Thread: Supernatural
View Single Post
Old 07-13-2010, 10:32 AM   #44
Ben Lahnger
 
Ben Lahnger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Um, lower, oh yeah, uh, uh ... YES THERE!
Posts: 6,738
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apathy's_Child View Post
So is it worth starting with series 3? Is the quality of the storylines drastically different, or just marginally?
I think the episodes in season three are dramatically better, but they do still have some of the inherent weaknesses of the episodes you saw. I started with "Bad Day at Black Rock" and "Sin City" and "Bedtime Stories" and found those to be solid enough with novel plot conventions. "Red Sky At Morning" was okay, and my interest was piqued enough to get through some weaker episodes. Then when I got to the string of "Dream A Little Dream Of Me", "Mystery Spot", "Jus In Bello", "Ghostfacers" and "Long Distance Call" ... I was hooked.

From the Wikipedia article Supernatural (season 3) (which also includes an episode guide):
Writing

For the third season, Kripke and the writing staff tried to mix the style of the "simple, pure, emotional" first season mythology with the "intensity" of the second season's self-enclosed episodes. As well, the studio wanted the writers to "open up the scope of the story and make things more epic". Though Kripke warned that doing so would cost much more money, the studio gave its blessing to exceed the allotted budget. However, the season premiere came in "way, way over budget", prompting the studio to change its mind. While writer Ben Edlund's pitch that demons are in actuality the corrupted souls of humans "opened up the mythology in an interesting and complicated way", other planned expansions of the mythology, such as Mary Winchester's connection to Azazel and the escalating demon war, were cut from the season due to the writer's strike. Despite this, Kripke felt it ended up making the series "meaner, leaner, and more concise".
I think the plotting of some of these stories rivals Buffy in quality ... but I'm with you on being of the opinion you have to make some allowances in consideration of the target audience. And the brothers never really talk to each other about their relationship or their feelings ... and that is frustrating. But based on what I've seen, if I wanted to get someone into this series, I'd start them on season 3 ... not season 1.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Apathy's_Child View Post
To be honest, I don't hate Buffy as much as I probably sounded like I do up there. it's not really my thing, but my girlfriend has a huge affection for it, and after being forced into some okay episodes I was forced to admit that I'd been unduly harsh on it. It's a decent show, with a satisfyingly tight and consistent mythology of its own, good characterization and a strong script. Personally I find it too juvenile, but that's the nature of the beast given its target audience, and it's good for what it is. It's certainly a lot more sophisticated than Supernatural - both morally, and in its use of the monster as metaphor.

As for your (very specific) question, I guess the only thing that really springs to mind are certain episodes of Angel. Somewhere between shameless attempts to emotionally manipulate the viewer and disappearing up its own ass, I think that show occasionally struck gold.

EDIT: You may think I'm stretching this a bit, but I thik the inclusion of Dr. Who would also be justifiable, since most the aliens are essentially monsters.
I'm glad to hear you say that, because I have almost the exact opinion you do of Buffy. And Angel of course is of the same universe. Interesting point about Dr. Who ... there's a show we make a lot of allowances for, don't we. How many episodes can we spend enchanted by a plot that largely involves our heroes running away from or running after the bad guys in cheap costumes for 20-30 minutes of the 40-some minute episode on what usually are pretty cheap sets. I think of Dr. Who as "the chase of the week", and yet I like it very much. Why am I so willing to suspend my critical mind for this show when I judge others so harshly? I don't know.

BTW, to answer my own question, the only other show I could think of was the original "Kolchak: The Night Stalker" series. That was an interesting show for its time, although it stuck to a pretty formulaic methodology: each week the veteran news reporter stumbles across the evidence of a possible monster and tries to report on the vampire/mummy/witch/whatever but his boss at the paper and the local politicians and other authorities laugh him out of their offices ... till he resolves the issue and stops the string of murders by killing/banishing the monster by the end of the show. The episode ends with a sardonic recap by our hapless scribe, as he recounts why the local authorities won't let him publish his latest story because it will embarrass them.

I'm also sure it looks pretty dated now, the music screams bad 70's soundtrack and there's no way you believe Darren McGavin is the chick magnet they built him up to be ... but still, I liked it. In fact, I still recommend the made-for-tv movie "The Night Stalker" that inspired the series to friends as an example of a good vampire movie ... if you can get past that dated music.

Stay away from the 2005 remake of that series, "Night Stalker" developed by Frank Spotnitz (previously a writer and producer on "The X-Files). And let's not get started on "The X-Files", shall we? Thanks.

*edit* P.S. - My question was very specific because I wasn't looking for an anime series.
__________________
Lead me not into temptation ... follow me, I know a shortcut!

As the poets have mournfully sung,
death takes the innocent young,
the rolling in money,
the screamingly funny,
and those who are very well hung.


Your days are numbered - 26,280 per person on average - 2,000,000,000 heartbeats ... tick, tick, tick
Ben Lahnger is offline   Reply With Quote