In This Section
TV Guide Spotlight
Also on TVGuide.com
|
« TV Show Previews
Supernatural Returns: Burning Questions Answered!
ensen Ackles as Dean and Jared Padalecki in Supernatural by Sergei Bachlakov/The CW
After an impossibly long two-month hiatus due to the writers' strike, Supernatural finally returns with new episodes this week. And to celebrate, we've conjured up another Q&A. Will there be an extended Season 4? How do fans' opinions affect the show's direction? Will we get answers about this year's finale? Supernatural creator Eric Kripke is back to tackle your questions and theories. Plus, he has a special message about this week's all-new episode. Supernatural airs Thursdays at 9 pm/ET on the CW.
I've had a long-term theory regarding Sam and his visions that they were not his but given to him by YED through the connection of blood, which he used to keep track of and communicate with the chosen children. Is this right? Or am I just smoking something? So totally dying to know!Thanks! gloriaoliver
Eric Kripke: It's an interesting theory
but I'd be crazy to confirm or deny. Sorry, but you just have to keep guessing.
Is there any chance you'll ever appear in a brief cameo role? ckll
Kripke: No, no. It's funny, when I'm in the writers' room or discussing a scene with a director, I tend to be quite animated, acting out the parts and reading the lines the way I see them in my head. And so it's become a running joke that the writers and directors are always asking when I'm gonna go up and shoot a part already, because I'm clearly a frustrated actor. But the thing is, I'm a deeply, deeply terrible actor, so no friggin' way. After my performance in the lead role of Southview High School's You're a Good Man, Charlie Brown, I swore never to torture an audience like that again.
Do you have any plans to extend Season 4, since the strike shortened Season 3 to only 16 episodes? acsgrlie
Kripke: I was certainly willing to; the entire writing staff was rested and ready after the strike. But alas, the network only ordered 22 episodes, so we'll be presenting our usual length.
In "Mystery Spot," did Trickster really bend time or just Sam's mind (e.g., another dream-like experience akin to DaLDoM), or both? racestaffer
Kripke: Sorry to be Dungeon Master here, but again, I'm not gonna answer. What do you think?
In "All Hell Breaks Loose: Part 1," the YED said to Sam that he was looking for the best and brightest of your generation. Sam replied, "My generation?" and then the YED said there were others. My question is, was Mary or someone we know part of the other generations that the YED was talking about? chillgirl12
Kripke: Way to pay attention. Specifically, the YED was making a reference to children like the baby girl Rosie seen in the Season 1 episode "Salvation." If you remember, when John was tracking the Demon in Season 1, the pattern he discovered was that the YED was visiting children in their cribs on their 6-month birthdays, the same way that he visited Sam. So, over two decades later, the YED was repeating his old pattern, visiting a new generation of children. Presumably, there are generations older than Sam... and generations younger.
In recent interviews about the last episode of Season 3, a giant cliff-hanger was mentioned. I know you can't give anything away about Dean's deal, but is the "jaw-dropper" something about Mary ? nic875
Kripke: Nope. You gotta wait for the Mary information. It's coming in Season 4.
You said that the Demon war is now Season 4, so my question is, to what extent will we see it? Will it be like in "Jus in Bello," or will there be blow-out battles? Padackles13
Kripke: All right, here's a brutally too-honest answer: They will mostly be like "Jus in Bello" skirmishes and off-camera battles because we can't afford to produce actual blow-out battles. There's an interesting story behind all this: When Season 3 was beginning, the biggest note we received from the studio and the network was to open up the scope of the story, to make it more epic. We told them that costs money, and they said that they understood, but we should still go for it. The writers already knew that we wanted to release a bunch of new demons onto the landscape
. But we basically escalated it, increased our number of demons, turned it into a war, opened the Devil's Gate, all that. Then we produced "The Magnificent Seven," and it was way, way over budget, and that wasn't even full-scale war yet. Immediately the studio clamped down and said we had to stick to our budget for the rest of the season. We protested how do you present a war on our bargain budget? They basically said, "Figure it out." So here we are, a war without the money to mount it. And our Season 4 budget is even smaller than our Season 3 budget. Therefore, we'll be employing all kinds of tricks next year the war will be smaller, more contained, underground, more guerrilla-style. I actually think it'll improve the show. Looking back over Season 3, the spectacle and size is never as interesting as the episodes that focus on the brothers. I think we probably got a little too distracted at times. So in Season 4, there will still be the war, but we'll be presenting it in our scruffy, angsty, Supernatural way, and we'll return to concentrating on the relationships and the characters.
