“I reached
out [to Andrew Dabb] and he’s like, ‘Yeah, really man, just do whatever you
wanna do.’ And I’m
like, ‘That’s not giving me any concrete direction here.’ And he’s
like, ‘Well, you know, you saw what Christian [Keyes] was doing…’ I’m like,
‘Oh, okay, so I need to watch what Christian was–’ ‘No, I
would say just kind of, you know, do your own thing.’ And I’m like,
‘The one thing I was actually taking direction from, you’ve now just taken that
away.’ So it’s… Yeah, I was an island unto myself.”
—Jensen
Ackles about playing Michael, EW 14×01 premiere screening (x)
This is a perfect demonstration of what a bad showrunner Dabb is. Having basically no thoughts on Michael’s character and leaving it up to Jensen to figure it all out and clean up Dabb’s mess… No wonder Michael hasn’t been exactly overwhelming so far.
Like… i get why people have issues with Dabb, some of his choices for the show have been objectively BAD. But… That being said… Why are you mad that he’s keeping OUT of it and putting his trust in Jensen who, honestly, is a freaking genius and lives that character. Maybe we should thank Dabb for keeping his mouth shut for once?
Because this
obviously isn’t Dabb going, “You know what you’re doing with this character
better than I do, so I’ll let you do it.” It’s Dabb having no idea who Michael
is—beyond “he’s the Big Bad No. 3,457 and a way for us to take Dean out of the equation
and give breathing space to the other characters"— and he’s not even trying to
hide that.
And it
shows, because AU!Michael’s motivation and
characterization has been all over the place since he was introduced last
season. Jensen certainly makes him more watchable because he’s a skilled
actor trying to find Michael’s inner life, mannerisms, idiosyncrasies… and because we,
the audience, are curious and excited to look for all the differences between
his portrayal of Dean and Michael!Dean. That’s
what makes it at least remotely fun to watch. But take that away and Michael is
a pretty incomprehensible and frankly quite boring character. (@frozen-delight talks a bit more about this here)
Of course,
good actors (when working with good directors, writers etc.) should be able to
cooperate on shaping the characters they’re playing. But they need to build on something. So when a
writer/showrunner is asked for directions on playing a new character, especially a
character that is this important, they should give a better answer than “I
don’t know, you’ll figure it out.”
Becuse if they don’t, then no matter how good the actor is, the result is inevitably going to come off looking directionless.
Well, the basic problem is that Jensen is not playing a new character, and that any showrunner worth his salt should care about character continuity. That Dabb doesn’t showcases once again how secondary character development is to his concept of the show, no matter what he might tell us in his interviews.
A more particular problem posed by the script of 14×01 is that one of the most powerful tools of character building, namely interacting with other characters, is hardly utilised. (Not a bad writing method per se, but one that would make it harder to figure out the character from an actor’s POV.) The easiest way of introducing a new character is having him interact with the characters we already know.
In his three scenes, Michael barely does anything that can be called “interacting” with others. He talks, they remain mostly silent. And they, with the exception of Anael/Jo, are new characters as well, meaning that we don’t know them any more than we do him. Meanwhile Anael/Jo’s characterisation isn’t necessarily in line with what we learnt about her last season either. So Michael remains as shapeless as the rest of them.
It would be interesting to know what sort of notes Thomas J. Wright gave Jensen on his performance, or if the script left him completely clueless too.
@69obsessions said: Sera Gamble did the same thing when Jared asked about soulless sam. Left it up to him completely and he pulled it off.
@ambular-d said: This is not an issue unique to Dabb, however. IIRC, Kripke told Gen exactly the same thing about Ruby.
I think both of you have a point that this isn’t a mistake no other showrunner on the show has ever made. However, the examples you name clearly show that yes, in all cases, it was a *mistake*.
S6 didn’t give us one Soulless!Sam, it gave us about a dozen. When people talk about Soulless!Sam, they usually mean the way the character was presented in 6×09, by far the best episode featuring the character, in which Ben Edlund really nailed it. However, when one considers all the episodes from 6×01 to 6×11, one has to admit that both the writing for the character and Jared’s interpretation of the character are incredibly inconsistent. Sera Gamble neither giving clear directions to Jared nor to her fellow writers didn’t pan out. (And created a philosophical and mythological abyss of problems that the show never recovered from, but that’s a whole different topic.)
Likewise, S4!Ruby was completely different than the character by the same name introduced in S3, was pretty much all over the place over the course of the season, and was more or less universally hated until Jared married Gen and criticism of the character or her acting became a no-go.
That being said, however wonky the writing and acting, if we gained a slightly more clear idea of the character of Ruby and Soulless!Sam in the S4 and S6 premieres respectively, it’s because we saw them interact with other established characters. They didn’t exist in a vacuum, and that made a big difference.
Also I would point out, they had an idea of the over all effect of the role in the story – where Jensen is saying he really hasn’t been told a THING about where this fits into the story as a whole or with his character. He’s said that in multiple interviews. They basically have left him completely in the dark.
do all the jeff goldblum stans realize that he’s on his third wife and she’s literally half his age
Half his age, as in she was born in 1983 making her 35 years old and an adult with adult agency and life experiences to balance out the inexperience and power dynamics that make age gap relationships questionable at best and predatory at worst?
Like I get where you’re coming from, a lot of the time there is good reason to side-eye wide age gap relationships. But there’s also sometimes nuance, like the fact that they met and got engaged when she was 31, and as near as I can find from a quick google search, his other marriages although having ended, did not end for awful or violent reasons. Sometimes people just realize they made a mistake or their needs change, and they are allowed to do things to rectify them, like responsibly end a marriage for the sake of those involved rather than continue torturing each other.
Also if the objection is to how many times he’s been married, his second wife
Geena Davis (also in her 30s when she married him)
has been married four times. Is that unacceptable too?
I’m not trying to be hostile and I don’t particularly care about him either way. This just seems like such vague phrasing designed to provoke an inflammatory response and I can’t seem to find any receipts to back it up other than the fact that he has indeed been married three times, married a younger woman in her 30s, has a son with her, and has talked openly about how they go to couples therapy to deal with their shit, which is actually, if you think about it, a very healthy thing to do.
And for what it’s worth, his first wife
Patricia Gaul was born in 1945 making him the younger of the two (1952), but
making them of comparable and compatible ages when they got married to each other in
their 30s. Like I’m just not seeing the behavior or someone here who is a
repeat offender of chasing after vulnerable young women in the same way say, Drake is blatantly grooming a 14 year old girl.
OP: Would you, maybe, consider letting women in their 30s make their own life decisions? I promise we’re capable. Really. We’re able to have our own jobs, raise our own children – and choose our own partners. Even if they’re older than us. We don’t need your – or anybody’s – protection or permission. Don’t infantilise gown women, how about it.
It’s not creepy or predatory to be attracted to women in their 30s, don’t be ridiculous, guys. And have you ever considered that some people are interested in older people? It’s entirely possible.
(Excuse me, I’m going to look at pictures of Clint Eastwood’s newest movie now. I’m 36, he’s 89, and I couldn’t care less.)
illuminating
It’s always fascinating when misogynists get mad when their misogyny is pointed out
people: *are rightfully annoyed with op for infantilizing women*
op, covering their ears: why’re y’all so obsessed with this celebrity and willing to kiss his ass and defend him against my imaginary controversy!
Op: what do you MEAN I can’t say whatever I want about adult women? Why can’t I just imply that grown women are victims who are too stupid to make their own decisions?????
Kelli's Tumblr Backup 