on the show are half-crazy, manipulative tramps but then...the show is so unblinkingly harsh about everyone. Every character is so deeply flawed and fucked up -- an entire cast of alcoholics, adrenaline-junkies, lonelyhearts, racists, sexists, sadsacks, nymphos, narcissists, sociopaths and you-name-it, but it's all so horrifically real. One of the best scenes this season was when Tommy (the main character) had a huge, howling fight with his friend Lou -- I was watching it with my sister and she said, "My God, who writes this?" Because scenes like that don't even feel scripted, they play like the way people, especially men, actually fight -- bellowing all over each other, accusing each other of the most appalling shit and just being unapologetically hideous. It's just so good. If you get a chance to check it out, please do, but be warned -- it's very much a love-it-or-hate-it show for most people.

Do you have Mad Men in the UK? I hope you do. Another terrific example of just how good television can be -- and Cathryn Humphris is one of the staff writers! So it's not like SPN doesn't have great writers at their disposal...they just don't let them do their thing.

I wonder if they'll show Dinnerladies on BBC-America?

[ghyste.livejournal.com]

Mad Men was tucked away on BBC 4 and I missed it, but I've heard good thing and might try to pick it up on box-set sometime.

Dinnerladies has been on BBC America at some point according to the credits. It's a very gentle sit-com but it's written by Victoria Wood and has a brilliant ensemble cast stuffed full of British character actors. It's one of my comfort TV favourites.

[oselle.livejournal.com]

I love British comfort TV. I'm so sorry our local public station stopped showing Vicar of Dibley.

Oh by the way, I meant to mention that your statement about punching Genevieve Cortese in the face made me very uncomfortable. Clearly, you're advocating violence against women and that's so totally not cool because violence against women is never cool, and you're supposed to set a responsible example so back off on the blatant misogyny and abusive language and try to express your opinion of Ms. Cortese's performance without promoting violence against all of womynkind, OK? Also: Jared Padalecki is never going to fuck you.

[ghyste.livejournal.com]

Also: Jared Padalecki is never going to fuck you.

I am all astonishment :D

[oselle.livejournal.com]

From your second link:

Sam’s all I have, so it’s almost like giving birth, in a weird, messed-up way.

Does she mean...giving birth to Sam? To herself? To...what? Whatever she means, I sorta just threw up in my mouth a little.

You know, her interviews read a little bit like Sarah Palin's only without repetitions of "America," "freedom," and "you betcha." Same sort of senseless stream-of-consciousness babble. Most of the time I literally can't figure out what she's talking about. Her disdain for the audience however, shines through loud and clear.

[ghyste.livejournal.com]

Most of the time I literally can't figure out what she's talking about

Don't worry - we knuckle-dragging cretins couldn't possibly hope to understand the creative process of a person with a Degree ;)

[oselle.livejournal.com]

Not to mention "theater-trained" (as she keeps reminding us.

Between all the blappity-blap about giving birth and baby bears and how she's bravely rising above the haters, I did find it interesting that she supposedly had so many conversations with Kripke about Ruby's character, and why Ruby 2.0 would be so different from the first incarnation. It would have been very nice if any of that insight had made its way into either the scripts or GC's performance. As it was they just plunked Ruby back into the show with an entirely new personality and everyone was just like, "Oh hai, it's Ruby." But oh yeah, that too is our fault -- we're just so blinded by our hate that we couldn't appreciate such deftly nuanced writing and acting.

I hope you can see in those interviews what I meant by "the entrenched behind-the-scenes culture of the show." GC's a pretty vain piece of work but I'm sure she didn't come up with her snotty "it's not me, it's them" attitude all on her own, or if she did, she had plenty of support for it. It just really aggravates me to know that the show's writers and performers will neither recognize nor correct mistakes because they've come to believe any criticism is just the fans being all har-har crazy and therefore not credible. It sure explains a lot of the missteps the show's been making, especially over the past two years when I've come to hear this attitude being aired in public more and more.

[ghyste.livejournal.com]

I did find it interesting that she supposedly had so many conversations with Kripke about Ruby's character, and why Ruby 2.0 would be so different from the first incarnation. It would have been very nice if any of that insight had made its way into either the scripts or GC's performance.

I know and those references were what prompted someone to ask Kripke in a Q&A whether he had changed his mind over whether Ruby was good or bad, with the response that she was always bad. Unless Kripke was lying (not beyond the realms of possibility) then I guess we have to assume that he couldn’t understand what she was talking about any more then we could and just agreed to shut her up.

The whole “it’s just those jealous female fans” excuse has been being touted for a long time with respect to poorly developed female characters and I think we had a conversation last season about how it was turning up more and more in interviews, though I think GC is the only actor who has explicitly used it as an excuse for their own shortcomings. Extended to the whole of the show’s outputs it’s certainly not an attitude that’s going to lead to anyone learning from their mistakes and I’m not sure that it hasn’t been at least as damaging as the incestuous relationship with TWoP.

[oselle.livejournal.com]

I guess we have to assume that he couldn’t understand what she was talking about any more then we could and just agreed to shut her up.

LOL, I love this idea!

I think GC is the only actor who has explicitly used it as an excuse for their own shortcomings.

Well, Misha used it as the reason why Castiel has been so readily embraced -- although with Misha you never know if he's just goofing around. I think the other actors (with the exception of Jared, who, as you said, had another imperative) are professional enough to avoid doing something so juvenile and petty. I thought it was pretty funny that in all of those interviews, the questions were fairly innocuous and no one brought up anything specifically negative about GC's performance, and yet she turned so many of her answers into rambling, defensive speeches about her own highbrow credentials and how she doesn't give a shit what the audience thinks because she knows she's doing a great job and everyone on the show loves her. Oh, and baby bears.

*cringe*

The whole “it’s just those jealous female fans” excuse has been being touted for a long time

I feel like the real tipping point on this was Season 3. I used to think Kripke & Co. were just toeing the studio line when they heaped praise on Bela, but now I'm convinced that they really did love that pathetic character and never forgave the audience for not embracing her with the same enthusiasm. Ever since then, the disdainful attitude coming from them has really been thick, and getting thicker. It's kind of weird how the only fan opinion they seem to respect comes from the TWoP "suck it up, Dean" crowd, because that's another theme that's taken a firm foothold within the past two seasons. Add to that the new writers who have been brought on (and no doubt steeped in the same negative anti-audience culture) and it becomes kind of easy to trace why the show's overall feel and quality have been declining.

[ghyste.livejournal.com]

The difference between the reception of Ruby 2.0 and Castiel in S4 flags up everything that’s wrong with the writing and casting of male characters and those of females. Castiel made his dark and brooding entrance wrapped in a tenchcoat and accompanied by thunder and lighting, whilst Ruby 2.0 made hers running around in her underwear cracking stupid gay jokes and making doe eyes at Sam. Plus, of course, Misha is twenty times the actor that GC is and was able to take what little was on the page and turn it into a compelling and believable character – and I say that as someone who’s not that interested in Castiel. Reducing the differing reception of the two characters down to “the fans fancy him and are jealous of her” does no-one any favours, but it’s something that seems to be in the briefing pack for people arriving on the SPN set these days.

I feel like the real tipping point on this was Season 3. I used to think Kripke & Co. were just toeing the studio line when they heaped praise on Bela, but now I'm convinced that they really did love that pathetic character and never forgave the audience for not embracing her with the same enthusiasm

I’ve not been able to bring myself to listen to the commentaries on S4 because I’m told that Kripke and Sera Gamble both praise GC’s performance. I do understand that creators fall in love with their own characters and praise them out of all proportion to their merit (for example, a lot of the problems with NuHu could have been avoided if RTD could have distanced himself from Rose and his ongoing quest to get into David Tennant’s pants by proxy) but how they could not see that Bela didn’t fit into the SPN universe however stupid they made the lead characters look by comparison I can’t fathom, any more than I can fathom how they couldn’t see that GC was making a wretched job of Ruby. The sad thing is that while Bela would never have been a great character, she would have been so much better with a few tiny tweaks - making her actions consistent with the fact she had a Deal and giving her a charm that made people trust her when they shouldn’t, for example. Likewise given her place in the S4 plot, Ruby 2.0 could have been as awesome as she claimed to be if the'd had even a halfway decent performer in the role - yes the writing wasn't stellar, but others in this show have done more with far less.

It's kind of weird how the only fan opinion they seem to respect comes from the TWoP "suck it up, Dean" crowd, because that's another theme that's taken a firm foothold within the past two seasons.

It seems very strange that they would pander to the TWoP crowd to the extent that they’re prepared to undermine the one thing that gave SPN its edge over other genre offerings – the relationship between the two brothers - and to risk alienating the bulk of fandom with snidey little jokes and caracatures that flatter and amuse them.

[oselle.livejournal.com]

I recently had a politely contentious discussion on another journal about the dead-horse issue of women on SPN, and the other party not surprisingly questioned why Castiel was warmly and instantly embraced by fandom in spite of being (in her words) "dull as cardboard" when he was first introduced into the show.

I can't argue with her opinion of Castiel -- I don't share it at all, but it's her opinion (though she stated it as an objective fact, not her opinion). However, I think you have to be in some serious, willful denial not to see that there is a glaring difference between the way Castiel's character was conceived, introduced, and developed over time vs. any woman on the show. And I mean ANY woman, with the possible exception of the short-lived Ellen and the already-enshrined Mary. You don't even have to compare Castiel to Ruby -- compare him to the only female angel on the show, Anna. Rather than making her into a real character, they just cut to the chase and had her stripping off and gettin' down by her second episode. In Castiel's second episode, he had that fantastic and intense confrontation with Dean in Bobby's kitchen -- a scene that would have been unimaginably different if Castiel had been a female character. Actually, I've come to the conclusion that there have been no female characters on SPN. There has been a parade of tight jeans, belly shirts, hairdos and Megan Fox lookalikes who pout, preen and simper and have little or nothing to do when they're not providing eye candy or forced "sexual tension" or actually having sex with one of the leads. Even discussing female "characters" on SPN as if they actually existed is moot. Might as well debate the reality of Santa Claus or unicorns.

One thing from those GC interviews that I found really telling was that she was originally cast to play Sam's girlfriend -- just some random waitress, not Ruby, not a demon at all. Tells me a couple of things: first, that the writers always intended to have Sam "move on" with his life fairly quickly after Dean's death, demon's blood or no, and they apparently didn't see anything wrong with this. Second, that GC was obviously NOT cast on her ability to actually portray such a pivotal character, but for her looks and her suitability as Sam's love interest. Obviously they were either strapped enough for time or smitten enough with GC to switch her into the role of Ruby when she showed up in Vancouver. It sure demonstrates to me the kind of careless thinking that's been haunting the show. They took an actress who was cast in a minor part and decided to hand one of the most important roles over to her -- and she couldn't pull it off. While she might have been passing adequate as "Sam's girlfriend Kristy," she absolutely didn't have the chops for Ruby and if anyone on that production team had pulled his head out of his ass for two seconds he would have seen it.

...how they could not see that Bela didn’t fit into the SPN universe however stupid they made the lead characters look by comparison I can’t fathom, any more than I can fathom how they couldn’t see that GC was making a wretched job of Ruby.

