Editorial: Moffat Takes (Canonical) Female Victiories Away In Sherlock

 So, two days ago, while at work, I was thinking to myself, when I realized something, something slightly troubling, about one of my favorite shows, Sherlock. And I thought I would share it.



Spoilers for "A Scandal In Belgravia" and "His Last Vow"

 Oh, Steven Moffat. Where do I even begin with you?

 He's kind of become rather infamous for his sexist comments (and other very terrible comments in general), and his writing (which can also be quite sexist). As for me? Well, I don't agree with a lot of what he says. A LOT of what he says. And I will admit: his writing isn't as good as it was to me three years ago. Though I will give him credit: he has written some of my favorite Doctor Who episodes and my favorite Sherlock episode. And I think season 8 of Doctor Who is showing signs of improvement from the last two specials (though part of that could be the new Twelfth Doctor, played by Peter Capaldi). Other than that, I have noticed a decline with his work. And I do think he needs a ego/reality check. I may even be so bold as to compare him a bit to Frank Miller. Sort of.

 But anyway, when I was thinking, I realized something about Sherlock:

 Moffat took away two female characters victories from canon, and gave them to Sherlock.

 Okay, hear me out: let's start with the one that got me thinking of this: "His Last Vow".

 So, in that episode, it's revealed "Mary Morstan" was actually a former secret agent and assassin, who was being blackmailed by Magnussen. When Sherlock discovers this, she's about to kill Magnussen, but is unsuccessful because of Sherlock's intervention. (I'll go more into my thoughts on this twist on Mary's character in my review of the episodes, which I hope to start next week).

 Now, I know some people bring up that she's a lot like Canon!Moran, but honestly, I think these people overlook that she's sort of a compostion of Mary and one of Milverton's (the character Magnusson is based on) victims, who is actually successful in her attempt on Milverton's life.

  Anyway, later, towards the end of the episode, it's Sherlock who gets to kill Magnussen, sparking all the in-universe drama and blah blah blah, stuff I'll get into in the review. Anyway, it's something I noticed. Mary, one of quite a few women who's been directly victimized by Magnusssen, doesn't get to kill the man. No, instead our male hero (who's not as victimized, IIRC) gets to kill him because... Protagonist.

 That feels sort of wrong.

 But then there's the even worse offender. The often criticized "A Scandal In Belgravia". At the end of my second least favorite episode, Irene Adler is inexplicably turned into a damsel in distress for Sherlock to somehow miraculously save. Really.

 Now, in the Canon, it was not even remotely like that. Canon!Irene is never captured by terrorists, she gets away to America safely with her not-Sherlock husband to live happily ever after, taking and disposing of the photo that Sherlock, Watson, and The King of Bohemia (long story) are after. She never needs Sherlock. Heck, she was even bold enough to follow Sherlock in disguise (as he is high off his assured victory over her), and TELL THE MAN GOODNIGHT before leaving. It was really awesome, both for how subtle it is, the fact she got one over on SHERLOCK, and that this was written in the Victorian Era, which I don't usually associate with feminism.

 (This is part of the reason I take offence to this comment I heard Moffat make in a panel about the ending to "A Scandal In Bohemia" being boring.)

 Anyway, I think it is worth noting is both episodes are written by Steven Moffat. While, as I've said before, I'm not sure how the episode writing goes for the show (for all I know, Gatiss suggested the ending of "Belgravia" and Thompson suggested Sherlock shooting Magnussen), but I'm more inclined to point the finger at Mr. Moffat.

 I will admit, Molly does get some victories, but she's an original character to the series. These are characters based on charcaters hundreds of years old.

 I think this is a rotten thing, and something I hope they avoid in the future. Though, given Moffat's track record, I ain't getting my hopes up. Hey, BBC, Thompson, Gatiss! If any of you happen on this, can you slap some sense into Moffat?

What Makes Hannibal So Great?

 Hey, long time no write! Sorry, had a lot of distractions.

