November 18 2008
Is Supernatural as good as Buffy?
CliqueClack asks the question and tries to find the answer.
You need to log in to be able to post comments.
About membership.
This site will work and look better in a browser that supports web standards, but it is accessible to any browser or Internet device.

Craig Oxbrow | November 18, 06:16 CET
Brian Lynch | November 18, 06:25 CET
Vortigun | November 18, 06:29 CET
The episode with the giant teddy bear (Great episode - very funny!) was written by Ben Edlund, who has written a number of other Supernatural episodes.
floofypooh | November 18, 06:39 CET
Ok, short answer: Stoopernatural will never live up to Buffy. Sorry.
tgilders | November 18, 06:43 CET
Maybe it's wrong of me to judge by the start, as Buffy didn't hit her stride either the very first season. But the characters weren't bland. They and their dialogue were good from the get go.
By the way, I didn't bother to RTFA.
kaiuno | November 18, 06:43 CET
Buffy is like a major league sports franchise that wins year after year. Detroit Red Wings, NY Yankees, etc.
Supernatural is like the farm team that can boast a relationship to the all-powerful big club, but in the end, it's not even in the same league.
[ edited by jfhlbuffy on 2008-11-18 06:48 ]
jfhlbuffy | November 18, 06:48 CET
I've seen season one of Supernatural and spot-checked the second season. It was not bad, but not very compelling, and I felt more like it was a knock-off of The X-Files than BtVS. And I'm easy! I quite like Reaper, for example, for its low-key charm.
[ edited by dottikin on 2008-11-18 06:50 ]
dottikin | November 18, 06:49 CET
Tina | November 18, 06:49 CET
I suppose it's only natural to compare entertainments from the same genre, but I've decided it bothers me that Buffy's worth is often measured by comparing it only to other fantasy/horror shows. How come nobody ever debates whether Buffy was better than, say, The Sopranos?
By the way, there is one show currently on TV that might be able to touch Buffy in terms of quality ... and it's a friggin' cop drama. Sadly, there are only two episodes left. God, I'm gonna miss The Shield when it's gone.
rbt | November 18, 06:51 CET
crazygolfa | November 18, 06:55 CET
Emmie | November 18, 07:06 CET
awkwardjonas | November 18, 07:24 CET
jaxn | November 18, 07:26 CET
Saturn Girl | November 18, 07:28 CET
EDIT: Oh, also, I'm neurotic about my Buffy love. Got to get over that.
[ edited by WilliamTheB on 2008-11-18 07:35 ]
WilliamTheB | November 18, 07:34 CET
Supernatural may not be as iconic and innovative as Buffy, but it has enough going for it. The fact that its audience has grown over the years speaks for itself.
Effulgent | November 18, 07:34 CET
tgilders | November 18, 07:39 CET
White Knight | November 18, 07:44 CET
The One True b!X | November 18, 07:45 CET
silent knight | November 18, 08:25 CET
I would refer you to our rules on commenting about other fandoms.
Simon | November 18, 08:33 CET
firefly4ever | November 18, 08:42 CET
TamaraC | November 18, 08:45 CET
patxshand | November 18, 09:22 CET
Jensen Ackles is, however, an unappreciated talent who deserves any acclaim he can get.
Green Queen | November 18, 09:26 CET
archon | November 18, 09:37 CET
This times eleventy billion. I may be biased, however, since I've only watched up till halfway through season 4 of Buffy. (Buffy and Riley live happily ever after, la la la, I can't hear youuuu!)
Anyway, SPN's story is less about demons and, at its core, more about a close-knit family dealing with their problems. Also, if you don't like classic rock, road trips, or male-centric stories (not anti-female, just a lot of father-son and brother relationship issues), then it's probably not a show you'd want to watch. I happen to like a story that puts emphasis on the kind of family ties that are forged in the fires of war the way theirs was and is. And I think the two leads are incredible actors.
And for the record, I think the sexist issues are more because of the female fanbase being so vocal about disliking the female characters, and some of the show makers tend to say 'how high' when the fanbase tells them to jump -- which is, I think, why Jo started off as one kind of character and then shifted to become a different character and then got taken out of the show entirely. Rabid female fans are a little bit scary in that fandom. And by a little bit I mean a lot.
