MovieChat Forums > Supernatural (2005) Discussion > Is 'Supernatural' Needlessly Killing of...

Is 'Supernatural' Needlessly Killing off Female Characters?

posted 7 years ago by Virile Manifestation of the Divine (1020)
40 replies | jump to latest

From BuddyTV
------------------

As Supernatural nears the end of season 12, the bodies are starting to pile up. Lucifer is loose once again, the British Men of Letters are hunting the American hunters and that is not to mention all the normal threats that Supernatural characters face.It's a hard time to be a hunter on Supernatural but it is an even worse time to be a female hunter and recognizable character. In back-to-back episodes Supernatural killed off two prominent female characters and both deaths were not exactly inspiring or heroic sacrifices. Fans aren't happy and while this isn't the first time Supernatural has come under fire for how it has dealt with its female characters, it is still troubling.

The Fine Line Between Tragedy and Sadism

It is true that one of the prominent female characters to meet an untimely end could come back. Alicia died in "Twigs and Twins and Tasha Banes" but she was "resurrected" by the end of the episode by her brother Max as a twig doll. Alicia's death and the way she was brought back was no different than the countless times that Sam or Dean have died only to be brought back by the surviving brother. If Sam and Dean can defy the odds Alicia and Max should be given a second chance. It's a parallel that will almost certainly be brought up again whenever Max and "Alicia" return.

Alone, Alicia's death wouldn't have been that egregious. It could have been ignored and moved on from if Supernatural hadn't followed up "Twigs and Twins and Tasha Banes" with "There's Something About Mary," an episode which opened with unceremonious death of fan-favorite character Eileen. (...) The issue with Eileen and Alicia's deaths aren't really that they happened, it is the disrespectful and needlessly cruel ways they occurred.

[–] Virile Manifestation of the Divine (1020) 7 years ago

2/2

Eileen died in the cold open running for her life with her face partially obscured. Eileen wasn't a long-running Supernatural character but she was still a very well-liked, capable and strong character. Eileen went out like any of the countless victims that open a standard Supernatural episode. In her death scene it wasn't even clear that Eileen was the one being killed. It isn't quite as awful as Charlie dying off-screen but it is nearly as bad. This is not even to mention that the show had Eileen write a letter to Sam and Dean where she used the slightly misogynistic phrase "acting like a girl" to describe being afraid. (...)

Fool Me Once, Twice, Thrice, Too Many Times to Count

(...) Crowley surviving where Eileen didn't brings up one of the big issues with Supernatural. The show does kill a lot of characters, male and female alike, but they bring back the male characters much more than the female ones. (...)

This doesn't change Supernatural's pattern of using female characters to further the plot and turning them into less of characters and more of props that cause the male characters to feel sad. With Eileen's death every major Winchester love interest, with the exception of Lisa and Amelia, has died, and that's a serious pattern and problem. Alicia was the more dominant and interesting twin between Max and herself and now she is a literal thing.

But what do you think? Is there a problem with the way Supernatural has treated its female characters lately? Were Eileen and Alicia's deaths necessary? Were you shocked or saddened by Eileen's death? Should Supernatural have had Ketch kill someone else? Do you think the real Alicia could ever come back?

Source: http://www.buddytv.com/articles/supernatural/is-supernatural-needlessly-kil-64650.aspx

[–] CluelessDrifter (884) 7 years ago

I don't know. I'm all for equal opportunity of being killed on this show, but I think I'll wait to see what happens to Mary and Rowena before I decide on whether women are treated unfairly. They're tied on the number of episodes at 23. In one of Rowena's, she was a hallucination, and in three of Mary's, she was either part of a djinn dream, a faulty heaven memory, or a persona adopted by Eve. I guess, I'd say the character of Rowena has had 22 episodes and the character of Mary 20, but the character of Mary has been felt more throughout the series. The point being that except for Bobby, Mary and Rowena have been in the most episodes out of any of the other characters not named Dean, Sam, Cas, or Crowley.

This show has made Misha, Mark, and Mark regulars. I think Samantha probably has a better shot of being given regular status than Ruth, but even that's iffy. Like I said, I'll wait and see what they do with their characters. I hope they don't kill off Rowena just because they're keeping Mary. I'd rather keep Rowena, and I don't see why it needs to be either/or, and I don't see why either one couldn't be given regular status (other than Mary was destroyed this year and is no longer liked by many).