 You know, with the second season of Hannibal going on, I've been reminded how much I love this show. It's on-par with Sherlock, if not better.

 I already sort of reviewed the show (after seeing two episodes) last year, but I want to talk about all the things this show does right. What makes this show so... erm... delicious!

 Oh, and their might be:

PRODUCTION & ATMOSPHERE

 This show has to have some of the most high-quality cinematography I've seen on network TV. It rivals Sherlock in terms of how it's shot. The people behind the show clearly put a lot of effort into making this show come to life. The show is loaded with symbolism, and it has lots of trippy imagery that really makes the show stand out from its competition.

 One notable trait of this show is the "death tableaus". Most of the time, when a murder's discovered, the body is always presented in a macabre sort of display. From totem poles made of bodies, to human cellos, to a body arranged into a saber-toothed tiger. They're are gruesome, but as you continue to watch, much like Will Graham, it gets easier to look. Plus, there's almost a twisted, dark beauty to the arrangements. They get away with a lot on the show. Really pushing the boundaries of network TV.

 That's another thing: the atmosphere. The show has this really fitting atmosphere. It's kind of this unsettling feeling, but it's not alienating. The world is dangerous, but inviting. A bit like the title character.

Oh, that reminds me:

ACTING AND CHARACTERS

 The show has a bunch of really good actors. The main focus here has to go to the two lead actors: Hugh Dancy and Mads Mikkelson.

 Dancy plays the tortured but gifted FBI consultant Will Graham. Will, as I mentioned in my brief review, is gifted with empathy. But as the show goes on, we learn how unstable he is. The first season is devoted to his downward spiral, due both to a medical condition and Hannibal's manipulations (which are further exposed through flashbacks in season 2). And Hugh Dancy plays it well. When he portrayed Will breaking down sobbing, begging Hannibal not to be lying, it honestly broke my heart. There's a reason one of the fandom's catchphrases is "somebody help Will Graham."

 And in season two, he does an equally good job playing the dark side of Will. You can believe he's been pushed to do the questionable things he does (manipulate, murder, lie) in order to expose Hannibal.

 Speaking of America's Favorite Psycho Psychiatrist, Mads Mikkelson plays him well, too. He makes the iconic role his own, and lives up to his well-known predecessor, Anthony Hopkins. He is able to be a despicable, intimidating human being, but at the same time cool, collected, and likeable. His Hannibal is like a Venus Flytrap: you're drawn in (like the characters), but he's deadly, and doesn't hesitate to remind us. But with how he portrays him, the audience is still able to come back to him, if that makes sense. Heck, the first time I think the fandom turned on him was after Will's aforementioned breakdown, and even then the fans eventually sort of got over it and accepted his being a terrible person.

  Some notable notable actors and their roles on the show include: Gillian Anderson as Hannibal's mysterious psychiatrist, Bedelia DuMaurier. Raul Esparza as Dr. Frederick Chilton (who plays him as both an absolute scumbag in season one, but also enjoyably pathetic in season two). Lara Jean Chorostecki as Freddie Lounds, the online reporter I personally love to hate. Laurence Fishburne as Jack Crawford. Hettienne Park as the beloved Beverly Katz, as well as the other two forensics guys Jimmy Price and Brian Zeller (played by Scott Thompson and Aarom Abrams. And finally, Michael Pitt as Mason Verger. Dear God, Michael Pitt as Mason Verger.

WRITING

 Finally, there's the writing. Bryan Fuller, the man in charge. Has a clear vision of what he wants to do (having planned 7 seasons of the show). The writing is superb. I can not think of a single episode that didn't entertain me in some way. The story flows at a good pace, not dragging on, but not rushing either. And there never seems to be a useless episode either. Some people have mentioned the story takes some deviations from the books (which I have never read at the time of this editorial thing), but I'm fine with it. From what I do know, he does pay several homages to the original, as well. And I don't see anything wrong with his own interpretation. They are very clear on that. It's not like he's taking the story as is and butchering it, like several adaptions tend to do.

 But the best part is that the show is very unpredictable. Just when you think you understand where it's going: BAM! Something happens that changes everything. A character you thought was safe gets killed, one you thought you could trust turns out to not be so trustworthy, and one you thought was dead was alive all along. And you can never be certain what's going on, who's manipulating who. The only certainty is that Hannibal is a cannibal and The Chesapeake Ripper. And I love it.

 The show has also drawn actual reaction from me, too. From pleading for a character to turn around and leave before they get caught, to gasping at a character getting suddenly shot. The show gets more of a direct reaction out of me than "I liked this/didn't like this/was outraged by the writers doing this" than most of the shows I watch.

 Plus, the show knows how to leave off on a cliffhanger better than other longer-running shows I watch. The first season ends with Will locked up in BSHCI after Hannibal frames him, and the second... GAH! I DON'T WANT TO SPOIL IT UNTIL I REVIEW SEASON 2! It's so good! It leave you begging for another helping just to figure out what's going to happen. I remember reading a joke saying that the reason they renew the show is that the higher-ups watch the finales and want to know what happens, too.

---

 So that's my two cents on why Hannibal is such a good show. It's one of my favorite shows on TV right now. I highly recommend it, though the squeamish should tread carefully. It's truly a modern masterpiece, deserving of all the awards.

Why Do I Love Crowley? (Especially In Season 9?)

*Warning: Mild Spoilers*

 Well, I've been pondering something as I've been watching season 9 of Supernatural. (It's improved slightly, but it still has a LOT of problems…) I've noticed that I've become increasingly fond of Crowley, of all characters.

 So, why? Why, in a cast of likable (though sometimes infuriating) good guys, do I go for the morally ambiguous King of Hell? Well, I've done some looking into it, and here are some of the reasons I go for mister Crowley…

 

 He's Interesting

  I find that Crowley is an interesting character. For starters, we don't know much of his backstory. All we ostensibly know about him is:

-As a human, he was a Scottish tailor named Fergus McLeod from the 1600s

-He had a son that he hated (and hated him back)

-He sold his soul to "hit double digits" bellow the belt (which still amuses me…)

-His mother was a witch

  It may all be true, it may not. But I really want them to explore his backstory one of these days. I want to know how he became The King of Hell we know and love.

 Also, the storyline's he's involved in this season is the one I'm most invested in. I could care less about the power struggle with the angels at this point, I just want them to kill Gadreel and Metatron already, they wasted a lot of the Human!Castiel plot's potential, and I just want the boys to get over it and make up like we KNOW they will.

 Crowley, on the other hand, is involved with interesting plots right now. I'm actually invested in the "Who Will Rule Hell: Adaddon or Crowley?" arc. I'm admittedly intrigued in the "Mark of Cain" plot (if only for its story potential and that it might have Dean in peril rather than Sam as usual…). And then there's the whole "How The Third Trial Affected Crowley"/"Crowley's Blood Addiction" thing. Sweet merciful Chuck, am I hyped for  "Blade Runners" for apparently finally delving into it!

His Personality and Character

 

 The writers could have easily made Crowley a generic, card-carrying villian (though, admittedly, it wasn't his purpose in season 5. But they could have easily screwed him up!). But he's not. Yes, he does terrible things, season 8 being the pinnacle of puppy-kicking for him, I'm not going to ignore that.
 

 And he still has some degree of positive traits. The big one is that he has some sense of honor to him. If you make a deal/contract with him, he's probably the least likely to screw you over.

  He sees his deals with The Winchesters through to the end. And he freaking punishes a Crossroads Demon for killing people he had contracts with early. 

 But the best example of Crowley being redeemable comes back in season 5. He makes a deal with Bobby in order to help defeat Lucifer. He could have easily just left it at that. But, without having to be asked, he throws in healing Bobby's legs and getting him out of the wheelchair. He didn't have to, but he did.

