The CW Source

If at least half of you watched an interview that the writer had, then you would have realized that he said that he could definitely say that not only were Dean and Sam not going to end up with these girls but the girls are more or less antagonists.

I wanted the girls on Supernatural. This is just my personal opinion but I dont see why you guys wouldnt want girls on Supernatural. I mean I liked Jo, everybody hated her and I am shocked at that. Jo is awesome. What other options are there for your disaproval other then jealousy? I think that Alona Tal did an AMAZING job as Jo and I wish that the writers would keep her on but obviously some fans are having troubles with that. I always say that the writes are going to lose fans either way because if they take Jo off, some people may stop watching it and if they keep her on people may stop watching it so why not chose the side that has the rational reason, the side that wants her to stay on because not only did Dean and Jo connect really well but they are perfect for each other. I do not think that it is fair that they take her off just like that because some fans grew to like her gradually. You cant just make Dean connect with someone that good just to kick her off, thats kind of messed up. Thats just my personal opinion so please dont take it the wrong way.

I don't even have much else to add because everyone before me has said it all. ALMOST NO ONE WANTS THESE GIRLS ON THERE!!! We are not saying it because we are "jealous" or anything like that. Its because we love the show the way it is already! That is what makes it special. They have plenty of people they interact with in each town. They do not need "sidekicks". I watch plenty of soap operas and I get my relationship fixes there. Supernatural is different. That is why you have such loyal followers. Some shows do not need a change. There doesn't have to be chemistry with women on this show for it to be good.

Okay, when I first heard the news about these new characters, I tried to be hopeful about it. Then I read the sides. What. The. Hell?

"The show's about the relationship between two brothers, not a relationship drama..." Yeah, I had to laugh at this once I got over gagging at the side for Sam and Ruby. I honestly doubt I could have disliked her more. I swear, the descriptions given for the new hunters read to me like bad female versions of Sam and Dean. We get far more likeable and believable female guest and recurring characters - in my opinion, these new Marysues are not needed, or appreciated. Especially not as regulars, as I don't see how that's going to work, because there is no way I'm putting up with them travelling in the Impala.

Please, let Supernatural run as Kripke intends and the fans enjoy. Don't ruin a good thing.

TWO REGULAR FEMALE HUNTERS IS A BAD IDEA...JUST LIKE BABY FACE JO WAS A BAD IDEA. MR. ERIC KRIPKE S HEAD HAS GOTTEN TOO BIG SINCE SN SEASON TWO. LETS HOPE THAT THE CW GIVES SN FANS A SEASON 4 AND THEN CALL IT AN END TO SUPERNATURAL .

Jessica - People are allowed to express their opinions and they should be allowed to do so without being called a vulgar name. So, why don't *you* stop judging people and just present your opinions in a professional and classy manner?

Also, you state that, and I quote, "Plus if you really are Supernatural fans you would know that Kripke did a Q&A and said that Bela and ruby would only be in scattered shows. Like Bobby or Ellen for example."

First of all, just because I question Kripke & Co. and their decisions, that does not mean I am not a Supernatural fan. Second, Kripke stated in an interview that each girl could be in 12 episodes. *That* is way more than Ellen and/or Bobby.

My main issue is not so much with the two new characters themselves, it's with the fact that they could be in over half of the season's episodes, and considering that Kripke also said, in that same interview, that the two girls aren't necessarily in the same episodes, that could mean we could have one of these characters in most of the 22 episodes this season.

Yes, I know there are a lot of "coulds" in the above sentence, and, to me, that's enough to concern me with the possibilities, especially considering we're talking about The CW.

I will watch the new season with my fingers crossed, and hopefully, there will similar highs as in Season 2, but I also feel there will be similar lows as in Season 2...again, though, hopefully, the highs will outweigh the lows.

ppl lets just wait to see what happens with the new season. i'm sure it won't be all that bad. i love supernatural as much as anyone, so i'm staying neutral.

