Question for Supernatural fans...

[Kestrel]

So I've started watching the second season (I know, late to the party), and I'm enjoying it so far something like 6 episodes in maybe, and especially liking Ellen and Jo in the mix. So I get to the big reveal about why Ellen got so upset when Jo ran off with the boys and the way the episode ended made me go look up the characters to make sure they'd be back. But what struck me as really weird was reading about negative fan reaction to Jo "intruding" and Kripke's decision to write her off... and that from then on he'd only introduce women as antagonists.

My question is... umm, why? I really like Jo and Ellen, and while I don't really expect them to become more than heavily recurring characters (especially now that I accidentally spoiled myself, haha) they provide a nice addition to the mix. Granted I like larger casts in general. I don't get the negative reaction just because she might've been a love interest, and I really don't get the "we'll only introduce women as antagonists from now on." Is there really a segment of Supernatural fandom that was "Eww... a *girl* hanging out with Sam and Dean?!"

[Skywalker]

I never really got it, either. I guess people thought Jo was coming off as trying too hard to look cool in comparison to the brothers. Or that she was there to upstage one or both of them.

[RJDiogenes]

Same here. I liked them as supporting characters and I never understood the negative reaction. Allegedly, the female fanbase had some jealousy about anybody coming between them and their boys; I don't know how true that is.

[AntonyF]

RJDiogenes wrote:

---

Allegedly, the female fanbase had some jealousy about anybody coming between them and their boys; I don't know how true that is.

A lot of the female fanbase get upset about anybody coming between the boys.

[issreliant]

it was fan reaction, (fangirls) but also that the love intrest between dean and jo never really worked, it came off as very big brother little sister, to me atleast. also that kripke didnt like the idea of the road house, too much like a perment home for the boys, and ellen and jo do return and have some big storylines in the future seasons.

[Kestrel]

AntonyF wrote:

---

A lot of the female fanbase get upset about anybody coming between the boys.

Bah, what foolishness. Why deep-six a good character over that kind of jealousy? My only complaint about SN season one was almost every woman they ran into seemed to be evil or dead meat.

issreliant wrote:

---

it was fan reaction, (fangirls) but also that the love intrest between dean and jo never really worked, it came off as very big brother little sister, to me atleast. also that kripke didnt like the idea of the road house, too much like a perment home for the boys, and ellen and jo do return and have some big storylines in the future seasons.

Even if she hadn't turned into a full-flown love interest (though it was working for me personally) having a younger, eager hunter with them would've been a fun dynamic. And it's not like they've spent that much time at the roadhouse so far, plus it does a nice job expanding the universe to have a place where hunters can come. Ah well, not like I'll stop watching.

[auntiehill]

Well, most characters end up as "dead meat" on Supernatural--whether male or female. The Sheriff, Jody Mills, is the only heroic female character who sticks around long term---but her role is rather small.

Actually, the only people you can count on surviving (more or less) are Sam & Dean. Everyone else is fair game. Sort of.

[Kestrel]

Haha, that makes sense yeah.

[Gotham Central]

Kestrel wrote:

---

Haha, that makes sense yeah.

Supernatural is probably unique in TV history in that it is a series who's fans are primarily female yet HATE any attempt at introducing female characters. Every attempt at introducing a recurring female character has run afoul of this phenomenon.

The fangirls want their boys and ONLY their boys. Its ironic in that the male fans have actually liked some of the women introduced.

[Kestrel]

^ That is ironic, yeah.

Ok, different question but still from Season 2. Does Gordon Walker the over-the-top Hunter remind anybody else of Charles Gunn, but gone over the edge? Not just because he's a black hunter but because he shows up in a vampire episode and his backstory is that his sister was attacked and turned and he had to kill her and has been hunting - especially vampires - ever since. Or is it just me?

[Skywalker]

I hadn't made that connection when I first saw the episodes. It could have been a deliberate reference, but I doubt it was really intentional.

[Vendikarr]

Gotham Central wrote:

---

Supernatural is probably unique in TV history in that it is a series who's fans are primarily female yet HATE any attempt at introducing female characters. Every attempt at introducing a recurring female character has run afoul of this phenomenon.

The fangirls want their boys and ONLY their boys. Its ironic in that the male fans have actually liked some of the women introduced.

I think the only female the entire fandom ever embraced was Katie Cassidy's Ruby. She was hot, tough and had no romantic designs on either Winchester boy.

When the Ruby character came back she was hot for Sam, and frankly, wasn't as good an actress as Cassidy. Everyone seemed to dislike the second Ruby.

[Skywalker]

I didn't dislike Ruby 2.0, but I did like the original incarnation more. Ruby's storyline probably would have played out in the same fashion no matter who was playing her (not going to go into details so as to avoid spoilers), but I preferred Cassidy's performance over Cortese's. Stupid budget cuts!

[Kestrel]

Skywalker wrote:

---

I hadn't made that connection when I first saw the episodes. It could have been a deliberate reference, but I doubt it was really intentional.

Could just be me then. I've been kind of mentally comparing the two shows throughout anyway, which might have been part of my OP as well as the Gordon thing.

[Guy Gardener]

No one in the female cast compares to Becky.