 He's also really clever. He's, by his own admission, the one person who tries not to underestimate Sam and Dean. And he does what's in his best interest. He's able to play people and the boys. But he's not infallible, either. He can still BE defeated, but he still manages to pick himself up again and brush it off.

 Then of course, there's his wit and sass. I swear, the writers give him some of the best dialogue. He's a very quotable character.

 

I apologize for the language with this one...

  Plus, who doesn't love someone who flirts with the boys?

 

 And then there was that intriguing bit from the season eight finale, where he gives this little speech when he becomes mostly human:

 It kind of hints that maybe there is a lot more going on with everyone's favorite demon (again, another thing to look at).

 What I'm saying is, is that he's three-dimensional...

 He's Well-Acted

 Yeah, I've kinda become a Mark Sheppard fangirl thanks to Crowley. He plays the character really well, delivering the lines brilliantly. And, again, just look at that "I deserve to be loved" clip! Holy crap, Mark. Somebody get this man an award!

He's The One Thing That Consistently Makes Season 9 Entertaining

  Throughout Season 9, I've always looked forward to the Crowley episodes. Every episode he's in, he steals the show in some way or another. "Slumber Party", "Heaven Can't Wait" He's shined in the episodes he's starred in, like "Devil May Care", "Road Trip", and "First Born". Whenever Crowley's gone, I wish he'd show up again. He's the Ensemble Darkhorse of the season. He makes things fun for me. And, giving how depressing/soul-crushing/rainbow-killing this season is, more power to him.

***

 So that's why Crowley's my new favorite character on Supernatural. And I swear to Chuck, writers, if you touch on hair on his head or in his beard, I will hunt you down.

 Anyway, I look forward to seeing more of him. Now if you'll excuse me, I need to contemplate continuing to sit through the reboot of Battlestar Galactica. The first episode's so meh so far, but it's going to have Mark Sheppard pop up at some point... *sigh*

Editorial Freak: Are Movies And TV Series' Overusing Fake Out Death?

 

Warning! This Contains Spoilers For: Sherlock (Seasons 2 and 3's finales, specifically), Supernatural (mainly season 9), The Avengers (and to an extent Agents of SHIELD), Thor: The Dark World, Game of Thrones, and Doctor Who)

 

You know, I kinda did...

 So, the last episode of Sherlock season 3 has aired in America, and revealed the next cliffhanger: Moriarty (or as I've started calling him here: "Scottiarty") is alive as well. I kinda suspected it (Moffat kept insisting he was dead a little too much for me). So, I figured this was a perfect time to discuss something of a trend/trope that seems to be cropping up in the movies and TV shows I like: The Fake Out Death.

 Yes, it seems that a lot of shows are using this. They pretend to kill a character (or in some cases, legitimately kill) a character, only to bring them back. And to be honest, it's gotten kind of old.

 I started feeling this when I saw Thor: The Dark World for the first time. As many who saw that know, somewhere around the third act, Loki is apparently impaled through the chest and killed by Skurge. It's sad (legend says you could hear Tumblr collectively go comatose with shock), but then at the end it's revealed Loki has survived being mortally wounded, and has in fact taken Odin's place (literally).

 Now, besides me wanting more explanation as to how Loki survived, I felt a little bored with this sort of thing. It seemed to me like it came up too much in the last two years.

 Two big offenders of this are Doctor Who and Supernatural.

 I read a very interesting post (that I highly recommend), that brings up how Steven Moffat doesn't really "kill" many characters off in Doctor Who, when you think about it. Heck, the most notable example is Rory. Every time he got killed, he seems to come back. When he finally did bite it, it was that he just died years after being time-displaced (long story). Not being killed (presumably).

It's Rory, Amy. It's 33.3% of his shtick.

  Heck, Moffat's undone THE ENTIRE FRIGGIN' GENOCIDE OF THE GALLFREYANS AND THE DALEKS!