LiLi | November 18, 09:39 CET
I don't think it is fair to compare BVtS & Supernatural. They aren't in the same class. If anything Supernatural is more of a cross between Charmed (random mythology) and X-files (creepy). In the beginning, I only watched Supernatural for the pretty boys, but the creepy, "what the heck" factor sucked me in too. I actually stopped watching it during the first season and then caught up on Netflix.
If you've never seen the show, the brothers have kind of a Mal/Zoe relationship with each other and kind of a Holtz/Justine relationship with their dad. And the monsters are less allegorical and more of a "to do" list. It is a fun show and not a bad way to spend an hour. And, you know, pretty boys.
gwen | November 18, 10:22 CET
I watch it regularly and when it's not being overly gory (it get's worse each season) then I enjoy it. Some episodes are really good/funny - Ben Edlund's writing helps.
The main difference is that I haven't wanted to immediately rewatch an episode (or get upset if I miss one). Whereas after a Buffy/Angel ep was broadcast, I could not wait to watch it again. And there was no way I'd ever miss one either.
The Do That Girl | November 18, 10:49 CET
bivith | November 18, 10:59 CET
[Sorry Simon]
[ edited by dzr on 2008-11-18 11:50 ]
dzr | November 18, 11:40 CET
Simon | November 18, 11:44 CET
crossoverman | November 18, 11:59 CET
As others have said, going off purely the first season is like judging Buffy by it's own first season, or Farscape, or Stargate, or any other show that took the first year to introduce the basic concept and characters before really getting to the good stuff.
I started from the beginning with Supernatural, the same as I did with Buffy. Funnily enough in both cases it was a case of randomly channel hopping and seeing a show coming up that caught my eye. In the case of BtVS I actually thought it was the movie coming on (didn't even know there was a television show being made at the time) and with Supernatural even though I'd heard of the show I had actually taken very little notice of it, figuring that it was yet another WB one season wonder.
I'll admit that Buffy had me hooked sooner than Supernatural. With Buffy it was literally from episode one and job done. A Buffy fan was born! Supernatural, even though I really enjoyed it from the start, was a slower addiction for me, more akin to how Farscape hooked me. By the end of season one though, I was a massive fan.
And that is saying nothing to how big a fan I am now. the current season has totally blown me away. I won't go into too much detail in case there are UK fans here waiting for ITV2 to begin their run of the new episodes but without saying too much, it's like a whole new show in terms of structure and story. More importantly though, it is a natural progression from all that has gone before. Not a reinvention because they were running out of ideas or because the network wanted a new look but a natural continuation and acceleration of what we already knew was going on.
Truthfully, you need to watch it from the start to appreciate where we are now. In that sense it's just like Buffy. How many times have you heard someone say that they had seen the "odd episode" of Buffy and it did nothing for them or they didn't get it? Didn't you want to tell them that Buffy works best when watched from the beginning so you can really understand the growth of the story and the characters involved? Same goes for Supernatural. Not that I'm saying it will be for everyone (but then neither was Buffy) but I'd definitely say that watching random episodes now and again isn't going to give you any real feel for what the show is about.
And again, back to the main topic of the thread, if Supernatural continues along the lines it has been going into it's fifth (and supposedly final) season, then it very possibly could be as good as Buffy.
The Highlander | November 18, 12:18 CET
Second qualifier, there aren't half a dozen shows in the history of TV as good as BtS, IMO.
BSG, The Sopranos, The Wire, Six Feet Under, Carnivale, (even nipped in the bud). That's about it, for my personal short list.
And yes I loved Angel and Firefly, but I don't feel they ever quite reached the level of Buffy or my other few all-time favorites. Firefly may have, given time, but we'll never know.
[ edited by Shey on 2008-11-18 12:58 ]
Shey | November 18, 12:57 CET
No, it's not Buffy, but it is it's own really strong series. I feel the show has grown stronger every season and that lies totally with the show runner and writers.
I am disappointed about the fandom smashing seen here though. A)We're Buffy/Angel/Firefly fans - we're on the receiving end of that crap everyday. B)This fanbase does have a 30+ crowd that thoroughly enjoys the show. Don't base the fandom off of the primary fanbase. Again, we're Whedon fans - we should know better.
Thanks, Simon, for the reminder.
BrowncoatG | November 18, 13:26 CET
Keep_flyin | November 18, 13:35 CET
I don't think it is valid to compare Buffy to Fringe. Has Fringe gotten any better since the pilot episode? I wasn't hooked, and wondering if I should give it a second chance.
