Supernatural - Article at NY Times
25 Feb 2011
SupernaturalThanks to Justin for the heads up.
Make sure you come back and let us know what your think about it in the comments.
In the absence of “Battlestar Galactica,” which ended its run two years ago, “Supernatural” is easily the most theistic series on television, its worldview rooted in the idea that a war is raging between heaven and hell. During the series’s first three seasons Dean, who speaks as if he were trying for chief-executive authority by forcing his voice down a few octaves, had been an atheist. (Let’s leave aside the fact that there are far easier avenues of employment for nonbelievers than combating Satan.) But saved by a surly angel during a bout of spiritual ugliness in the fourth season, Dean reconsiders his thinking.
“The show was not conceived with religion in mind,” said Sera Gamble, the head writer of “Supernatural.” “We consider ourselves to be a mishmash of all kinds of lore. We’re often afraid we’re going to offend religious people, but we’ve heard that some priests really love it.”
Source: Read the Full Article @ NY Times
LOL forever at this article.
ReplyDeleteBut yay for SPN getting this type of press!
Sorry, but no. Fringe is sooooo much better ;)
ReplyDeleteFringe fails at life.
ReplyDeleteSorry but you're wrong! Fringe is not better than Supernatural, never was, never will!
ReplyDeleteThe NY times are lucky that you can't leave comments...this article is pure crap!
ReplyDeleteI'm really glad that we got the press :-)
ReplyDeleteSo forgive the ignorance of a damn foreigner...but is the NY Times a big deal? Cause, while I guess any publicity is fantastically awesome.... once again we're painted as a bunch of teenage girls. Do these people do any research? They obviously need lessons from Sam.
ReplyDeleteLet me begin by saying that I appreciate the good, mainstream press that the NYT has given Supernatural with this article. It's obviously a favorable piece with nothing but good intentions.
ReplyDeleteWith that said, I really have to point out the completely random and rambling nature of this article. This piece seems to meander and jump trying to find a focus but never quite does. Whether it's trying to sum up the plot of the show, shining a spotlight on various themes like its theistic aspects, or just praising its entertainment value, the article never follows through with anything long enough be cohesive. Frankly, it's a mess.
It's cool that the New York Times would choose to single out Supernatural for a little journalistic lovin' but come on. This is the New York Times. The quality standards for writers should be much higher than this.
"Let’s leave aside the fact that there are far easier avenues of employment for nonbelievers than combating Satan."
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone else who doesn't believe in a religion find that as an attack on athiests or is it just that fact it's 7:30am here and I've just woken up so I'm reading it wrong?
Ok maybe I am reading it wrong. It does seem a bit like it's just pointing out the oddness of a "nonbeliever" fighting Satan.
ReplyDeleteYeah.... I mean, 15, really? But maybe we just look really young ;-) I think we should take it as a compliment! LOL
ReplyDeleteOh good. I thought it was just me...... so outraged by the first sentence I wasn't concentrating very hard on the rest.
ReplyDeleteAnd, I was trying so hard not to complain, but we have to - it's canon.
I kind of thought so too; at one point I thought it was turning into a dissertation on Religion on TV but then..nope.
ReplyDeleteIt's still great to see an article like this though! Thanks NYT!
(and I guess I can't complain about them saying that the fans are all 15 years old because I supposed that they ARE the loudest bunch)
First Sentence - SEXIST PIGS
ReplyDeleteRest of The Article - good reading,
Complain all you like. Whether it's form, focus, content, or accuracy, this article is poorly written.
ReplyDeleteI LIKE. I LIKE ALOT :D Although I get it with the thing about the first sentence, it's good press, right? ;)
ReplyDelete;) The trouble is, TV that 15 year old girls tend to like (generalising here) is not something I would go out of my way to watch. And this article is not actually recommending that anyone other than 15 year old girls should take a chance and watch it either. Once again a missed opportunity for SPN I'm thinking. BUT it IS something. YAY! :D
ReplyDeletealthough i can't really be offended by that first line (i turn 17 in 3 days), there were some parts of the article that really made no sense
ReplyDeleteat some times it was promoting the series but not at others
i did like reading that we have more viewers than gossip girl and an internet sensation
the fans of supernatural always make me happy
Yeah I couldn't tell whether the writer liked it or not....and I thought I was a fence sitter!
ReplyDeleteHappy Birthday for 3 days time :)
I'm grateful for the attention and I think that the writer had good intentions,but I'm not really impressed by the article..Maybe it's just me,but I think whoever wrote this didn't know where to begin and where to end.He simply threw things in there,like he didn't want to reach a certain conclusion..Again,perhaps it's me and I can't really explain what bothered me(my English isn't that good),but it felt pointless somehow.
ReplyDeleteNot to mention the comment about the 15 year old girls.That offended even me and I'm not that much older...
Still,it's good press..Also,it gave something to occupy myself with,cause I have to stay awake another 2 hours until the episode! ; )
Yeah, when I read the gossip girl thing I thought 'HA! Wish the CW saw that!'