With all the debate about Bela, etc whom I personally don't mind I find myself wondering how much the displeasure or pleasure of the fans affects the direction of the show. Are you swayed or do you stick to your vision and hope they'll stick with you? islandgyal
Kripke: Here's another honest answer. The reality is, I have a core story that I want to tell, and I've never wavered from it, not once. It's the saga of the Winchester clan who the brothers really are, who their parents really are, why Demons are so closely intertwined with them, what their destiny really is. It's an epic, emotional family story at its heart, and to me, that's what Supernatural is really and truly about. Beyond that, story elements come and go, some are introduced, and others discarded. And whether we keep a storyline or toss it is based on several elements: the writers' opinions, the realities of actors' schedules, and yes, at times, the opinions of the fans. We value the fan response. It works as a kind of real-time audience testing. We never listen to specific comments
. But if the fans overwhelmingly reject something, over and over and over, on every website, we tend to pay attention to that. Again, I want to stress, it never alters the core story and central mythology; if the fans don't like that, then they should go watch Grey's. But if one of the outer-orbit, less important stories just isn't working, the writers don't feel so self-important that we need to keep it. There's always room to make the show better, and that means trying new things, keeping the things that work, losing the things that don't.
And finally, though it wasn't a posed question, I'd like to add one more thing: I love Ghostfacers (airing this Thursday at 9 pm/ET). I don't love every episode, but I think it turned out great, and it's one of my favorites. Go to CWTV.com/ghostfacers for a sneak preview and tons of outtakes.
|
TVGuide Links:
|
|
|
|
Apr 21, 2008 7:52 PM
|
Seems as if the CW is spending all its time and money trying to entice teenage girls to sit and watch a show that glorifies underage, continuous, mindless sex (dressed in the latest rich designer clothes all the while) with no hint of consequences on the horizon. They don't seem to be able to figure out why the little sexed-up darlings don't want to stay home in front of the TV.
They have a great show on their hands with Supernatural and they treat it like the proverbial stepchild. God forbid it should attract anyone over 14 due to its quality and innovative presentation. If they would spend a tenth of the energy and money on Supernatural that they throw away on Gossip Girl, they would -- well, they would obviously have someone else in charge besides Demon O.
Kripke, break out the holy water.
|
|
Apr 22, 2008 1:14 AM
|
So in Season 4, there will still be the war, but we'll be presenting it in our scruffy, angsty, Supernatural way, and we'll return to concentrating on the relationships and the characters.
That right there, is the BEST thing I could've read! Because it indicates a focus and a return to that magical formula that we fell in love with to begin with. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be character growth and introduction of a variety of new characters because that is the natural progression of a show, I'm simply saying that the show should not wander too far from it's "heart and soul." It was never sold to us as an ensemble therefore it should not attempt to make itself into one. And I have nothing against ensembles... I enjoy Heroes and Smallville for very different reasons. But Jensen Ackles and Jared Padalecki reached through our TV screens and grabbed hold of our hearts right in the Pilot. The two of them ARE Supernatural.
And as a footnote: no matter how wonderful a character may appear in development and on paper, it requires a talented actor to bring that character to real life. A well-conceived character in the hands of a skilled actor can win over the audience in just ONE episode, it doesn't take 4, 6, or 8 episodes to do it.
|
|
Apr 22, 2008 2:17 AM
|
|
Interesting interview. The network still makes me want to tear my hair out but Eric makes a good point. With the budget they're allowed it does force 'Supernatural' to focus on the relationship of the brothers and that's what knocked me off my feet in the first place. With everything bad, there's something good....
|
|
Apr 22, 2008 8:27 AM
|
Thanks to TVGuide for letting us ask these questions & many, many thanks to Eric for answering!
Pssst...is it Thursday yet?!?!?!
|
|
Apr 22, 2008 9:21 AM
|
> Again, I want to stress, it never alters
> the core story and central mythology; if the fans
> don't like that, then they should go watch
> Grey's.