First of all people stop judging Ruby & Bela! You haven't even seen what their characters are like. Second Don't judge Kripke!!! When has he ever failed us. He took a lot of big risk like destroying the Impala and killing John. This is just another one of those times. they need a twist in the show to keep us watching. Plus if you really are Supernatural fans you would know that Kripke did a Q&A and said that Bela and ruby would only be in scattered shows. Like Bobby or Ellen for example. Plus, a fan asked if the show would turn into something like One Tree Hill with monsters? Kripke said (and i quote) " I would rather put a pistol in my mouth than let that happen." SO MAYBE YOU ALL SHOULD SEARCH MORE THAN ONE SITE BEFORE YOU START JUDGING KRIPKE'S DECISIONS!!!!! ASSHOLES

yeah, if Dean could have a kid, why not John? He had 22 years of life on the road, don't tell me he lived the life of a saint?

i really dont like the whole changing the show around with the women and im pretty sure everybody agrees with me. i think that itll get pretty awkward for the guys if they had women around and it would rouin the whole show. they would start acting differantly and wouldent be able to do thier job. i think that if they had one girl that was younger than them that they couldnt exactly have a realation ship with would be pretty cool like a sister that they didnt know they had that was like 15 years old or something.now that would be cool

So why do these new hunters have to be women?? Why can't they be too men? No because the CW wants to destroy their best asset. Sigh! Goodbye the SN we know and love. Thanks CW

i am definitely not keen on this... why do they have to change the way the show is?

Someone wake me from this nightmare!!!

quote from my husband (also a huge fan of the show)

"I like the show just the way it is, why do they have to change something that works so well?"

I jus really hope they dont turn the focus from the brothers relationship and make the show about love intrests etc. Supernatural is a rare treasure and i think i would feel more reassured if they were just re-occuring roles and i hope they arent going to be in every episode. I really hope this show does not go downhill because at the moment it is my favourite thing on TV.

There may be hope yet if they chop off Katie's golden locks and outfit her in the most ragged of checked shirts from the Salvation Army.

So the prerequisite skeletal blonde has now been cast (surprise!)... wonder what the skinny brunnette will look like? :-/ And of all of the thousands of skeletal blondes in Hollywood, this is the BEST they could do?!?! (Sorry Ms. Cassidy, no disrespect meant) How can a female hunter be kick-a** when she looks like she can barely lift her own perfume bottle? o_O (**sighs, bangs head on desk**)

I was in the camp of "wait and see what happens". With the recent casting news, I have moved camp to the definitely NO. Bring back the class show that Supernatural is without girl hunters!!

I read every post here under mine; a number of them resonated with me and what I've been feeling and thinking about this issue (sometimes very strongly). Rather than reiterate what the posters said--especially since several did so more eloquently that I ever could--I will simply point out selective posts I believe should be checked out if one does not want to spend the several hours I did perusing all of them.

(Decending down this page from here, memorable posts in bold)
Jasmine
Katie, July 10
Melanie
DJ
Casey
Bryan
Mark
Scifidiva
Katie, July 2
Becca
Sugarnatural
Agla
Emily
blue
naughty, June 27
Janet From SF
naughty
Marsha
Katie
Julia
justdreamin
jas
Barbara Ann Morehouse
Amy
liz
Andrea
A
Sarah
Merideth
Chandra
Julie, second June 17 listing
BoC
Jen

While I'm still quite warily apprehensive about the news, I do feel a little better than I did when I came here to post. Sparsely scattered among the overwhelming number of negative posts, I did find a few posts with some useful information and insightful suggestions. These ideas helped me see how the new characters could be successfully integrated into the show. (Could be.)

But I'm worried because I love this show as it is now. If I had to choose just one television show to watch from all of the shows I have ever seen in my entire life, and I could never watch another show again, I would instantly and hands-down pick Supernatural.

Several people brought up the old "IF IT'S NOT BROKE DON'T FIX IT" adage, but this situation brings to my mind another, seemingly more accurate saying: "if it ain't broke, fix it until it is." However, I don't want to fly off the handle or make wild speculations about who is mandating these changes or what will happen because of them. I will give these characters a chance.

I am willing to see how everything develops before I come down firmly on one side or the other. I did the same with Jo and ended up liking her, more than most. (Though I guess that's because (A)I didn't get very invested in the early, spoiler details about her character and story plans and (B)fans' fervent complaining ultimately changed where they went with her, for the better.)