ReplyDeletenot entirely sure what the hell u mean, ur comment makes no sense. What does religious shit have to do w/ being a non female non 15 year old? The article didnt have anything to do with female teen fans. not the best article, but this was a stupid comment as well dude.
ReplyDeletethanks :D
ReplyDeleteGlad SPN got press. Took slight offense at the ageist (I'm well over 15) and sexiest (don't more men watch SPN then women?) remarks. Took the most offense at the only child remark at the end. I'm an only child, I have friends with siblings, my husband has an older brother - I FREAKING UNDERSTAND SIBLING RELATIONSHIPS! Maybe the author was trying to be funny but out of all the generalizations in the article that one just irritated me to no end.
ReplyDeleteI love the brotherly relationship - its what the whole show is about so don't tell me that I can't understand it because I'm an only child.
i don't know if anyone has seen these but there's a youtube channel playing previews and snippits from the spn animation
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/user/SPNtheAnimation#p/u/3/fOccA5E9jQw
it sounds so weird it not being dean but its nice to here sammy's voice in it
and does anyone know how to get access to the full series or is it available yet or anything?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/05/the-10-youngest-shows-on_n_672226.html#s123543&title=Supernatural__The
ReplyDeleteMedian age for cw viewers is 33 - I'm way past that
LOL
ReplyDeleteThe first sentence from the full article.
ReplyDeleteAs someone who lives close to NY the Times isn't that big of a deal...it's like taxi cabs and pigeons - part of the city but I guess it has some clout and is considered in some circles the publication (some and probably very few circles). But it is widely read and popular so it is a big deal. As for doing research - for any Times writer that is debatable, though their Style section and Art section are good it's very mainstream, well known artist and the like.
ReplyDeleteHere's a link from Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times
/sigh.
ReplyDeleteI'm 34, not 15. Will they never learn? A voice cries out in the wilderness...
Not even sure I want to 'like' this page either - Glass half full: any publicity is good. Glass half empty: the article could have been waaaaay better.
ReplyDeleteI'm 16 and let me tell you the only people in my school who know SPN exists are the ones I've converted over (so two)
ReplyDeleteBut otherwise go press!
The first thing I looked for when I finished reading it was the comments section. How chicken of them if you can never leave comments on anything they print online. It is clear that the person who wrote it had never seen Supernatural and in all honesty, if I had read it before seeing the show, I would not try the show out. What a shame when it could have been a great plug for Supernatural. Surely someone on the staff watches Supernatural. Why not let them write about it?
ReplyDeleteYes, the Times is a big deal. It's one of the few papers that have subscribers beyond their geographical area. It is read across America. Well by some people who still get their news in paper form. It has some definite clout. None of their readers are going to watch Supernatural after hearing them describe it as a myth-heavy, pseudo-religious teen show. However, the upside is that most of the people reading their paper are beyond the targeted demographic anyway. At least I hope so.
ReplyDeletesame here
ReplyDeletewell, i pretty much blab about it everyday to everyone but none of them ever actually started watching it, so its still just me in a school of teenagers busy not watching supernatura
Very true. We often get people posting here that have a more cohesive argument about SPN. It's hard to believe this was actually published.
ReplyDeleteYou say your English "isn't that good" but you made a whole lot more sense than the writer did. Perhaps you have a future at the NY Times. :-P I think your English is pretty remarkable considering I could never say what you did in another language.
ReplyDeleteThanks so much for this link. It fits in nicely with an article I am writing about why I don't watch SPN.
ReplyDelete????? Why you don't watch SPN????
ReplyDeleteWhy you DON"T watch SPN? Sacrilege!
ReplyDeleteThe title will make sense when I've finished writing it. It's definitely a pro-SPN piece albeit somewhat misleading title.
ReplyDeletewait, so you do watch supernatural then?
ReplyDeletei'm confused
You had me do a crazy double take there, lol. I thought you had deserted us for a second there :( Don't do that to me, lol!!
ReplyDeleteI suspected something like that.....was just making sure...
ReplyDeleteThank you so much!
ReplyDeleteI'll consider working for the NY Times in the future.. ; )
In all honesty,SPN takes some credit for whatever English I'm talking..It really helps watching a show with no subtitles!
Didn't mean to cause an uproar here. I couldn't recap SPN if I didn't watch it. :-P Of course I love this show.
ReplyDeleteI really like and really don't like this article
ReplyDelete"Like" because it's giving the show some press. =) And how it talks about how the show is diverse. I also like how the talk about how close the brothers are. It's the meat and potatoes of the whole thing.
"Dislike" because of the edge they gave it. I don't think the author really watches the show or knows anyone who does. Most of us aren't 15 yr old girls. I'm 25 and my dad is 55 and we watch it together. =) Most of the pop cultural references are things from the 80's or if it's current pop culture it's well known.
But like I said, glad to have some press for the best show on tv.
Yeah, great they got the story in the NY Times, but I take exception at their comments about audience age. I'm well past beyond 'young adulthood'...I'm old enough to be the Winchesters' mom and I LOVE this show!
ReplyDeleteYou're right, they (most readers) are most definitely beyond the targeted demographic for SPN, the CW and the 18-49 year old market in general. They also have an online form too so it's global now. I see more people reading The Post, AM New York, and Metro in a given day then the NYT.
ReplyDeleteI think if the writer was more concerned about expressing a concise point and not making literary or pop culture references the story would have been more effective. Sometimes a writer can go overboard makign a point and in the end lose the escense of what they were attempting to say and come off cluttered. That article was a mess to me. Mostly positive okay, but meandering and in dire need of a lot of editor's red ink.
ReplyDeleteTwo voices cry out in the wilderness ;)
ReplyDeleteI don't think there's enough space in your wilderness for all of us crying out. :-)
ReplyDeleteWow. That article was... crap. Not to mention hard to read. The author has apparently never watched an episode of SPN and still manages to get most things wrong. Like actually believing it has any kind of similarity to any other show on the CW. I do appreciate the attention, but before you write something, you should really know something about it. It reads like the author read a bunch of press reports about the show then just plugged in out of context pieces to make a point.
ReplyDeleteI'm not 15, and I don't know any 15 year old who would watch this show. (the few who've seen glimpses when at my house have deemed it too scary!) So, thanks for the press, but unless you have a real point about the real aspects of a show, try not to write about it. It doesn't serve any purpose.
FYI, there's an option to send that author an email on that site. All you have to do is click on the link to take you to the article, click on the authors name and click to email that person. Let that hack of an author know what we all think about their article.
ReplyDeleteThanks for that...the first thing I did after I read it was to look for the comment box. Next time maybe they'll do some homework (after taking some writing classes)
ReplyDeleteJust curious: I noticed the article at the top is noted as: "Published: February 25, 2011" while at the bottom it reads: "A version of this article appeared in print on February 27, 2011, on page AR18 of the New York edition." Appeared? As in past tense? Sunday is the 27th and unless I have been angel-zapped into an alternate reality, that's still a day in the future.
ReplyDeleteSeriously? Why are people so offended by the article? I LOL'd at the mistakes and moved on. Why are people so up in arms about it? No wonder peeps think the SPN fandom is crazier than a barrel full of monkeys. Touchy touchy. Sheesh.
ReplyDelete"Every press is good press" as they say, but the writer obviously should've done his/her research better.
ReplyDeleteI always laugh that we are seen as a bunch of 15 year-old girls, I mean really XD
And well maybe it's just me, but it felt like the writer recommends the show for teenagers, which is funny considering that it just got out that Supernatural's avarage viewer age is 36!
The writer also obviously never watched the show either as there were quite some mistakes in the article.
But okay, NY Times is NY Times, it's good that at least the show is out there, its existence is awknowledged at least.
My father is 69 and got me into the show. I'm a thirty-two year old female and utterly addicted. While I'm glad that the show is getting mainstream press, it's comments like "15 year old female" as the supposedly standard viewer which make me think that this show continues not to get the respect it deserves.
ReplyDeleteShine on, SPN. You rock. <3
The New York Times is considered a pretty high-brow newspaper. A few years back they got into a bit of a scandal because one of their writers was caught plagiarizing, and it was a scandal because it was "The New York Times," not some tabloid. I disagree with the 15-year-old comment too, but the fact that the editors even allowed an article on Supernatural means that to some extent they consider Supernatural to be "respectable" enough to make it into their paper in what was overall a positive article - which isn't nothing considering SPN features vampires, warewolves, and a lot of other critters that tend to get laughed at. With that said, though, I don't think the author was recommending to its viewers to watch the show, but was instead attempting to write commentary on a part of the pop culture.
ReplyDeleteRead the full article.
ReplyDelete"IF you are neither 15 years old nor the sort of person for whom the term fan fiction has an ounce of resonance, then chances are that ”Supernatural” is not in your DVR queue or even in your frame of reference."
ReplyDeleteGet the offensive part now !?
I think that's why they turned them off lol
ReplyDeleteit's clear that the bitch Ginia Bellafante, who wrote the article, doesn't like the show or hasn't even seen it and just got stuck with writing it. The article is full of hidden insults to SPN and ignorance about the show..
ReplyDeleteBeing a male and 23, the first sentence was a bit offensive. However, since watching the show from the very first episode, I know Supernatural doesn't get too much promotion or press so I'm happy with the article.
ReplyDeleteBeing male and 23, the first sentence was a bit offensive. However, since watching the show from the very first episode, I know Supernatural doesn't get too much promo or press so I appreciate it.
ReplyDeleteAll I know is that I'm in love with this show...and SPN,way to go!!! NY Times-featured means FAME! :D :D :D
ReplyDeleteOk how freaking small world weird is this? I actually attended an opening and a dinner with one of the NYT Friday Art section writers (not the one that did the SPN review) tonight. So from the little I talked to her she actually does research (very extensive research) unlike most of the writers (my opinion). But she does only small exhibits that wouldn't be covered by the regular NYT no tv reviews.
ReplyDeleteSmall world.