As far as Eileen's death goes, I think they should've given her a better send off that showed how capable she was. They seemed to give her less time than they typically give the unknown victims in the cold open. They didn't even really need to use her though. It could've just as easily been Garth to get the right emotion from Sam and Dean. Garth's also not a character that's really going to come back. His story's been told, so to kill Eileen, who had more potential story to explore was stupid. If they kill Garth off in the next episode, then he and Eileen could've switched places on the order of their deaths, and I think it would've been more acceptable than what we got. If he doesn't, it was still a big mistake to kill her from a story perspective and seems suspect.

[–] Virile Manifestation of the Divine (1020) 7 years ago

hey seemed to give her less time than they typically give the unknown victims in the cold open.

She didn't even get the attention the victim-of-the-week usually gets.

[–] CluelessDrifter (884) 7 years ago

It is true that one of the prominent female characters to meet an untimely end could come back. Alicia died in "Twigs and Twins and Tasha Banes" but she was "resurrected" by the end of the episode by her brother Max as a twig doll. Alicia's death and the way she was brought back was no different than the countless times that Sam or Dean have died only to be brought back by the surviving brother. If Sam and Dean can defy the odds Alicia and Max should be given a second chance. It's a parallel that will almost certainly be brought up again whenever Max and "Alicia" return.

And I have to disagree that they brought Alicia back. She died. What we have now is a twig doll that has Alicia's memories and that has to obey her brother's every command (not that I think Max would make her do anything, but that's how the magic works).

[–] Pondlass1 (122) 7 years ago

The actress portraying Eileen has another gig. Supernatural will probably only last one more season so TPTB figured Eileen will never be back so - for some extra shock - let's just kill her off violently.

It wasn't shocking. It was heartbreaking and it was wrong. They just don't get what viewers want any more. Eileen was loved by pretty much everyone. I just adored that the actress's nose was red during a cold rainy night scene and make-up didn't fix it. That red nose made Eileen so real and endearing to me. Plus she was a genuine badass and she was smart. Not contrived like Mary (super hunter extraordinaire)

She should have remained alive and maybe the boys mentioned her once in a while during an episode and we all would've smiled. The show is missing its heart.

RIP Eileen.

[–] aduty1 (160) 7 years ago

Exactly. DJ Qualls had another show and was unavailable and they still gave Garth a happy retirement. There is nothing to say that Eileen wouldn't have been available for one shot episodes or cameos. The biggest loss is there was so much potential for the character. I'm not saying characters should never be killed but at least recognize that there is a lot of material that can be mined from them before that happens. This is always been a problem with the show going all the way back to Kripke. I still think Pamela Barnes and Agent Hendrickson should have been developed further...a huge waste.

[–] Virile Manifestation of the Divine (1020) 7 years ago

I was a fan of Victor's. I also think Pamela had more life left in her.

[–] fishpan (544) 7 years ago

At least Victor's and Pamela's deaths made sense in terms of story.

Eileen's tho? She was a literal ragdoll being torn apart by a dog. That was cruelty upon cruelty as if you think about it there were four women in that last episode

2 became puppets/toys to be controlled or disposed of
2 were evil bitches

All four used to cause reactions in male characters.

1- Eileen's death in Sam
2. Mary on her knees to cause Ketch's obvious story of his own brain washing to be placed in our heads
3. Hess uber bitchness to shut Crowley up
4. Toni's bitchness to cause Dean to slam on the breaks

None were necessary for the over riding arc and were basically wrong and not only that treated me as an audience member as an idiot - Mary and Eileen's plights same thing! Hess and Toni being cartoon evil same thing!

As for the actress who plays Eileen, I'm glad she has another gig. She is a brilliant actress but I also get she hasn't gotten the exposure to turn round and not take a paying gig which the end of Eileen was.