I think they had a childish infatuation with Bela -- she was like a shiny new toy, so different from everything else on the show that they liked to play with her, literally making a Barbie doll out of her with her cute car and her outfits and her lifestyle. Oh look, we can dress her up in evening wear! Oh look, we can furnish her swanky apartment! Oh, she's so much FUN! By the time Ruby 2.0 came along they were still smarting from Bela's rejection and had decided that any negative review of their latest toy could be dismissed as what they like to call the fan's "protectiveness" of Sam and Dean. Everyone sees what he wants to see. They saw GC doing a great job because that's what they wanted to see -- and any opposing opinion probably just reinforced their stubborn attachment to her.

(Continued below...)

[oselle.livejournal.com]

It seems very strange that they would pander to the TWoP crowd to the extent that they’re prepared to undermine the one thing that gave SPN its edge over other genre offerings – the relationship between the two brothers - and to risk alienating the bulk of fandom with snidey little jokes and caracatures that flatter and amuse them.

SPN's nauseating pandering to one single fan site has got to be unprecedented in the world of television writing. And of all corners of fandom to pander to, they chose THAT one? A nasty little den of snide, unfunny, juvenile buffoonery? Frankly, I'm convinced that a lot of the Dean bashing over at TWoP isn't even real -- two years ago, when I was still posting there, I could see that Deangirls were often dismissed as stupid and frivolous bimbos*, and I think a lot of the Dean bashing grew solely out of a snarky desire to piss them off, not out of any serious or well-founded criticism of Dean's character (or any real siding with Sam, for that matter). For whatever reason, the SPN writers seem to be very attracted to this type of adolescent snark and have decided to get in on the joke -- and have just about driven a stake through the heart of their own show as a result.

------
*This is not something I'm making up -- you may remember that a couple of years ago (or it may have been late 2007) things got so out of hand that Barnes started a whole thread to discuss the issue, with many Deangirls saying how marginalized and put-down they felt on the forums. Not surprisingly, the general moderator decision at the end of all that discussion was that the Deangirls just needed to suck it up and go find someplace else to post if they couldn't fit into the prevailing forum culture. I think it was after then that the Dean bashing grew significantly worse, and Sam became elevated to his current "can do no wrong" status, as if in trying to speak up for themselves, the Deangirls (and Dean) just wound up in the snarky crosshairs for good.

[ghyste.livejournal.com]

Actually, I've come to the conclusion that there have been no female characters on SPN.

I’d argue that there were a lot of promising female characters in S1, all good-looking and some of whom even managed to have genuine sexual tension with the leads. Sadly, once Kripke decided he wanted to construct a permanent love-interest all the characterisation and general likeableness of these early female characters went straight out the window in favour of Maxim girl looks and cookie cutter feistiness, This was predominantly from S2 onwards though I guess the writing was on the wall from Cassie, the only young female character from S1 who was neither likeable nor well acted and the only one that was created specifically to have a sex scene.

You’re right about Anna. I may have issues with the Grace in a Bottle stuff , but they could have done so much more with her character – particularly as (before Castiel’s turn) she was the one wild card in the Angel and Demon camp. I understand that she was supposed to play Castiel’s role as Angel confidant prior to Misha’s break-out popularity and suppose they couldn’t be arsed to come up with anything else for her to do while Julie was serving out her contract. Mind you, the idea of an S4 with the boys and their girlfriends on either side gives me horrible Charmed flashbacks and I’m glad they didn’t go down that route.

Second, that GC was obviously NOT cast on her ability to actually portray such a pivotal character, but for her looks and her suitability as Sam's love interest

That does rather point up that fact that in their mind the primary purpose of any female character is as a love-interest, so it doesn’t really matter whether the actress is capable of bringing anything else to the role or not.

I’m always torn about Sam moving on. On the one hand it was Dean’s wish that he would (though I doubt a Demon inhabited corpse was what he had in mind) but on the other I’m still enraged at the way Sam blew through the grieving process in a single week and than apparently forgot that Dean had ever existed, much less was being tortured in hell.