 There was also the recent Christmas Special where The Doctor regenerates, but the whole episode The Doctor goes on and on about Eleven being his last regeneration, and that if he dies at the time of the special, it's forever, yadda yadda. Yeeeah, we already knew about Capaldi being the next Doctor. But that's more an issue of false/failed drama than anything else.

 Supernatural does it worse, though. While the show has an infamously high death toll (at this point, it's easier to count the living characters), there has also been quite a bit of characters un-dying. Especially in season nine, where we not only have Cas briefly die in one episode, but the next bloody episode Charlie freaking dies for a few minutes. While it's nice when a beloved character comes back (especially with the dwindling number of reoccurring characters), I think this is also a flaw with the show. It starts getting harder to accept the legitimate deaths when they arise. Seriously, let Death do his job, writers!

Maybe, Death. Maybe...

 I think this is one of the things I like about Game of Thrones: that when they kill a character, they stick with it. There's not even that "I'm a main character/regular" immunity. Nope, sorry, Ned! Being on the poster won't save you now! And don't get me started on the Red Wedding (there's one way to wrap up a subplot). Heck, the one time they had a "revival" it went bad and ultimately led to that character having to die for good. Death is death.

 Now, am I completely against bringing characters back from the dead? No. I can accept some of them.

What? It's not too soon, anymore!

 Let's take one of the most famous "recent" examples: Sherlock's faked suicide at the end of season 2. We knew he was alive at the end of the episode (heck, anyone who'd read "The Final Problem" knew he'd live...) Besides the inevitability of this, I was fine with it because it had weight to it. There was the aftermath for everyone, the suspense of how everyone would react to seeing him again, the mystery of how he did it... It worked to the story's advantage and had repercussions. (Heck, I'm actually looking forward to seeing what they do with Moriarty's return in season 4. The story opportunities...)

 There's also The Avengers, where Coulson "died"...

XD I love this bit from the gag reel...

 That also had weight. It helped motivate the team to get their crap together. But it also had ambiguity. We couldn't be sure that Coulson was coming back. All we had was confirmation that Fury lied about Coulson's trading cards being on his person when Loki impaled him through the chest (yeah, I'm starting to believe people in the MCU can't be killed by impalement...). It also provides an early mystery in his spin-off, Agents of SHIELD. Heck, even when it's revealed how he's alive, there's the ramifications of Fury playing God and Coulson dealing with this reveal.

 My problem with Loki's "death" in Thor: The Dark World was there was little weight, I felt. He died and it was just: "Welp! On to the next thing!" (The same could be said of Frigga's death, but that's another thing). It doesn't leave much impact.

 I guess what I'm saying is: writers, if you're going to kill a character and bring them back, at least let there be ramifications or some degree of weight to it. Or, if not, at least use Fake Out Deaths sparingly. And please, just cool it on them for a while, okay? Okay. We're good.

Ezekiel: Angelus Ex Machina (Or:Dear Supernatural Writers, Please Stop With Ezekiel The Angel Of Bad Writing And Ruining Everything)

*WARNING: SPOILERS FOR THE SEASON EIGHT FINALE AND SEASON NINE OF SUPERNATURAL*

  *sigh* I came into season 9 with such high hopes. Granted, it's only been six episodes going on seven, buuuut it's kind of a mess. Why is it all the seasons divisible by three are less than stellar? It's like the fabled Star Trek movie curse. I'll get into my problems a little more when the season's over and all's said, done, and sorted. But there's kind of a big one I have vent about...

 Ezekiel.

  Hoo boy, Ezekiel.

  Okay, so to recap, at the end of season 8, the angels are forced from heaven, Cas is brought down to human, and Sam collapses dramatically. So, in Season 9's premiere, Dean gets desperate to bring his baby bro back (despite Death himself telling him what happens every time they pull this stunt... But hey, it's Sammy, the little brother he literally gave his life for, I can understand the irrationality...), even praying to the newly fallen angels for help. One angel comes to answer the holy ad, seeming to genuinely want to help. His name's Ezekiel.