[–] Bella-UK (1282) 7 years ago

When you start to analyze this show and break it down the one thing that stands out is DEATH. Even the character Death has been killed off. So other or sometimes even the leads have been killed off in some way or other. It's a journey we've all been on wondering how long a character will last, and what affect that character will have upon us? Writing a death cannot be easy when you think how you have to end a character, and who decides that character's death and gives them the final goodbye. It must be horrible for a writer to finish a character when they've been the one who created them. I take my hat off to writers sometimes because it cannot be easy ending someone who's been a big part of their writing career. Notable death's stand out to me, have been few and far between, but even those who haven't still leave me feeling rather nauseous. I don't know how they do it.

RIP Eileen, you will be missed.

[–] CluelessDrifter (884) 7 years ago

The actress portraying Eileen has another gig. Supernatural will probably only last one more season so TPTB figured Eileen will never be back so - for some extra shock - let's just kill her off violently.

I agree that in part it had something to do with The Chances being picked up by AMC, but that's a 6 episode series (one she co-writes, but she obviously managed to co-write it while given the odd Supernatural episode here and there). DJ Qualls, has also been busy since he left the show. If they kill Garth in the next episode, I'll say fair play on getting rid of actors who can no longer do the show, male or female, but if they don't, I'll wonder.

"She should have remained alive and maybe the boys mentioned her once in a while during an episode and we all would've smiled."

Exactly. I think as well that it wouldn't have taken a whole lot to get her to do the odd Skype phone call here and there or even one episode a year.

"The show is missing its heart.

I agree. In the Rate 12x01 thread at the start of the season, I wrote:

"It felt like it was missing a whole lot of heart and soul. That's the only way I can explain it (...) overall except for in the odd moments, it felt like I was watching faces I knew using names I recognize, but there was something seriously lacking, and it had nothing to do with the brothers being separated, because that's not a factor for me. It didn't feel like Supernatural to me."

And that's a feeling that has persisted for me throughout the season. Their interactions with other characters are sparse and superficial. Their interactions with one another are sparse and superficial. The show keeps killing off characters that could help flesh out the story better. It's not just that Eileen was killed. It's all these other problems on top of that, and that the writers don't see killing her in the way they did was again superficial. Sigh.

[–] Pondlass1 (122) 7 years ago

Their interactions with one another are sparse and superficial

So true! The amount of writing dedicated to characterization has been abysmal this season. It's just kill, kill, kill. New characters are flat and one-dimensional. Mick just started being interesting and - well, can't have that... let's kill him off!

And we have no clue regarding motives or reasons why for anyone about anything.

I'm not asking for soap - but, come on, we need conversations and reactions between our characters. Instead we get info dumps. Lady Twat has to explain Mary to her sons. Why couldn't we have had a heartfelt 'mother and child reunion' (as the song goes) at the beginning of the season.

They miss so many opportunities.

[–] CluelessDrifter (884) 7 years ago

New characters are flat and one-dimensional. Mick just started being interesting and - well, can't have that... let's kill him off!

Yeah, a lot of people were upset that they killed Mick too, and it's probably because the writers were just starting to flesh him out more. It's just one thing after another this season in a demonstration of bad writing and not understanding characterization or how important it is, so when we get it, and they kill the character, it is infuriating.

[–] Bella-UK (1282) 7 years ago

Again, if they can't see her coming back, they get rid of her in a dramatic way. It's just the way writers seem to work, and not just on this show.

[–] CluelessDrifter (884) 7 years ago

Except there's no indication here that she couldn't come back for the odd episode or skype chat. Kathryn Newton did Big Little Lies and has 3 movies coming out in the next year or so, and they still found a way to fit her in for an episode this season.

[–] fishpan (544) 7 years ago

Bella, usually I would agree with you but Eileen's death unlike Charlie's a couple of years before didn't even drive immediate plot as there were other hunters who had died so the brothers could have made the connection to the MoL through them and the bug planted by the men of letters was so large eventually that table was going to crack.

They didn't even show us that Ketch and co had to use an invisible animal against her to show that she was so competent that the only way to kill her was to use her disability against her. They just went straight there in the episode and a letter read out by Sam and Dean doesn't give us any real info that couldn't be sourced elsewhere or confirm that the MoL had to use something invisible to get her. The only real takeaway was Sam was hurt by Eileen's death.

But really did they have to do it? Bring someone back to do the whole kill of someone potentially significant in the one of the brother's lives. Because that is why they chose her to bring back and then kill. To emotionally manipulate us when Sam had his wobbly lip. They brought her back because everyone went Eileen was great in her intro and had a spark with Sam, nothing more.