I think a lot of the Dean bashing grew solely out of a snarky desire to piss them off, not out of any serious or well-founded criticism of Dean's character

Maybe the anti Dean and Deangirls thing at TWoP did start off as snark, but it’s pretty well embedded in that Board’s culture now. I thought things might change when the Moderator changed, but the new one seems even worse – locking threads and banning people the moment anyone raises the fact that perhaps Sam’s behaviour in S4 wasn’t perfect while at the same time letting Demian launch vitriolic attacks against Dean and anyone who likes him.

I remember in Buffy fandom the writers had a close relationship with the people at the official Site (The Bronze) and I believe one of the regular posters there ended up working on the show. IMHO this led to similar problems to the one that SPN faces now – the writers bowed to fan-pressure to get Buffy and Spike together and ended up destroying the characters in the process. As far as “why TWoP”, well it’s pretty much the only game in town. The only other big forum (as opposed to Journal) I’ve found is the CW one and that appears to be populated by illiterate 12-year-olds.

[oselle.livejournal.com]

I’d argue that there were a lot of promising female characters in S1

See, I honestly can't think of any. The only one who stands out in my mind is that Pocahantas-looking brunette from "Providence" and only because she had that lengthy bit on the Gag Reel where she kept flubbing her line over and over and Jensen is sitting in the background looking like he's about to blow his stack.

she was supposed to play Castiel’s role as Angel confidant

Misha or no, they couldn't have pulled this off, unless she were an angel confidant who was also Dean's girlfriend. And then the girlfriend part would have taken priority over the confidant part and her character would have been a big hot mess, like Ruby, except that Julie McNiven is a better actress and at least would have been physically distinguishable from most of the other women who have wandered in and out this show.

On the one hand it was Dean’s wish that he would

LOL, I don't think even Dean meant for (or expected!) Sam to get over him THAT quickly. And of course, if you're genuinely heartbroken over someone's death, you're still going to grieve heavily for them no matter how much they told you to move on before they died. You wouldn't be able to help yourself. Sam didn't move on because of what Dean told him (like he cares what Dean thinks anyway). He moved on because after a little while, he realized that he wasn't all that busted up about Dean being out of his life. And he seems to have forgotten about the whole "hell" thing while he was at it. Maybe he just told himself, "well, he DID ask for it" like those TWOPers were all saying at the time. Worst of all, he was noticeably disappointed -- shit, he was pissed off -- when Dean turned back up, and he's never gotten that particular bug out of his ass.

letting Demian launch vitriolic attacks against Dean and anyone who likes him

That just proves my theory -- Demian has ALWAYS been the standard-bearer for the Dean bashing and snarking and I can't imagine that Demian really gives that much of a fuck. I think he just decided a long time ago that the Deangirls were a bunch of dumb twats who annoyed him and he was gonna have a little fun by deliberately riling them up all the time. And because sucking up to Demian is the thing to do over there, a lot of assholes got on board with that whole thing and now yes, it's embedded in the culture. I wouldn't give a shit about any of that except that the fucking idiots in the SPN writers room also seem to think it's hilarious and have now embedded it into their show. What the fuck are they thinking?

As far as “why TWoP”, well it’s pretty much the only game in town.

You know, those writers just shouldn't be playing any "game" at all. They should be doing their fucking jobs and not surfing the boards.

[ghyste.livejournal.com]

See, I honestly can't think of any.

The ones who stood out for me were Hailey in Wendigo, Charlie in Bloody Mary, Kat in Asylum, Officer Kathleen (my favourite) in The Benders and Sarah (Pocahantas) in Provenance. Frankly, for me there were as many memorable one-off female characters in S1 as there have been in the next 3½ seasons.

[oselle.livejournal.com]

Officer Kathleen stood out for me too, but I chose not to name her because she was clearly TOO OLD to be developed beyond her one-shot, definitely TOO OLD to be a love interest and therefore a non-starter.