There's more to this comeback than meets the eye.
Kind of a pointless episode... lots of time used up that did little to move the story. This seemed like a filler episode where they wanted to give cameos to past actresses and this is how they managed to throw in a handful... but really it was a poor episode.
shareIt took me maybe 3 weeks to watch the Destiny's Child episode. After it was announced the other episodes weren't fully completed I felt, what's the point, to rush to watch it? I was also nervous because I thought I would hate it and overall i dont think the episode was so horrible as some people say, but I also didnt think it was a great episode.
I didnt care about J2's wives working together, if I was super into it, maybe. But I was SO annoyed with its inconsistencies. Ruby and Anael talking? When Anael claimed to not have ever left heaven until the fall, I can assumed she lied, but to get the same vessel? Doubtful.
But nothing was more annoying then everyone calling Anael "Jo", and it was so overused. What a slap in the face to Jo Harvelle character, simply forgotten.
Some of the story was sloppy and I thought Gen did a good job of fitting back into Ruby, but was it necessary? Not really.
And I didnt care much for Rachel Miner returning, but I'm glad she stayed in character of the empty cosmic entity.
I get both of your disappointments really do.
Was it worth bringing in both wives, if totally honest NO of course not. Deep down I feel it was a bit of a fan service for J2 to show mum on screen as well as dad for their kids to look back on in the future. I maybe a bit cynical but hay. Gen did a really good job of being back as Ruby, in fact I thought she was way better this time round than her first original attempt. I also preferred her acting to Danneel's on some points. It also wasn't necessary to bring Ruby back, I thought they created a story just so she could be bought back. What is dead, should stay dead. Wasn't that always the shows philosophy? Also you are right in stating Jo being overused. I never cared for Jo Harvelle as a character, she wasn't my favourite by any means, but it did feel like they were disrespecting her character, yes.
Just one disagreement. I did however, feel that it was worth bringing back Meg. I was amazed to see her, and on such high form to the original character. How she continued to tease Cass will become a classic moment in the future I am sure. She was certainly improved by her absence over the years. Her sassy, bad ass never wavered through out. Delighted she came back. You can tell she's been a favourite of mine he! The Queen of the Empty!
I think their main goal this season is having fun vs telling a great story imo. I think they believe they are making something great that fans will love, but I have to see a great episode. It's like watching the last season of Dexter, Criminal Minds, or Quantico, do whatever you want who cares about history of the show or making any sense?
I again get very annoyed with the forgetfulness and non caring of the names. I always find it lazy and disrespectful.
I was not a fan of Jo either, but her character as "Jo" wasnt forgettable and remains to have fans. Not to mention being a part of the show into season 7 in some way.
I have an issue with the 2nd "Meg" because that's not her name. Plus, both actresses play the character very different, same goes for the portrays of Ruby, but she had a backstory at least of her name and being a witch. "Meg" has zero backstory other than being team Lucifer and hating Crowley. But who was SHE? She had to have an actual name, but they just went with it I guess.
The actress came back, but not the character. I know Misha was talking about trying to get the actress to return and like I said, she did a good job of playing the entity, but it wasnt "Meg". I do prefer the character of villain vs an ally. I'm not sure she'll be back, her role was very short. I would think they'd want to play around with others to return. I know both Charlie's are coming back.
Just as long as I dont see Claire again.
There are a number I would like to see come back. But we know that time is very short. They can't bring everyone back, even though some perhaps are there for fan service. I also know that Uriel is coming back which was the best news I'd heard in a while. He was epic the first time around. I really want to see YED, Cain, Kevin, Ellen and Pam Barnes, the original Death and Crowley. But like Dabb said they have to be apart of the story for anyone to make a final return. I agree with you re Claire if I never see her again won't be too soon. Also add Charlie to that mix. I can't see her coming back as her Death would be cheapened like the have with Bobby, if she does (we know now she is back). It annoys me as I feel she is a fan service requirement. On IMDb they used to call Charlie a Mary Sue character, and can see that now. The only girl I would like to see back is Alex, as I thought she had really good chemistry with Jody. They had a strong connection, more than she did with Claire.
I had forgotten totally about Ruby 1 being a witch, well caught on that one.
I get what you mean also about forgetfulness. They do on occasion become very lazy. Which is a shame as it spoils it for many.
I too would like to see YED,Cain, Kevin, Ellen and Pam. But I feel like they have "journey'd" off into a different show, those characters are forgotten :( Unless it comes up for them, like Missouri, but they didn't give her character any justice. I'm not a huge fan of Charlie, but I didn't mind her character prior to season 10, I don't know what it is, but when she returned during that season it felt like a super human Charlie, didn't make much sense to me. Anyways, I know the AU Charlie is coming back and from my Entertainment Weekly the other Charlie will be back too, said by Dabb in the article. I'd like to see Alex back, I think she got shafted and pushed to the side for super brat Claire, dont get it.
shareI think we are both on the same wavelength with our feelings about certain characters. I think Charlie was supposed to be very different, otherwise what was the point in creating another world if our characters were the same. Yes, both Missouri and Alex were shafted and underused. I never liked Missouri the first time around, but she grew on me on second viewing. I always thought she was nasty towards Dean, liked to knock him down and put him in his place. Claire is a similar sort of character, brash and not so nice towards other people. She likes her own limelight just like Missouri. Alex is way more subdued than that. She is a well more balanced character.
If the writers developed Claire more towards Alex's character they would have been onto a winner. But guess you have to have a opposites in personalities when creating characters.