Oh - is this a pot shot at Gizzie? If so I love it!!!! The Grey's staff does seem to alter things based on how the audience feels a bit too much, and I think it waters down there storytelling.
|
|
Apr 22, 2008 9:54 AM
|
|
Bella is my favorite part of Supernatural! She's a great foil for the boys. I don't think she makes them look stupid, as some fans have argued, I think she makes them look human. I hope she ultimately ends up working with them instead of against.
|
|
Apr 22, 2008 10:26 AM
|
|
The CW sucks big time. They have an even smaller budget? So that way Ostroff the Destroyer can focus more money and energy on her 90210 spin off, the soft porn Gossip Girls and mindless reality shows. Even though Supernatural has proven itself to be their most consistent performer. Smallville may get more viewers but it's also not as consistent.
|
|
Apr 22, 2008 10:50 AM
|
Thanks so much for the Q&A TV Guide.
We so love to hear more about our favorite show.
Hope you continue to give us more of this!
|
|
Apr 22, 2008 11:44 AM
|
Thanks so much for the Q&A TV Guide. We so love to hear more about our favorite show. Hope you continue to give us more of this!
Be sure to tune in for the Mitovich Mega Minute vodcast tomorrow.... — MWM
|
|
Apr 22, 2008 11:47 AM
|
Thanks for the interview, TVGuide - and for linking it prominently on your front page!
I do trust Kripke and his vision for the series, and I trust the folks he works with, especially Robert Singer, to keep the focus on the boys. They really are why I love this show - fighting evil as a family affair!
I do regret the budget woes, but it's not unexpected. The CW is not doing well, and it's not all a function of its programming: most of the people I speak to about Supernatural, when I say that it's on the CW, don't even recognize the name of the network, and usually say, "Oh, I don't get any of those cable channels." And this in a city where the CW has a broadcast affiliate with a clean and powerful signal! People still remember the WB (which used to own this particular station), but the CW hasn't even made an impression.
Admittedly, I'm biased in thinking that the CW could make more of an impression if it marketed the unique quality that is Supernatural, rather than touting cheap reality shows and aiming for an audience too young to have money to spend ...
|
|
Apr 22, 2008 11:57 AM
|
Be sure to tune in for the Mitovich Mega Minute vodcast tomorrow.... MWM
Thanks TV Guide! I definitely will!
Hi, Mary! Trust The Kripke--that's what we always say! Like you, I know he'll do a fantastic job even with the budget restrictions. Great writing, filming and acting isn't about having access to the biggest budgets.
|
|
Apr 22, 2008 12:09 PM
|
Amen, Ari!
Mary and Shutterbugs, I agree too - Trust the Kripke!
I have a core story that I want to tell, and I've never wavered from it, not once. It's the saga of the Winchester clan who the brothers really are, who their parents really are, why Demons are so closely intertwined with them, what their destiny really is. It's an epic, emotional family story at its heart, and to me, that's what Supernatural is really and truly about.
I can't wait to see what trials and tribulations EK has planned for the boys - and us!
|
|
Apr 22, 2008 12:39 PM
|
"I actually think it'll improve the show. Looking back over Season 3, the spectacle and size is never as interesting as the episodes that focus on the brothers. I think we probably got a little too distracted at times. So in Season 4, there will still be the war, but we'll be presenting it in our scruffy, angsty, Supernatural way, and we'll return to concentrating on the relationships and the characters."
Hallelujah!
1) Limitations definitely breed creativity. The show's most memorable moments haven't been the gory monstrous ones - they've been Dean crying at his father's grave, Sam afraid that he'll become infected in "Croatoan", and lines like "What am I supposed to do?" This works!
2) Focus on relationships and characters, a la Season 2? Perfect!
3) As Kripke himself has said, the less you show, the scarier it is. If a lower budget results in more shady, shadowed, psychological, mysterious evil, so much the better.
|
|
Apr 22, 2008 1:11 PM
|
THANK YOU so much for the interview with Eric Kripke. He is a genius and an all-around nice guy - he was so great to fans at the recent Supernatural convention in Los Angeles. I'm sad to hear that one of the four remaining shows will feature MORE Bela, but hopeful that we will be seeing the last of her - this is a character that simply doesn't work on any level.
The CW should give Supernatural lots more money - this is the best show they have. In fact, it's the best show on any network.
|
|
Apr 22, 2008 1:29 PM
|
|
|
