A Rehashed Show?
Jun. 24th, 2007 08:18 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
raloriaWell, since it appears I'm behind on the news once again and this little news article has aready been around on the comms I'm just gonna post it here anyway. Sorry, ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
ckll, I looked and didn't see it. *shrugs* My apologies to those of you who've already read this.
I just found this article about SPN (Rehashed Spell Still Works A Charm) from Australia, but it's about 2 weeks old. I'm not exactly sure I'd want this person helping to promote the show. Just a heads up - there's spoilers for S2's Playthings for those who haven't seen that episode yet.
Some excerpts:
"Supernatural is no less original than any hospital drama or cop opera. Television does not, as a rule, trade in innovation. What matters is how otherwise familiar elements are reassembled and energised."
Not original? Sorry, but I don't believe there's any other show on TV currently about supernatural hunting brothers.
"Supernatural is not a deep program. It entertains viewers with thrills and spills."
Not deep? How about Dean's internal struggles with abandonment and his lifelong mission to protect his brother? What about Sam's decision to accept their way of life and deal with his developing psychic abitlities?
Oh, and I also don't like him assuming the show's fans are all young schoolgirls. This isn't actually said, but more implied. Plus, the show is described as an "intermittently inspired series". There is mention that the boys are "unsung heroes" and that the show doesn't take itself too seriously. That's all well and good, but it seems this person isn't taking it too seriously either.
It's kind of a conflicting article, with the writer praising the show with one hand while he tears it down with the other. Makes for an interesting read, anyway.
Sorry about my little ranting, but this article just kind of bent me the wrong way this morning.
ckll, I looked and didn't see it. *shrugs* My apologies to those of you who've already read this.I just found this article about SPN (Rehashed Spell Still Works A Charm) from Australia, but it's about 2 weeks old. I'm not exactly sure I'd want this person helping to promote the show. Just a heads up - there's spoilers for S2's Playthings for those who haven't seen that episode yet.
Some excerpts:
"Supernatural is no less original than any hospital drama or cop opera. Television does not, as a rule, trade in innovation. What matters is how otherwise familiar elements are reassembled and energised."
Not original? Sorry, but I don't believe there's any other show on TV currently about supernatural hunting brothers.
"Supernatural is not a deep program. It entertains viewers with thrills and spills."
Not deep? How about Dean's internal struggles with abandonment and his lifelong mission to protect his brother? What about Sam's decision to accept their way of life and deal with his developing psychic abitlities?
Oh, and I also don't like him assuming the show's fans are all young schoolgirls. This isn't actually said, but more implied. Plus, the show is described as an "intermittently inspired series". There is mention that the boys are "unsung heroes" and that the show doesn't take itself too seriously. That's all well and good, but it seems this person isn't taking it too seriously either.
It's kind of a conflicting article, with the writer praising the show with one hand while he tears it down with the other. Makes for an interesting read, anyway.
Sorry about my little ranting, but this article just kind of bent me the wrong way this morning.