But my biggest fear is because these female characters will be regulars, it will ultimately push the boys aside and change the brotherly focus and dynamic established at the start of the show. I would feel better if they were merely new recurring characters. Kripke & Co., PLEASE tread carefully with how you introduce and use them; don't destroy our beloved Supernatural by deviating from its core premise.

And for God sakes CW, start PROMOTING THE HELL OUT OF THIS SHOW!!

CW, the competition for viewers is much rougher than it's ever been before. Gone are the days when a dearth of available channels allowed network execs to call all the shots and got away with it. The real power now is with the viewers, many of whom have more than a hundred channels to choose from and a vast internet through which they can let their opinions be known--not only to networks, critics, and advertisers, but to other viewers. Why do you think major networks like ABC and CBS are listening to fans and acting on their demands? They can't afford not to. Execs at major networks know that vocal fans are just the tip of the iceberg, expressing the same reactions millions of silent viewers and potential viewers share. When fans spoke out against what was happening in shows like "Lost" and "Grey's Anatomy," network executives paid attention. They knew what they were hearing were the first rumblings of disaster.

So listen, CW. Listen to Jasmine and the other people on this site and dozens of "Supernatural" boards. You've got a damned good thing in this series--the best show on your network, as most regular viewers agree. They're on the other side of that screen, and they've warned you again and again that you're making a suicidal mistake by trying to turn this charming, ingenious, profoundly moving series into a cheap carnival sideshow. For network execs to make their decisions based on the belief that a series can up its ratings by expanding its cast to include little twenty year old girls firing weapons and shaking their T&As isn't only insulting to the viewing public, it's extremely bad business. Most viewers today are rapidly becoming bored with steamy sex and hot chicks who kick ass; they want shows with more depth and substance. You don't believe me? Take a look at 90% of the posts on this site. Even the youngest writers evidence far more mature and sophisticated taste than your network gives them credit for. Besides, if trash TV were still fashionable, the CW wouldn't be on the bubble.

"Supernatural" has one of the strongest cult followings in television history because it's a road show, centering on TWO MEN whose hunts are based on actual legend, lore, and myth. Regular female heroes don't belong in this series. An ensemble cast WILL NOT WORK. Need proof? Look at what happened with the roadhouse crew, and they weren't even regulars. As early as last summer, the protests went up from fans who knew a roadhouse base and recurring females could sink the series. Did you listen? No. You shoved the new characters down viewers' throats. The result? What should have been SN's and the CW's strongest episodes of the season were among its weakest. The ratings were poor, new viewers weren't drawn in, and the show never entirely recovered from that abysmal fall start. I guarantee you, expand SN's cast to include two twenty something female versions of Sam and Dean, and SNs ratings will dip lower than ever before. And if you're figuring, why not give it a try? We can always remedy a mistake later, you'll be just as wrong this season as you were last. By the end of the first month of a season, audiences have established their viewing habits, usually for the rest of the year. They don't like playing catch-up, and they don't like change. It's tough to get them into the tent, but it's harder than hell to coax them out.

The CW is acting like a one-term politician who became so consumed with the idea of attracting new supporters, he forgot those who put him in office. If you expand "Supernatural's" cast to include female heroes, you WILL LOSE many fans of the show. An insignificant loss? Hardly. I'll give you an example. In a TV.Com poll for best science fiction series, the highly publicized "Heroes" got approximately 8,000 votes. "Supernatural"? Almost a million and a half. Nominated in two categories, it utterly demolished the competition in both. In fact, "Supernatural" wins practically every poll it appears on--thanks to its enormously powerful and dedicated fanbase. And, like that of the original "Star Trek," this fanbase is made up of people of all ages from all walks of life: they include mechanics, scientists, construction workers, housewives, househusbands, beauticians, medical doctors and nurses, college professors, business people, writers, students, musicians, artists, etc. who have one thing in common: their fascination with "Supernatural" as it was originally designed. Don't underestimate these fans. They're an intelligent, deep-thinking lot. If they wanted T&A, they'd watch "Grey's Anatomy," not "Supernatural." Alienate them by introducing female heroes and they'll more than likely take their fury out on the CW. They won't watch or promote your new fall shows. And they'll discourage others from doing so because YOU will have taken from something they treasure--something they argue over, rejoice in, and look forward to week after week. In a world of hardship, that's no small thing. Change the formula of your finest show and your new ones will fail in the ratings. Before long, your advertisers will slip away and by the end of next season, that bubble could collapse.