  So, Ezekiel offers a little deal: he possesses Sam as a vessel to recuperate from the fall (switching between his and Sam's consciousnesses, Sam never needing to know he's there, otherwise he'd reject him from his body and die) and he heals Sam from within. Okay, that seems alright so far. The consent's dubious (yeah, Lucifer had more consent to possess Sam... I'll let that sink in...), but it could be interesting.

  Then he became what I call "Angelus Ex Machina" (or would it be "Angelus Ex Moosina?").


  In the second episode, he takes down a group of demons with his holy power. I was okay with this, the effect was pretty cool (I dug the ratty wings) and I figured we would occasionally get angelic smiting wrath of the divine. Then came the third episode, where Cas temporarily dies and Zeke revives him. Eh... That was okay... I guess. Then comes episode four, where out of nowhere Zeke comes up for no other reason but to revive Charlie when she died. (Really? You pulled the "LOL Not Dead" thing twice in a row, writers?) Are you starting to see my issue here? Then EPISODE FIVE, ZEKE POPS OUT OF FREAKIN' NOWHERE YET AGAIN TO HEAL SAM'S NECK WOUND, NEARLY EXPOSING HIMSELF AND LEADING HIM TO HAVE TO FIX SAM UP AGAIN...

 Yeah, basically, Ezekiel has been killing all the suspense in the show. It says a lot when one of the reasons I liked the okay-but-flawed sixth episode, "Heaven Can't Wait" (besides the stuff with Crowley and the stuff with Cas) is that Ezekiel didn't come in like a wrecking ball. I mean, I can understand occasionally using him or referencing him, but this is obscene. And it cheapens death even more in this show, where the three major characters practically have two-way fast passes for the afterlife. (I'm getting tired of writers not killing off characters for real in general lately. LET'S SEE SOME BLOOD SPILT FOR REAL, MAN!)

  Also, this is exactly the reason I think they sent Cas away or nerfed his powers all the time back when he was an angel: it's a game breaker. I know that nothing can ever be easy for Sam and Dean. It's part of the drama, seeing how the boys get out of their predicament of the week. I understand from a story perspective. Having an angel around kind of tips the scales too much, since all he has to do is smite the monster and then they can go out for beer and ice cream. In short, it'd be boring. Congratulations, You're illustrating why having Castiel around all the time wouldn't have worked from a story perspective... Now it's "how's the angel going get them out of this?" instead of "how're The Winchesters going to get themselves out of this?" If you wanted to do this, you could've just kept Cas an angel, instead of making him a human and pushing him aside, as if to say, "Hey, you're not an angel! You serve little to no purpose to us anymore!" Way to show him love...

  Third, he throws the known power levels out of whack. I seem to recall when Cas more or less "fell", he couldn't heal people. Zeke's healing people left and right, and he's supposedly "so weak". Granted, it's a different situation, but still. I'm assuming Cas and Zeke were at least at a similar level. Also, if he's able to revive the freaking dead, couldn't he just hop into Dean a while (he's the Michael Sword, he can take it), fix Sam (who's sure to have what Zeke's been doing to him still working a little bit), and go find someone more willing to host him? Is he really still "so weak"? Seemed fine to me after those two times. Unless they're gearing up to reveal he's an archangel (most are guessing Lucifer, based on his 2014 prophesy. But hey, Lucy lies. I'm hoping for Gabriel, who's rumored to return...), I'm finding my willing suspension of disbelief being tested, here.

  Basically, if any of the writers are reading this, just... do away with Ezekiel. Or at least don't pull him out for every little thing. I know Jared Padalecki (Sam/Ezekiel) is all excited about doing something new, I respect that. Just, please... You can write so much better, guys. Just look back at season 8! Or season 5! I'm hardly a professional writer, TV or otherwise, but I know good writing when I see it. And this... Isn't it... Please. I love this show. Don't ruin it with this sort of thing...

