Random Question #10

Jensen Ackles Gif dancing While watching last night’s episode of Supernatural – Dead Men Don’t Wear Plaid, I found myself asking:

Would/Could Sam and Dean ever leave a town with a supernatural event/being be if it wasn’t really hurting anyone?

Is there a time and a place where that would be alright or are things so black and white that they have to kill everything?  Is this too obvious?  If the perfect situation came up, like a cat de-clawed, do you think they could let it be?

Lemmie know in the comments

-DoubleBitch

and one more Ackles!gif for good measure

Advertisements

~ by doublebitch on March 26, 2010.

8 Responses to “Random Question #10”

  1. Actually, the situation already came up in Season 2’s “Bloodlust”, with the animal-only vampires. In fact, Dean kicked Gordan’s–a fellow hunter–ass to protect Lenore, the leader of the ‘vegetarian’ Vampires. So, yeah, they would if they had enough evidence for it.

  2. Yeah, I guess that’s true. I know it’s an issues that’s been looked at, I’d just like to see more of it. It could be a way to grow some established characters and build the verse a little bit more, if we saw more allies like this. But then again maybe I’ve just been reading too many Sookie Stackhouse books

  3. I loved Season 2’s Bloodlust because of that very dilemma – if something is by definition a monster, because something has always been a monster, does it mean it can’t change? I agree – I would love to see more of this in upcoming episodes of Supernatural, especially since in periods of stress, say, due to the Apocalypse and all, the lines between evil and good can become quite blurry.

  4. I’m kinda hoping something like this comes into play with Crowley–he’s on their side, but he’s a demon. I don’t expect him to be good, but I’d like a bit of grey morality there.

  5. well and I think that plays a big part in it now. Whos good and whos evil and how can the two of them really claim to be any one thing purely. It gets touchy the more we get into things.

  6. I think the problem with bringing up Bloodlust now is that they were very specifically paralleling Sam’s arc, and his quest not to go dark side. Would the boys make the same decision *now*, now that it’s the apocalypse. Now that they have this concept of fate drilled into them, for all that they’re trying to fight it. I think the idea after last night is the concept that no matter how good you *want* to be, if you’re evil… well. You’re gonna get shot in the face.

    I’m just not sure if the show was trying to be as smart in their parallel to the boys this time as they were in Bloodlust. I guess we’ll see?

  7. Yes yes yes yes yes yes yes.

    Ahem.

    I mean, I think this could be quite brilliant, especially in their skewed mythology where just because you’re an angel it doesn’t make you good. There’s a lot of room to play around, I think… Necessary evils and all that.

    (Ok, fine, and I totally love Mark Sheppard more than is possibly healthy.)

  8. Yeah I thought about adding that change after I got the first comment. I think the reason I overlooked bloodlust was because this time it felt different. There was the ‘now’ factor

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: