The Winchesters and yet another TV fiasco

I am currently three-quarters through the second episode of the Supernatural (SN) spin-off/prequel The Winchesters (TW)—and it is time to give up again.

Now, I was not optimistic to begin with, in light of the often low quality of current TV and how even the last few seasons of SN did not hold up that well. However, TW is almost scarily bad quality-wise. For instance, three of the five* main actors do not even have a Wikipedia page at the moment and the quality of the cast in terms of ability is very disputable. (Ditto script writing and whatnot.) In contrast, SN started off with two well-established, if young, actors, one of which (Jensen Ackles) was extremely talented, and further characters added were usually very well cast. Moreover, in terms of concept, I strongly suspect that a continuation of two-against-the-world would have worked better, just replacing the brothers (Sam and Dean) with their parents (John and Mary). Even two-against-the-world aside, the new series does not feel like it belongs in the same universe, being more of a random series dealing with supernatural events.

*Wikipedia mentions six, including John’s mother/the grand-mother of Sam and Dean, but the actual “Scooby gang” consists of five youngsters. (With reservations, here and elsewhere, for what might happen during the rest of the series.)

Going by just quality, I see a cancellation of TW after the first season looming—while SN ran for 15 (!) seasons. (And going by episode count, the difference would likely be even larger, as SN belonged to the 2x-episodes-per-season era, while most current series range between 6 and 12.)

As if this is not enough, there is a massive issue with woke casting and characterization:

Of the five main characters, one is a heterosexual White male and one a heterosexual White woman—the parents, John and Mary, who are hard to avoid. However, John has a suspiciously borderline Hispanic (or Mediterranean?) look and is, of course, a complete newbie to fighting evil, who has to be lead by the hand by Mary.

The remaining three? Respectively, a flamingly and ridiculously stereotyped gay Hispanic, a Black woman, and an Indian (Hindu) woman. So, two Whites to three non-Whites, and one straight man to four women or gays. (Also note that the series is set in the 1970s, with a radically different demographic situation than today.)

TW, on the other hand, was one of the few shows to still keep a reasonably apolitical casting, with a clear target group of male viewers* and where old-school male heroes were still allowed. Through the early theme of the two brothers driving around in a car fighting evil, it was arguably the ultimate in “male buddies” series. Sadly, it often seems that exactly such series and movies are targeted for after-the-fact destruction through inferior and woke reboots, spin-offs, etc. Consider e.g. “Ghost Busters”, “Star Trek”, “Star Wars”, and the development of the various Marvel movies.

*Something not to be underestimated. One of the problems with current TV shows is that they lean towards female viewers in a very disproportionate manner.

Excursion on gay portrayals:
The portrayal of gays is often, as here, very “in the face” in a destructive manner—and one unlikely to do real-life gays any favors. (Contrast this with Cam and Mitchell on “Modern Family” for a better way—still gay, but not flaming, provocative, or generally idiotic. Cam and Mitchell are humans first, gay second.) A particular problem with gay portrayals, many drag queens, and whatnot, is a complete lack of understanding of aesthetics. Just throwing some female mannerisms or female clothes, let alone make-up, onto a man does not make for the same result. Firstly, it is not a given that what is aesthetic in combination with one person is so with another. Secondly, there must be a reasonable consistency. Combining, as here, female/gayish mannerisms with a borderline uni-brow and an almost cave-man face is not a good idea. Thirdly, in terms of reaching a certain look, men and women have different strengths and weaknesses, and (if a similar look is at all attempted), this must be taken into consideration, e.g. by taking care to counter the typically coarser features of the male face. Failure to do so can not only lead to a lack of aesthetics but to an outright ugly, off-putting, and/or clownish result—as, on all three counts, here. (Contrast this, again, with Cam and Mitchell, while excepting Cam’s actual circus clowning. It might even be argued that circus clowns deliberately go for clashes and exaggerations that do not work in order to achieve a humorous purpose.)

(Similar remarks apply more widely, e.g. in that a dress that works for a woman with one type of body-shape need not work for a woman with another type, in that a certain hairstyle might work with one face but not another, in that Black women typically need a different color palette for make-up than White women, and in that color of clothes must be sufficiently compatible. Ditto, for a more manly example, combinations of design elements for cars that might seem “cool”, when taken individually, but simply do not work well when thrown together on the same car.)