Why I'm Less Than Pleased About The Ending Of "I'm No Angel"

  Okay, so last night I was watching Supernatural. And I got to say, the ending I found to be not okay. The rest of the episode was pretty alright (though Cas having sex with a woman he'd only barely met... twice... was a little irksome, especially given his characterization...). But the ending was just... No.

 So, I'm going to explain why I don't like this. Needless to say:

 So, at the end of the episode, the now human Castiel finally gets back with The Winchesters and goes to stay in the bunker. However, Ezekiel (an angel who's currently partially possessing Sam, loooooong story), says that, no, Dean can't keep his boyfriend friend. Because, Cas (despite him getting an anti-angel tracker tattoo) is a huge beacon to the other angels, all of whom are ticked that he helped cast them down. And they would go after Ezekiel, too, seeing as he's helping him and his friends. And then Zeke would have to leave, and Sam would die without the angel healing him from inside. So Dean is forced to throw his soul mate best friend whom he shares a profound bond with out.

No. No no no! NOOOOOO!!!

  Okay, I'm ticked with this for a number of reasons. Mainly because of this: I'm tired of the writers coming up with excuses to make Cas leave. I mean, I could understand finding reasons to keep Cas from long-term stays with the boys when he was an angel. He was kind of a game breaker as an angel. Nothing can ever be easy for the leads is one of the first rules of writing. But now he's human, he's vulnerable, he's on the same level as The Winchesters (well, technically not Sam half the time, now...) (And he's actually quite valuable, still having the knowledge of an angel 24/7.) But nope, we gotta kick him to the curb!

(Not from this episode, but...) Lookit this face. Would you kick someone out if they made that face? 

  Second, like I said, Cas is human now. He doesn't fully know how to deal with being human. This whole episode kind of proved that. The face he makes when Dean tells him to go! He's like a lost puppy out there. And, again, while he still has his Angel Blade, he's still vulnerable. EVERY FREAKING ANGEL WANTS TO TRACK HIM DOWN! Seriously, I almost think it'd be better to keep Cas at The Bunker. They have more weapons, I'm sure the boys could set up some sort of "anti-angel room" or possibly find something in The Men of Letters' archives (I'm sure they have to have at least something on angels...). Maybe they can find some more holy oil for emergencies. And the boys have Angel Blades, too. Heck, Crowley (who I remind everyone is CURRENTLY LOCKED UP IN THEIR BASEMENT!) developed an anti-angel gun from an Angel Blade last season, just get how he did that from him! Seriously, I think dumping Cas out to fend for himself is possibly a worse idea. Way to look out for your brother, Zeke! Dean Winchester you ain't...

 Plus, Zeke showed in this episode that he's at least powerful enough to revive the dead, as seen with Cas shortly before. If he did have to leave because of Cas, couldn't he just say, hop into Dean a little bit (he was Michael's intended vessel, he can probably take it, and it's Sammy, he'd be willing to do it to help save his baby bro), heal Sam, and go find someone else to hold him while he recharges? Okay, that last one might be nitpicky, but still...

 I also take issue with this, because I feel the reason's... flimsier than his previous reasons. Here have been some of his reasons to leave before that:

• "I'm trying to find God..."
• "I'm fighting a civil war against Raphael in Heaven..."
• "I'm a bit insane at the moment..."
• "I need to serve penance for my actions..."
• "I need to protect The Angel Tablet from Crowley and Naomi and I don't want you guys caught in the middle..."

  I think those were better reasons. This... isn't, for the reasons I've said earlier. I know Dean would do anything for Sam, budding roman- BROMANCE! I meant bromance! - with Cas or not. But I feel like this is just wrong to do. And it's not of Cas's own will! It's just drama for the sake of drama.

 I'm hoping they at least don't drag this out needlessly long. That's one thing I can give Elementary credit for: not dragging out "Joan's secretly not his sober companion anymore" thing. And I'm pleased Agents of SHIELD didn't drag the "Skye's a mole" thing out too long either, and handled it pretty well last night. And I hope that Dean at least explains the situation to Cas, and leaves him somewhere safe, like with Garth. Heck, he can leave him with Charlie! Them interacting I'd love to see. If he just leaves him to fend for himself, I'll just... GRAHAHWJRGTAENGLJBAGFFF!!!!