Sure, your kickass female hunters may draw in a scattering of adolescent males for an episode or two, but, before long, they'll be surfing for greater titillation than your network can offer. In the meantime, you'll have lost your mainstay--those dedicated "Supernatural" fans who are bringing the network more publicity and more new viewers than it can ever draw on its own.

You're fighting for your life here, CW. Be faithful to your viewers, and we'll help you.

I am not sure about the actress they picked, but not surprise that they selected someone that young. CW is determined to prove that women over 25 are not attractive enough or tough enough to be selected. I wish Supernatural was on SciFi channel, I think they would get more respect or least select actresses with talent instead of just looks and age. I want to believe that they know what they are doing but CW has a bad track record. Maybe the actress who plays Bella will look athletic, over 25 and maybe even a brunette. Nah, I doubt that, CW will just pick another skinny, teenage looking blonde for the part. I really love Jensen and Jared, they are the only reason I watch this network. WHEN SUPERNATURAL IS GONE I WILL NO LONGER WATCH CW!

My family watches this show together. I have two teens ( a 16 yr old boy and a 14 yr old girl) and this is one of the few shows that we all really enjoy. We really liked the characters Andy, Ellen and Bobby that were featured last season and had been hoping to see more of them. My daughter and I were hoping to see Ellen kick some demon ass of her own! We don't have a problem with adding characters - male or female- as long as they are believable and interesting. So you can imagine how disappointed we were to see Andy die and to hear that the Ellen character will not be around much. Then to hear that there would be two "hot" female regulars. We were immediately worried that CW was going for the slick T & A of many other shows.
None of us enjoy the glossy, phony teen dramas that are filled with super skinny, super made-up "fake girls" (as my son calls them) and it is extremely disappointing to see that one of the super skinny "fake girls" is being cast on a show that we have enjoyed so much. I mean no disrespect to Katie Cassidy, as I cannot imagine the pressure that a young actress faces today to be super skinny and super blonde. I'm sure that she's very talented and hopefully as she matures she will feel more free to look like herself and not one of the blonde clones. But on Supernatural? Oh please, say it's not so! I have a hard time believing that there were no hispanic actresses, asian actresses, african american actresses, etc... that were talented and available. But no....evidently there are only white, skinny, blonde actresses auditioning for parts. We were disappointed enough to hear the news that Supernatural was adding two female hunters as regulars. But we were trusting Mr. Kripke to make it more than T & A crap. Sadly, after hearing about the casting... it becomes much more difficult to trust. We are sooooo tired of watching blonde chickies running around the screen! And this is true for my son and daughter as well! We've been joking tonight that Barbie and Skipper will be joining the boys in the world of the Supernatural this fall. Not good....not good at all. Please re-think this decision and if you need/want to make additions...make them diverse, realistic, and rich.

Katie Cassidy? You've got to be kidding me. Katie Cassidy is the kick-ass demon hunter that's going to make Dean and Sam look like the Hardy Boys? Wow, what's wrong with that picture? I'll tell you what.
Exactly what I was afraid would be wrong with it. Hunter!Barbie strikes again. Another petite blond tough chick.
Could somebody PLEASE explain to the casting people at the CW that Buffy being a petite little bit of vampire bait was kind of, you know, a joke? The show's bit a whimsical irony. And that she kicked ass because of the power of the slayer, not because she was coiffed and wearing fashionable boots?
Get a clue, please CW, before you mess up the best show you have.

Someone needs to tie Eric Kripke to a chair and perform a full blown exorcism because he's surely been possessed by Meg!(AKA D*) who is out to kill our favorite Hunters Dean and Sam.

Please Mr. Kripke DON'T ALLOW THIS TO HAPPEN!

So, they have announced the casting choice for Ruby, the first new character to make an appearance.A willowy blonde.How utterly predictable; another tired cliche in exactly the same disasterous mould as Jo Harvelle.
It seems fan trepidation has already been vindicated by this ingenious and original casting move, and our worst fears about these two new "hunters" are already coming true.
We can only pray now that Mr. Kripke is very good at damage control

Seriously, who came up with this idea? Is the person even a fan of the show? Have they ever watched it? Do they know what the fans like about this show? I watch every week with my wife (who LOVES the show). I was skeptical at first I admit but I soon became hooked on the show. I watch it for the brothers, period. I like their car, their weapons, their ability to kick butt and take names. I like this show because it's simple, no drama, little romance. I honestly feel that the addition of 2 female regulars is a disaster waiting to happen. This show is so good it doesn't need anything extra. It has everything it needs already. They are 2 guys on the road, there isn't really room for regulars anyway. I just don't get it. Please don't ruin the only good show left on TV. Not only would it ruin one of my favorite shows but I'll never hear the end of it from my wife.

I don't care one way or the other. As I posted this fandom needs to take a freaking chill pill.

Their outrage over this is immature. If they just left it Sam and Dean the fans would have been complaining this is boring, we need to spice things up. And so on, now that they want to change things, we have the opposite end happening.

I am so sick of this fandom acting immature.

I can see it now. They brothers will be just starting a hunt. They'll be coming out of a bar where they've been talking to people about their latest ghoul, or out of library researching ways to kill it. They'll turn a corner, talking about what they've just found out and suddenly... suddenly you'll hear a shot. It'll go to commercial and when it comes back there will be a shot from the legs to just above the waist or a super thin, super curvy hottie clad in a tight leather body suit with a couple guns stuck in her belt. The camera will travel slowly up and will rest on the back of her either blonde or bright red, gorgeous, perfectly maintained tresses. You'll see the guys down on the floor, hands over heads thinking it their latest victim. Then they'll slowly look up, eyes widening every second. They'll stand up and what do you know? THERE YOU HAVE IT, your ABSOLUTELY PERFECTLY CLICHED beginning to the tale of the two sexpot hunters and their boytoys. Sam and Dean will become unimportant in the scheme of things. These girls are supposed to make them look like the Hardy Boys? I'm sorry, I thought Sam and Dean were the heroes of the show. They're your ticket out of your own personal hell, coming over the horizon in their shiny black Impala. And now these sexy, amazingly talented hunters are supposed to come in and show them up? I don't think so.

CW, you're trying to get your ratings up, am I right? And, correct me if I'm wrong, you think bringing in these two gorgeous SERIES REGULAR hunters is going to do that? Answer me this: do you ever read the comments left on this page? Almost every single one of them has one major point to make: Girls = destruction for our beloved show. The ones that are a positive for the girls? I suspect many of them to be the same person, since the words are basically all the same in each post. Either that, or all the fans of Rubella are chronic plagerizers. Even your male fans have said "we do NOT need the cheap T&A you are trying to incorporate into the show." I am a younger fan myself. I'll be fifteen this summer. If you aer trying to appeal to a younger audience, it's not working. The reason I say no to Rubella is not because I am jealous of the two girls. It's because I know what will happen to the show after they are put in. Dean's last year will be spent sexing it up in random motels. Sam will try to find a way to save him, but will be too distracted by the other beautiful girl. Don't you get it? The wonderful brotherly relationship that we all tune in for week after week with be demolished, slowly broken apart and deserted. Your network already has One Tree Hill, Hidden Palms and all the other teen dramas. Being a teen myself, I must say that I prefer the action, supense and gore of Supernatural to the "OH EM GEE, SHE SLEPT WITH MY EX BOYFRIEND" bullshit that is used to supposedly "attract" girls my age. I love Supernatural. It has the perfect mix of everything I'm looking for in a show. Action, an indestructible relationship that is not based around romance or sex, humour and all it's other amazing aspects. Adding the two hot new hunters into the mix is insulting every side of your audience. The young don't want them, the old don't want them, the female don't want them and the male don't want them. What more are you looking for? EVERYONE IS SAYING NO. So why are you still saying yes? Your ratings will drop faster than they already are. Want more viewers? Join in with your devoted fans and PROMOTE!! I've seen endless commercials for Hidden Palms, Smallville, One Tree Hill. You know what I see for Supernatural? A little bar at the bottom of the screen saying "Supernatural, Thursdays, 8/9 central." You are personally responsible for your lack of viewers. Don't blame it on the lack of sex. We've seen enough of it on TV and I for one am sick of it. If you have any respect for the fans of this amazing show and the show itself, you will rethink the addition of these sexy, better than the boys hunters.