Plot wise her death did nothing. We know the MoL are scum, we know the other hunters are being killed, we know the brothers are going to go head to head with them. Mary's message should have been enough to kick the plot onward and fitting Crowley's working with Hess would also have been easy to sort out.

The only thing Eileen's death did was confirm that even a twitch of Sam's penis in a woman's direction can now mark them for death and that isn't a plot point! But even if it was killing her in the manner they did to confirm that wasn't necessary.

So even if the writers didn't want to bring her back ever, they never had to mention her again. As an audience we would have accepted that she just disappeared to Ireland and we would never know if the MoL got her or not.

[–] Bella-UK (1282) 7 years ago

I agree that they shouldn't have killed her in the way they did. It was savage and uncalled for. And as you say doesn't move the plot forward in anyway just to have her fancy Sam and he is upset over her death. Is the same gonna happen to Garth and Claire, even though Mary has found out there on the MoL hit list to be murdered next? Not sure what they are trying to prove in being brutal in their kills. Has Ketch been brainwashed just like Mary into killing so coldly? Even Lucifer was evil in the way he killed Crowley, unlike anything we've ever seen him act before? Is this the theme of the season, how people, monsters are killed?

[–] aduty1 (160) 7 years ago

Its the upside down world Dabb and crew live in. Controversial characters (Garth and Claire) live on where a segment of fans despise them and want them gone. Others (Mary and Toni) are hated by a large majority of fans and they live on. Characters that seem to be growing a fan base and we want to see more of, dead in a few episodes. Its like Dabb thinks that no matter how hated a character is he can turn the audience around. Mary is ruined. There is nothing he can do to save her. So instead of seeing new characters (Eileen and Mick) with interesting stories next season we will get more J2 off day cut away scenes to whatever political Hell and Heaven drama Cas and Crowley are involved in.

[–] CluelessDrifter (884) 7 years ago

Controversial characters (Garth and Claire) live on where a segment of fans despise them and want them gone. Others (Mary and Toni) are hated by a large majority of fans and they live on. Characters that seem to be growing a fan base and we want to see more of, dead in a few episodes.

This. The disliked characters last way too long, and the characters with promise are gone too soon.

As I said, I'm all for this show killing people. It's supposed to be a horror show. In fact, I wish it was grittier, scarier, creepier, wittier, take your pick, instead of soapy with a twist of camp humor, the way it's sometimes gone in recent years. But even in horror shows, especially in TV horror shows when you have the time to create a whole character, you have to have characters that you care about before they die. Even though you know they won't survive, you cheer them on or route for the killer if you don't like the character.

Here they're just putting in the bare minimum on characterization (even our leads this season) and if we do get some kind of character building, then the show kills those characters straight away without a chance to further build them up and kill them in a decent way. They should be heroes of their own stories, and if they die, it should mean something, not just be something that's thrown in at the start of an episode without any real purpose.

[–] fishpan (544) 7 years ago

I agree I have no idea what they are trying to achieve with the brutality here. I know it is a horror show but the subtly that would make that brutality a truly horrific twist this season isn't there. The brutality is there for brutality sake because there is no real twists outside Mary and Sam lied about working with the men of letters.

Because the minute Mick described how werewolves were killed in the UK you knew Garth's head could be on the block. If we needed a brutal twist on that one have a Mary reconcile with her sons and be attacked by a middle aged female werewolf and have the brothers save their mother then find out the woman attacked Mary because Mary and the men of letters killed her family which included her infant grandchildren and the woman has the recording of the baby monitor where the child suffocated to death from the gas grenade Mary threw into the house.

The minute Ketch put a bullet in Mick's brain, Claire and other hunters were know to be also on the block if the MoL got them in their sights. If you wanted a brutal twist for that have the Men of letters actual kill the hunters while working with them - so setting it up that the US hunters are incompetent and set doubt in the brothers mind who was at fault for the deaths.

The minute the school was introduced and the methods used explained indoctrination and brainwashing was raised as a possibility for why Ketch is like he is. And it was confirmed by Mary's treatment. If you want a brutal twist have Mary capture Claire and have her experimented/brainwashed on because she survived the cure & is thought to have potential as she is young so even could be sent to that school after conditioning.