Editorial: Why I Don't Think Meg Not Being Used For The Third Trial Was A Waste Of Story

GAH! Long time, no type! Okay, so I finished the eighth season of Supernatural (oh, Chuck, the feels!) And I was reading TV Tropes's YMMV page. Someone brought up something interesting, but I had an argument against it...

*WARNING: MAJOR SPOILERS FOR SEASON 8 (ESPECIALLY THE LAST 7 EPISODES)*

  So in season 8, Meg returns and  is killed by Crowley, adding to the laundry list of despicable things he did that season. (*sigh* And yet I love the character. Stupid awesome Mark Sheppard character with his charming personality and voice I've recently realized is ridiculously attractive... >_<) As part of the boys' trials to close off Hell (long story), they need to "cure a demon". They ultimately go with Crowley. (Oh ho, karma, thou art a wonderful thing.) They mostly succeed, but fail to complete the trial because Dean stops it so Sam won't die. Plus there's the whole: "Angels are falling from Heaven" situation...

 Anyway, the Troper said they felt Meg was wasted in the end, and could have been used for the trial/redemption instead of Crowley. But I disagree. I think it was for the better the writers did what they did. For one reason:

  Meg was kinda already redeemed by that point.

  You see, over the last three seasons, she had expressed romantic interest in Castiel, and was working more with The Winchesters. She had kind of already swapped sides by her own vocation.Yeah, she never really expressed remorse for her more questionable actions earlier in the series, but she had gone good for the most part. Rather than being forced to do it by purified Sammy blood injections. If she had stayed alive and they used her, it would kinda have been pointless. Easier, but pointless. And if there's one thing I've learned from this show (heck, from fiction), is that writers can never have things be easy for their characters; there always has to be a struggle.

  Secondly, and this is something a friend of mine brought up (regarding the revolving door Supernatural's afterlife), is that Meg's story was kinda done by "Goodbye, Stranger". She'd had her redemption arc of sorts, and I don't think there was/is much to do with her now. She's served her purpose. Yeah, I liked her interactions/chemistry/relationship with Castiel, especially in the last episode she was in (the scene where he patches her up is so sweet). But I liked The Winchesters' relationship with Bobby, and he had to die. (And I'm kinda alright with it.) I don't think that there would have been many story options with cured!Meg that couldn't conceivably been done with her character as it already was, or do much character development she hadn't already had. (Except maybe a "yeah, sorry about the whole: "trying to kill you multiple times, helping my father, kidnapping your dad, possessing Sam, helping Lucifer, etc. My bad, guys. I was TOTALLY in the wrong on that one...")

 Now, Crowley, on the other hand, I think has more story options with a possible redemption arc. Like I said, he did a lot of despicable things, especially in Season Gr8. Seeing him dealing with guilt from that and seeking forgiveness from the boys could be interesting. Plus, since the ritual wasn't completed, will Crowley regress from "I deserve to be loved!" back to opposing our heroes? (I don't think that would've been an option with Meg.) Will he become a perment ally to the boys rather than one of convienence (especially with Abaddon running around)? And if he'd still maintain the personality the fans liked about him in the first place? If handled correctly, (and without too much "Draco In Leather Pants"-ing) I see a lot more ways a Cured!Crowley arc can go than a Cured!Meg one.

 So anyway, those are my two bits. Yeah, it stinks Meg died, killing a link to the beginning and yet another female character. But I don't think it was entirely a waste. She was a good character by the end, but it was her time to go. She'd had her arc, her redemption, already. Now, it's Crowley's turn to have an arc.

(Besides, the stuff where Crowley finds his humanity is entertaining as heck. And Mark Sheppard freaking SANG! Missing that would've been a waste... ;P)