Thanks for your time, if you actually spent any of it reading our comments. I know I did.

-Jasmine

I hear ya anonymous.
How are fans going to believe Ruby as a ruthless hunter that's going to make Sam and Dean look like hardy boys? LOL. the cw execs need to stop taking lsd cuz it's distorting their perception.

SOAPERATURAL...COMING THIS FALL TO THE CW.

LOL

Oh give me a break. Katie Cassidy weighs about 90 pounds dripping wet. She's a walking stick figure and she's supposed to be a hunter? The first heavy wind would blow her away. Talk about destroying the ability to suspend disbelief. Way to go CW. Did you not understand what went wrong with Jo? That it was impossible for the viewer to believe that she even had the strength to lift a shotgun let alone remain standing after the kickback? ARRRRRRGGGGGGGH

THE ROLE OF RUBY WAS GIVEN TO.......KATIE CASSIDY. 20 YR OLD DAUGHTER OF DAVID CASSIDY

SEE TV GUIDE AUSELLIO.

Dear Mr. Kripke,

If you're out there and you visit this site, you probably realize by now how much of a bad idea this really is. Every one of us who have voiced our concerns and fears are pretty much in agreement as to why this is such a horrible idea...so I beg you from the bottom of my heart....please heed our concerns...please listen to our pleas....please love your audience and your show enough to make it right...please don't let the addition of an unwanted character destroy this wonderful show...the audience doesn't deserve it....jared and jensen don't deserve it...I don't want to lose viewers...we don't have enough to risk even one....again, Mr Kripke..please hear our cries of concern...please find a way to make it ok...

Sincerly,

A devoted fan.....

[i]I see the bad moon arising.
I see trouble on the way.
I see earthquakes and lightnin.
I see bad times today.[/i]

Every Supernatural fan in the world knows those words to Creedance Clearwater Revival's song "Bad Moon Rising". We listened to it, holding our breaths as the Impala was slammed into by a possessed semi truck, as the camera panned over our boys sitting deathly still in the wreckage of the beloved Metallicar. It is a song that signified the beginning of the end, or at least the beginning of nothing good. It surprised no one, I think, that a lot of bad things happened after this song played.

[i]Don't go around tonight,
Well, its bound to take your life,
There's a bad moon on the rise.[/i]

I was driving the other day and the song started to play on the classic rock station I listened to and immediately, I thought of these two new series regulars. These girls are the newest bad moon on the rise for Supernatural. Already we've sat through Jo, and now we are told that we must stomach two female hunters, women who make Sam and Dean look like the Hardy boys. Fans all over are warning that this won't work. That we won't sit around and watch our show be destroyed by the suits who regularly prove the old adage, "Those who can't do, teach." Or better yet, "Those who can't create, control."

[i]I hear hurricanes ablowing.
I know the end is coming soon.
I fear rivers over flowing.
I hear the voice of rage and ruin.[/i]

However, I refuse to make this the new theme song for the fans. I refuse to believe we are going to watch our show go the way of the other sex-obsessed shows on TV. This song, instead, is my message to the suits. To Dawn and Co. To the network. The fans will become the bad moon on the rise, we will become your nasty weather. "The voice of rage and ruin" will not be silenced by your own silence. This is our show. OUR show. Our love for it is fathomless, our loyalty knows no bounds. The only people who possibly know it better than us are those who create this show, those who obsess over its every aspect. The network is not part of this group. The network knows and understands the show less than anyone.

[i]Don't go around tonight,
Well, its bound to take your life,
Theres a bad moon on the rise.[/i]

The idea is to bring in two sexy, kick a** huntresses who make Sam and Dean look like the Hardy boys. I challenge anyone to point out what isn't sexist about this statement. Instead of showing normal women (such as Samantha Ferris as Ellen), two young twenty-somethings will be shoved down our throats, clad most likely in tight leather pants and low cut tops. Sexism.