Each of those things could drive plot but Eileen's death was like hitting us over the head with what we knew. It was like running in with a fire hose and hitting someone with a full blast after the person showered while screaming

'Don't believe us!! WATER IS FUCKING WET!!!!!!!'

[–] Strannger (2007) 7 years ago

I loved Ellen and her daughter Jo. I felt they could've lasted longer. Season five broke my heart.

[–] fishpan (544) 7 years ago

Yes I agree it broke my heart too. Jo and Ellen's death's and their return spots hurt like they should.

However what the manner of their deaths didn't do was piss me off.

[–] aduty1 (160) 7 years ago

I really liked Ellen. Another wasted opportunity. She was the perfect example of being a badass without having to prove she was a badass. There weren't episodes devoted to her saving the boys after they got beat down or her carving through a hundred vampires with a pen knife. She just exuded confidence and toughness. She did have a good death though and I did get a kick out of her message to Dean through the psychic.

[–] CluelessDrifter (884) 7 years ago

However what the manner of their deaths didn't do was piss me off.

I agree. It didn't feel gimmicky. Jo and Ellen went out the heroes of their own stories and on their own terms.

[–] cassiopeia (528) 7 years ago

I can barely watch that scene of Ellen and Jo's death without uncontrollably crying. Gets me everytime. But the did go out like hero's and not plot devices. I loved that.

[–] jpollock73 (799) 7 years ago

We so need a like button. Ellen was awesome. She took no shtt and would tell u straight up what she was thinking. Jo was just coming into her own as a character,.

[–] Pondlass1 (122) 7 years ago

All good plot ideas, fishpan. These writers just go for the shock and forget that their audience needs to be invested too.

If they're planning on killing Mary in the season finale - I don't think it's going to have the impact they intend. We hardly know the woman and what we do know - we don't like.

[–] Virile Manifestation of the Divine (1020) 7 years ago

The only thing Eileen's death did was confirm that even a twitch of Sam's penis in a woman's direction can now mark them for death and that isn't a plot point!

😱 Fishpan!!! lol.

I remember someone asking if Sam slept with Eileen after her death scene.
I was hoping he had broken the curse with Amelia who's still alive.

[–] fishpan (544) 7 years ago

Yeah then they did what they did to Sarah and I just thought maybe Amelia copp'd it off screen.

And can you tell me any other relative plot point we got from Eileen's death with regard to the brothers that couldn't be shown in another way?

[–] CluelessDrifter (884) 7 years ago

And can you tell me any other relative plot point we got from Eileen's death with regard to the brothers that couldn't be shown in another way?

You mean like finding the monster bug that's been right next to Dean's holster for weeks now? Or having one of the other random 6 hunters that died off screen being killed by a hellhound, so the writers could connect Crowley to the BMoL for the first time? Or, you know, get 10 seconds of emotion out of the brothers when they figure out that Mary's disappearance is BMoL related (which is roughly how much emotion-time we got out of them for the loss of Eileen)?

[–] fishpan (544) 7 years ago

Yeah completely!!!!

The only thing Eileen's death was good for is showing that the writers think that Sam needs castrating because his penis of death has suddenly sprouted new powers!

Hell dropping a pencil under that table or nominal cleaning should have made the brothers discover that bug.

Six hunters when Jodi has become the centre of a hunting network - a single phonecall not even a hell hound was needed.

Parking Crowley, as much as I felt parking him was so forced because he was the one character able to go toe to toe with a global organisation, him saying 'I'm busy with my own stuff. Aren't you capable of deal with your human problem yourselves.' would still been in character.

[–] CluelessDrifter (884) 7 years ago

Parking Crowley, as much as I felt parking him was so forced because he was the one character able to go toe to toe with a global organisation, him saying 'I'm busy with my own stuff. Aren't you capable of deal with your human problem yourselves.' would still been in character.