Kaiuno: I gave it a try four years ago, watched the pilot and the first half of the season. The series leaned too heavily on its "monster of the week" formula and didn't give enough season-arc for me to enjoy it. The two leads are cute, but their characters were bland.
Same here, dropped out after 5 episodes when it first came on. I wasn't horrified by the horror. I was underwhelmed by the acting from the leads (even though I liked their work on other shows), and felt like I was on a steady highway ride through the Great Plains rather than on a roller-coaster. (Characters acting too "cool" = that really wasn't a threat.) But it sounds like things have changed.
OneTeV | November 18, 13:44 CET
Dana5140 | November 18, 13:56 CET
They are completely different shows. Supernatural does have (or the writers do have) the good sense to pay homage and show a sense of respect to what came before (in books, TV, and movies). I love that about the show.
And, who can't love a show that let Amber Benson be a vampire AND have a giant Teddy Bear that adores Busty Asian Beauties and alcohol. Come on! ;)
ctofine | November 18, 14:19 CET
redeem147 | November 18, 14:25 CET
I can see all of its potential and a lot of it – luckily (so far) it had not headed into a Smallville route with the writing and characterization disarray, IMO. Therefore, I’m still watching and enjoying SN but not SV. And as such, it pains me that James had appeared on the latter but not Supernatural.
Is it anywhere near Buffy? Sadly, no. But it makes for some fun (and sometimes heart-wrenching) viewing nonetheless.
[ edited by Mirage on 2008-11-18 14:43 ]
Mirage | November 18, 14:41 CET
Sorry but this was the same I thought when started to see HEX
This season plot with the Hell Vs Heaven seems a little boring, unless they chose to get a path more like in "Angel" 4th year and put the brothers needing to fight with the evil to stop the apocalypse like Demi :)
Brasilian Chaos Man | November 18, 14:57 CET
The two shows are too different to make any fair comparison.
mbeauparland | November 18, 14:57 CET
As far as the "monster of the week" formula of the first season, I agree with that. But that's how Buffy started too, and even when it developed deeper plotlines it was something they came back to (because fighting vampires over and over is dull, which is why Buffy's patrols were never the focus of the show). What I absolutely love about Supernatural is that each and every season gets better, which I felt with Buffy as well (well, up to 6. I loved how 7 wrapped up the story and thought it was a good ending, but 6 was my favorite).
Buffy also had a larger cast. Sure, Buffy was the focus of most of the episodes, but there were TONS of characters to focus on and develop. Supernatural's scope is much smaller. It's really about the two brothers; most other characters are there to develop them (a minor complaint, boy I sort of wish that a female character would stick around for more than a season, if only to balance out my next point).
The major difference between the two is the perspective. On Buffy, most of the major character development is done from a female perspective. Supernatural is told from a male perspective; emotional development is shown but the characters are reluctant to talk about it (I think Dean even says a few lines about not wanting to talk about his feelings in the beginning), until situations become too tense and they HAVE to. Which isn't to say that development doesn't happen. Sort of like Xander's arc in Buffy. He grows and changes (and in some ways fails to and makes mistakes) but being male, it happens in a different way than the rest of the characters.
So, longwinded conclusion: a television series about emotional growth set against a backdrop of monsters with longer underlying plotlines that is aware of itself enough to laugh at itself on a regular basis. That could describe either. They're very different shows, but there is enough similarity that I can see fans of one liking the other.
The fact that I'm a huge Ben Edlund fanboy doesn't hurt.
narse | November 18, 15:17 CET
If you like genre shows, you should give Supernatural a chance. It's more than a monster of the week show. If nothing else, check out Ben Edlund's most recent episode. It's fairly standalone for this season and the teddy is great. Plus, Ted Raimi. I've loved him since middle school (Seaquest).
theclynn | November 18, 15:32 CET
Rowan Hawthorn | November 18, 15:37 CET
I'll just briefly throw my support that there are episodes of Supernatural that trump episodes of Buffy. I'll also say that I do think that Supernatural is as good as Angel. All three shows belong in a Top 5, or at least, Top 10 together, for their genre.
RebelAt | November 18, 15:37 CET
P.S. 'Monster Movie' was another episode penned by Ben Edlund.
mangydog | November 18, 15:46 CET
This is coming from someone who watched a couple episodes in the first season because Amy Acker had a guest spot, then stopped, caught an episode this season, and then bought the DVDs. At first it starts being more X-Files-ish, but it came into its own.
It really is a very good show, with a unique mythology that is ever building. And Season 4 is just taking it to a whole new level.
pat32082 | November 18, 15:55 CET
Turokan | November 18, 16:02 CET
I suppose it also has a lot to do with what you require from a show as well. I'm a massive Buffy fan now because when it began the show was exactly the sort of thing I was looking for but these days I'm not entirely certain that I would be so easily hooked. It's still excellent television but maybe not quite the style that I require anymore, whereas Supernatural has much darker tones, less obvious humour (although still incredibly funny in it's own way), characters that I can relate to more closely these days. Generally, and this is entirely my point of view, more obviously adult in style than Buffy or Angel were.
That's not meant as an insult to Buffy, mind you. Just a comment on why it may be that some of us Whedon fans might actually now prefer Supernatural.
And the soundtrack helps too. AC/DC, Sabbath, Kansas. What more could you want? ;)
[ edited by Highlander on 2008-11-18 16:14 ]
The Highlander | November 18, 16:13 CET
I think narse pretty much nailed it on the head about the differences in opportunity for character growth and just the number of characters the show deals with on a regular basis, as well as the perspective being different. There are the brothers and the occassional returning character like Bobby (who is awesome) and Ruby (who I'm still not sure about). But the show has individual episodes and an over all arc, just like Buffy did. Also, they take a lot of urban legends and spin them on their head which is always fun. And this last season has been just been beyond fantastic for me. It's the only show I record on my DVR and not erase after I watch them.
NYPinTA | November 18, 16:28 CET
But I think "good" has to be defined. If "good" is going beyond fun, entertaining characters, stories, monsters and mythology to that "art" place, and using metaphor to explore growing up and personal identity, then no, SPN isn't as good.
But then, it's not trying to go to that art place, so to hold that against it would be wrong. Now, if it was trying to and failing, that'd be something else entirely.
Also, SPN's creator likes and respects Buffy, and has even given a couple in-episode shoutouts. Just thought I'd mention.
[ edited by pat32082 on 2008-11-18 16:36 ]
pat32082 | November 18, 16:30 CET
If that's the case, perhaps everyone should tune in to Supernatural this Thursday, as that'll be Episode 10 of Season 4 -- which matches up with the first of your Buffy examples (Hush was 4x10).
Ok, it probably doesn't work that way. But there's still a point there about giving Supernatural a bit of time to have one of those grand slam episodes when it took Joss four seasons to get the first of his. ;) And considering the fact that everyone all around seems to be saying that this is Supernatural's best season yet...well, maybe it can reach that bar that Buffy set.
Unfortunately, I have a lot of catching up to do this season (although this always happens to me): with The Office/30 Rock, Grey's, and CSI, it's a massive battle for what shows to watch/record. Considering that both my wife and I like those three, but only I like Supernatural, that's the one that tends to get pushed off (and I have to watch online).
[ edited by JMaloney on 2008-11-18 16:40 ]
JMaloney | November 18, 16:38 CET
MysticSlug | November 18, 16:41 CET
The Highlander | November 18, 16:42 CET
pat32082 | November 18, 16:44 CET
"Also, SPN's creator likes and respects Buffy, and has even given a couple in-episode shoutouts. Just thought I'd mention."
"What would Buffy do?" ;)
The Highlander | November 18, 16:45 CET
pat32082 | November 18, 16:46 CET
The Highlander | November 18, 16:50 CET
Supernatural Buffy call out -
Remember WWBD
What would Buffy do... she's so much stronger than me.
Passion | November 18, 16:51 CET
Shapenew | November 18, 17:36 CET
Wyndam_ | November 18, 17:38 CET
I've only seen the first few eps of Supernatural. It seemed okay, but didn't immediately grab me. I plan on giving it a second look someday (when I find the time).
JossIzBoss | November 18, 17:48 CET
Yay for those who love it, but it just irritates the hell outta me I'm afraid.
[ edited by sueworld2003 on 2008-11-18 18:13 ]
sueworld2003 | November 18, 18:12 CET
FollowMal | November 18, 18:35 CET
But...if I had to, I'd say that SPN is as good as ATS and that ATS surpassed Btvs.
