![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
penfold_xSpoilers for 4x01 (but nothing beyond that) under the cut:
I mentioned in my initial gush that I had thought Kripke had definitively stated that the show would not feature any angelic characters, but I couldn't remember where and when I read that. Buddytv had the same recollection and dug up Kripke's November 2007 TV Guide interview:
We have a firm belief in the cosmology of this show that evil, in terms of demons, etc, is very tangible and real and out there. Angels and supernatural forces of good are much more elusive. But in my opinion — and the opinion of the writers — if God is out there, he isn't sending angels to fight the battles; he's working through a very human, sweaty, outgunned and overwhelmed group of hunters. For us, these are the angels. I think the point that's very important to us to make is that the forces of good work through humans who are flawed and imperfect and trying to make the right decisions. And that's the way God works. So we try to present that.
This is precisely the sentiment I remember reading, and why I am somewhat skeptical of Castiel's nature. Wouldn't it be just like Kripke to put angels on the show (something I believe he has been asked about a number of times), but thwart our expectations by making them neutral or even negative forces? However, it could also just been that Kripke always intended to go down this road and needed to give a firm denial in order not to spoil folks on what was to come (and maybe Mary's belief in angels was always intended as a hint in that direction). Or he had dismissed the idea of angels but was persuaded when a writer presented the idea to him in a format he thought was original and interesting (two adjectives I'd use for Castiel).
While I was poking around trying to find the above quote, I found another interview in which Kripke somewhat backtracks his November 2007 firm denial of angels in the Supernatural universe. It's from a transcript of the Supernatural con in Los Angeles, April 2008:
Q: In another interview you said that you would never tackle angels or the existence of God, so how does that…
EK: how does it all work? What I had said is that we weren’t going to necessarily see positive, glowing, ethereal versions of Supernatural because for one it’s not necessarily scary and two we’re not like that Touched by an Angel stuff. But down and dirty versions of different factions are a possibility. I’ve also learned to never-say-never, just as long as we can find a cool, bada** sort of way to do something.
I'm don't think that's exactly what he told TV Guide, but that's quite possibly what he meant. So perhaps he has been open to the idea, depending upon the execution. I am somewhat troubled by the "down and dirty versions of different factions" language. Would Kripke portray angels as the moral equivalent of demons (just another faction in a war) or does he mean that angels will not look like what we might expect from the soft-focus, pop culture image? Castiel's portrayal is much more in line with the historical Christian and Jewish portrayal of angles a frightening and awe-inspiring (as opposed to cuddly and approachable).
I suppose I'll just have to wait. Curse you, Kripke! *shakes tiny fist*
I mentioned in my initial gush that I had thought Kripke had definitively stated that the show would not feature any angelic characters, but I couldn't remember where and when I read that. Buddytv had the same recollection and dug up Kripke's November 2007 TV Guide interview:
We have a firm belief in the cosmology of this show that evil, in terms of demons, etc, is very tangible and real and out there. Angels and supernatural forces of good are much more elusive. But in my opinion — and the opinion of the writers — if God is out there, he isn't sending angels to fight the battles; he's working through a very human, sweaty, outgunned and overwhelmed group of hunters. For us, these are the angels. I think the point that's very important to us to make is that the forces of good work through humans who are flawed and imperfect and trying to make the right decisions. And that's the way God works. So we try to present that.
This is precisely the sentiment I remember reading, and why I am somewhat skeptical of Castiel's nature. Wouldn't it be just like Kripke to put angels on the show (something I believe he has been asked about a number of times), but thwart our expectations by making them neutral or even negative forces? However, it could also just been that Kripke always intended to go down this road and needed to give a firm denial in order not to spoil folks on what was to come (and maybe Mary's belief in angels was always intended as a hint in that direction). Or he had dismissed the idea of angels but was persuaded when a writer presented the idea to him in a format he thought was original and interesting (two adjectives I'd use for Castiel).
While I was poking around trying to find the above quote, I found another interview in which Kripke somewhat backtracks his November 2007 firm denial of angels in the Supernatural universe. It's from a transcript of the Supernatural con in Los Angeles, April 2008:
Q: In another interview you said that you would never tackle angels or the existence of God, so how does that…
EK: how does it all work? What I had said is that we weren’t going to necessarily see positive, glowing, ethereal versions of Supernatural because for one it’s not necessarily scary and two we’re not like that Touched by an Angel stuff. But down and dirty versions of different factions are a possibility. I’ve also learned to never-say-never, just as long as we can find a cool, bada** sort of way to do something.
I'm don't think that's exactly what he told TV Guide, but that's quite possibly what he meant. So perhaps he has been open to the idea, depending upon the execution. I am somewhat troubled by the "down and dirty versions of different factions" language. Would Kripke portray angels as the moral equivalent of demons (just another faction in a war) or does he mean that angels will not look like what we might expect from the soft-focus, pop culture image? Castiel's portrayal is much more in line with the historical Christian and Jewish portrayal of angles a frightening and awe-inspiring (as opposed to cuddly and approachable).
I suppose I'll just have to wait. Curse you, Kripke! *shakes tiny fist*