Yeah, I hated them throwing Crowley in with the BMoL story line. There hadn't been any hints of it all season, so it felt really shoehorned in at the last second. Unless they were trying to explain away Bella selling her soul in the UK years after the BMoL claimed to have started their crackdown, I see no reason for any of that to have happened. I was happy enough thinking that the BMoL were just too inept to notice the odd crossroads demon in their country, since they've been inept in lots of other ways this season. The only people shown to be more inept than them this season were the Winchesters for not knowing anything about anything and going along with the BMoL, Crowley for keeping Lucifer and thinking he can raise the nephilim, like he tried to do with Amara, and Cas (the jury's still out on him depending on whether or not the nephilim is good or evil).

[–] fishpan (544) 7 years ago

I so agree with you about thinking that the men of letters were just dumb when it came to demons and demons unless they specifically want something don't care about what happens to monsters.

To me this was just a way to stop us hoping for Crowley to become the deus ex machina against the men of letters, just as they did with having Cas run away with Kelly. But good god this shoehorn could have been better done and it didn't need to be tied to Eileen!

And yes the Winchesters are just so inept this season it is sad!

[–] CluelessDrifter (884) 7 years ago

Just thought I'd put this here. This was Shoshannah's answer to whether or not she asked to be killed off because of other commitments. It would appear not.

https://twitter.com/Shoshannah7/status/868462826704130048

[–] Icarus (78) 7 years ago

I wasn't as invested in the character as it would seem a lot of people were, but I did like her and thought it was an interesting hunter to introduce. Was a bit tired of the people trying to match her up with Sam though, that just didn't fit for me. I must admit I was hoping her death was going to be "the death" but of course as we found out it most certainly wasn't. In the context of everyone who was killed off she was for me the least of them. The death itself was pretty nasty and rather stupid.

[–] Idahoforspn (61) 7 years ago

I agree with everything you said. Especially the "nasty" and "stupid".

[–] Virile Manifestation of the Divine (1020) 7 years ago

Aww, she's getting so much love in the comments. Fancy seeing Snow there :)

[–] aduty1 (160) 7 years ago

I think the question should be is Supernatural killing all of their characters needlessly. The answer to that question is absolutely yes. It isn't really a surprise any more when new characters die quickly especially now. What a number of people feel is the waste of potential particularly with Eileen and Mick. Apparently, TPTB knew they were doing a culling at the end of the year anyway with Crowley and Rowena which brings up the main problem with how they fill the time when J2 are off. Dabb arrogantly thinks he can just spin off Jodi and Claire and everyone will be on board. This is the funniest part since Dabb was responsible for Bloodlines and all the hate that followed from that attempt. They needed to build characters that fans liked. They had that with Eileen and Mick and they blew it. It is literally all or nothing with Wayward Daughters now since no one is going to believe any new characters introduced will last long and its hard to get invested in characters you know are going to be thrill killed in a couple of episodes.

[–] fishpan (544) 7 years ago

The problem I have with Eileen's, Rowena and to a lesser extent Crowley was that their death were in a sense needless and only were done to emotionally manipulate the audience and characters.

I have no problem if the death in question is vital to a plot but Eileen's wasn't. Charlie as much as I hated her had agency and her death lead to Dean going off the deep end with regard to the mark. Not brilliant but pushing Dean to go Man on fire there wasn't much other way. Eileen's death, she became a rag doll who was reacting to others actions before she died, but she didn't have to. We knew how bad the Brits were and the bug could have been found by Sam or Dean dropping a pencil. The only thing that Eileen's death brought about was Sam fully falling out of love with the Brits and that ain't exactly great if you think about it.

If it wasn't for Eileen would he and Dean cared to look at the other hunter deaths? He was there when they talked about exterminating groups for what they were, he was there when Mick talked about the code when pulling a gun on Eileen. I get the whole leader thing and Sam storming the bunker with 'his' troops, but if the same outcome could occur from a dropped pencil rolling under a table then I have to question the why?

As for Rowena, the amount of implied violence wasn't really necessary to get the point across that Lucifer is a dick. I knew that and I got Lucifer has little to no redeeming features.

[–] Virile Manifestation of the Divine (1020) 7 years ago

She should have remained alive and maybe the boys mentioned her once in a while during an episode and we all would've smiled. The show is missing its heart.

I agree. Eileen's death was pointless.

[–] Strannger (2007) 7 years ago

I'm glad you all feel the same. On the old boards she wasn't as liked. I felt they had alot to offer.