Just my two cents.
menomegirl | November 18, 18:39 CET
On that note, I just don't think you can compare it with Buffy though. It's apples and oranges like a few of the politer people said up above. I would rather that Buffy stay in the big leagues where she belongs - with all the other Whedon shows. Where no other shows can compare.
ruthless1 | November 18, 18:41 CET
Simon | November 18, 18:42 CET
Oh and also I gotta agree with shapenew about the Eye of the Tiger thing... HILARIOUS!
[ edited by montresor on 2008-11-18 18:45 ]
[ edited by montresor on 2008-11-18 18:46 ]
montresor | November 18, 18:42 CET
Kind of off topic, I’ve always loved to see the following act together, but I would settle to hear these guys jamming! James Marsters, Michael Rosenbaum, Jensen Ackles, Christian Kane and (now) Neil Patrick Harris. Great talent and vocals!
[ edited by Mirage on 2008-11-18 18:54 ]
Mirage | November 18, 18:53 CET
I realy like Supernatural, and have to give it credit as I think this season (it's 4th) may be it's best yet. Not an easy task.
chazman | November 18, 19:02 CET
buffywrestling | November 18, 19:50 CET
I can see why the comparisons between the two shows are there, given that they are both "genre" shows - but I don't know why people get so hung up over saying which one is "better". Define "better". Everyone's definition is going to be different. Is it acting? Is it story? Is it mytharc? Is it characters? Is it pure entertainment value? Is it quality of production? Is it writing? You get the idea.
To bring up the inevitable fruit analogy, it isn't so much comparing apples and oranges, so much as comparing a red delicious with a gala. Both satisfy the apple craving, but both will appeal to slightly different tastes and satisfy slightly different needs.
I won't make any judgement at all about which show is "better". I can't. I enjoy both, and if it came down to choosing whether or not I wanted to watch Buffy or SN at any given time, it would depend on what mood I was in.
The one thing that I have to give SN props for though, is going where Buffy never went. We finally get to see the "other side". And their angels aren't the fuffy cuddly touched-by-an-angel type either!
Aurra | November 18, 19:57 CET
menomegirl | November 18, 20:19 CET
death is my gift | November 18, 20:22 CET
silent knight | November 18, 20:24 CET
MysticSlug: If we're talking about cars, then Supernatural is better.
You are chosing a muscle car, over Spike driving a Winnebago?
OneTeV | November 18, 20:34 CET
I'm one of those people who watched some of SPN first season and it didn't catch me. Friends got me back in middle of second season. It's my main MUST WATCH {with only other being Pushing Daisies} I think this season has put it in my top three shows ever. I can't put them in any order but Buffy, Farscape and SPN hold the top 3 slots.
Vinity | November 18, 20:45 CET
I think Bufy surpasses Supernatural in my opinion. And I'm not saying this because I'm a hard core Joss Whedon fan, because I love Supernatural as well, it's just for me with Supernatural this whole "angel" arc is starting to get a bit ridiculous. I mean don't get me wrong I love Sam and Dean as much as the next Supernatural fan but the problem with Supernatural is I started to lose interest in the storyline after the second season. Making the story arc last five whole seasons can be insanely risky, especially when you've only got two main characters in the show. It gets boring and you feel as if you've seen that episode before.
Also, so far Supernatural hasn't had any EPIC episodes that can stand on their own. Whereas Buffy has 'Passion', 'Restless', 'The Body', 'The Gift', 'Once More With Feeling', and 'Chosen', just to name a few. With Supernatural you need to watch the other episodes to understand the one after it, whereas Buffy they had a lot of great standalones.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm not just bashing Supernatural. Buffy had it's faults. Season six was pretty bad, the Buffy/Spike storyline was equally as disturbing as this seasons Sam/Ruby storyline. Buffy had some cheesy episodes and dialouge, and sometimes you couldn't connect with the actors on the character level. But when it all comes down to it Supernatural has a long way to go before it even reaches Buffy/Angel potential in pop culture or in great episodes.
But you know to be fair you cannot really compare these two fandoms without having a giant freak out of the fans. These shows are both have two different views of Demonology, and I think we all just have to except it and move on.
badwolf | November 18, 21:09 CET
Gotta say I disagree - I've seen some appalling stuff posted on LJ and also awful behaviour reported from Conventions (and we're talking worse than that incident with poor Nathan). That said I believe it's a vocal minority. Most of the SPN fans I know are wonderful and funnily enough predominantly Whedon fans too.
The Do That Girl | November 18, 21:32 CET
Simon | November 18, 22:28 CET
Harmalicious | November 18, 23:39 CET
maryellen | November 19, 01:11 CET
Let's see, numquam or should I say nunquam, nequequam ... shall I go on?
beans | November 19, 02:13 CET
luvspike | November 19, 02:20 CET
Love the Winchester boys - they've had some good shows; but, come on. Could Supernatural possibly have enough to say for eight seasons, possibly more? I was just lambasting Twilight yesterday in the sense that anyone would dare try to make a comparison between the character Buffy and the teenage girl in the books, now the movie, and a lot of people have tried. Yes, I am an elitist Buffy/Angel snob; gimme my scull, oars, letterman jacket, and Harvard accent luvvy, and shaddup. :>) And while I acknowledge there's room for all art, I have to remain loyal to the rarity of two genre shows that treated my intelligence with respect. Not that Supernatural doesn't, but it is a fish swimming in a different ocean.
Not a criticism, but Spike treated badly? He's only one of the most celebrated and revered characters ever created and nurtured. Is he perfect? Nah. But that's just the way I like him.
[ edited by Tonya J on 2008-11-19 05:21 ]
Tonya J | November 19, 05:06 CET
cheryl | November 19, 05:47 CET
I started watching SPN early on as they seemed to chasing the disenfranchised 'Buffy' fans by casting Amber and Amy in guest roles. I enjoyed the scripts...and the main characters weren't exactly hard on the eye, either!
I tried for years to get my family into the Whedonverse, and it just never called to them like it did to me. I popped in a SPN episode- BANG- instant hook. I even have tickets for my mother to go to a con in Sydney next year and she couldn't be more pleased, or excited- I created a middle aged fangurl!
So maybe, if you haven't done so, give SPN 40 minutes of your time as you just may be surprised. It probably won't replace 'Buffy' in your affections, but it's a damn sight better than most of what's on the tube nowadays. IMHO.
missb | November 19, 07:22 CET
marymary | November 19, 15:40 CET
C'mon, Buffy continually re-invented itself as the gang grew older and entered into new parts of their lives. Supernatural has allowed its own characters to grow up and change as events happen to affect them. The Winchester brothers aren't static creations, which is a hallmark of any great show. If anything, I would say that Supernatural is better planned out than Buffy in terms of overall arc. Note, I didn't say Supernatural was better than Buffy, but as I stated above, it's nearly as good.
With the acknowledged irony of the following statement on this site, I think it might help if Joss Whedon walked behind us, whispering in our ear, "I am not a God, I am not a God!" Buffy was not perfect. In fact, especially the first season had some of its stinkers (teacher as giant praying mantis? Wha?), but it did rise above it all in the end. Perhaps this really isn't a discussion that can have a conclusion until Supernatural has its own conclusion, when we can view both series, finished and completed.
RebelAt | November 19, 16:00 CET
To be fair, there are a large number of Whedon fans that would tell you that BtVS would have been better off ending with it's fifth season. I'm not one of those people but many would say that the last two years of televised BtVS were two years too much. Probably just as many more that don't even bother to read season eight.
If you think back, the fourth season of BtVS was far from it's most popular year either, with many of the fans disliking the new situation and characters introduced. On the other hand, Supernatural's fourth season is not only a massive success with the established fans but actually gathering a lot of new ones.
Who is to say whether or not Supernatural could go for eight years. Personally I think five will be enough, but that is largely due to the fact I know that is how long Kripke wants it to go and I believe the show creator should dictate the length of the story, rather than the network or the fans. As far as quality goes though, this show is only getting better so I certainly don't think it will be ending on a low.
The Highlander | November 19, 17:07 CET
I think I understand most of the comments. I started out hating the idea of the show because (the late) WB executives had it as the replacement for Angel. But the fact that it was at that point part of a trend that had already lost some of its luster, ratings-wise, plus its lackluster start, quality-wise, IMO, really cost it with the critics and overall media attention, in a way that was never made up even when it started being excellent. Plus, though I'll never regret the strike, I think it hit Supernatural at a particularly hard time, when it was finally starting to build momentum off its creative development, and that was delayed too long.
But watch the rest, if you haven't yet. Rocks.
dreamlogic | November 20, 03:49 CET
Cause I did and I felt the need to reiterate my comment above with a solid yes to the question posed in the topic title.
menomegirl | November 22, 04:42 CET
Mirage | November 22, 16:35 CET
menomegirl | November 22, 22:08 CET
jam2 | November 23, 08:05 CET