Worse yet is the second part of the statement. Why is it that these women must overshadow the Winchesters? Strong women are EQUAL to men, not necessarily better. Strong women do not throw themselves at gorgeous men (which will no doubt happen with one of the new characters). Strong women have responsibilities and are comfortable with themselves, and with being equal to their male counterparts.

Sam and Dean Winchester are legends in the hunting world. They are expertly trained, good trackers, don't let anything get away. And now we are expected to believe that they are similar to the Hardy boys? Come on...these men are on the run from the law. They are strong, intelligent hunters who have a strong sense of the "family business". They don't need to be overshadowed by the network's sexist view of strong females.

[i]Hope you got your things together.
Hope you are quite prepared to die.
Looks like we're in for nasty weather.
One eye is taken for an eye.[/i]

The basis of this show has always been that the brothers are separate from everyone, as showed time and again in season two. They are not aware that there is a network of hunters, or even who other hunters may be (besides Bobby and a few other hunters that have worked with their father). They are cut off from the world, and it works for them. It works perfectly for their relationship, a relationship that strives on protecting each other from harm. Bringing in two females cuts down that relationship in catastrophic ways (especially if one brother is in danger while the other is getting some lovin'). Bringing in REGULAR characters seriously harms the relationship, and also their chances of escaping from the law. It's extra baggage. And goodness, the poor Impala has been through enough, hasn't it?

[i]Don't go around tonight,
Well, its bound to take your life,
Theres a bad moon on the rise.[/i]

So here is the warning to the CW. There's a bad moon on the rise. For your fans, we are calling it Rubella. For you, for the network, it is also Rubella. It is your fans not sitting back and allowing this to happen. No one has a problem with recurring characters. I for one would love to see these girls be recurring baddies! But mark my words, if they overshadow our boys, if they become love interests, low ratings will be the worst of your worries. It is time to listen to the "voice of rage and ruin" and change before it is too late. Don't insult our intelligence. Don't ignore us. Ignoring trouble does nothing. We will fight for Supernatural. And that is a promise.

Truly Disappointed, Toby, Melanie--you said it all...brilliantly.

Other networks would give their eye teeth to have viewers as intelligent, perceptive, and dedicated as SN fans are. Too bad those qualities don't seem to extend to CW's head offices.

And after bringing SN to the brink of destruction--twice--the CW wants us to watch and spread the word about its new fall lineup? Don't make me laugh.

I just watched the rerun of 'Nightshifter" --such an awesome episode and so much of what I love about Supernatural is in it: Brothers Winchester, suspense, action, creepy evil thing, humor and a dash of angst. I just cannot understand why anyone would think that Supernatural needs anything other than promotion and/or a better timeslot to boost ratings.
And I truly cannot fathom why-- if changes did need to be made -- these two new 'regular' characters are what is being put forward as the solution. They sound more like a last resort than a first choice.

all of these people are like DONT BRING 2 NEW GIRLS ON THE SHOW NOT GIRLS WE ARE GOING TO DIE, and like im not going to watch the show any more

is that a true fan....um NO
i dont care if two new people come on the show! i will still watch the show! i love sn.

I started to watch SN because it was scary not b/c they are hot(but that is a plus!)

They can do what ever that want to the show and long as it fits and if it is scary. And its not like any of us are going to date jensen or jared RIGHT!

Jeez CW or whoever is responsible for this latest crap about Supernatural --give a guy a break, would you? I like the show - its a good show. But I watch this show with my wife - she's obssessed with it -- and you're making her crazy with this stuff. Who has to listen to it? I do! First it was Jo and the Roadhouse, then worry about renewal and now two hot chick regulars? What the hell is wrong with you people? Leave the damn thing alone. Its fine!!!
I have three brothers and I can honestly say that Supernatural has the best portrayal of brotherly interaction I've ever seen on TV. The music is cool. The car is smokin.' Only one problem as far as I'm concerned. Enough with the emo already -- I want to see Sam & Dean kick more demon ass -- not see more tits and ass.

I started watching Supernatural because it was just like the shows I watched in my younger days(no I'm not the targeted demographic that the networks want!) It was a buddy/brother show! Back "when", shows like "Simon and Simon", "Starsky and Hutch", "Wild, Wild West" and even "The Man From U.N.C.L.E." were about the partnership of the 2 male leads. The concept of "I'd risk everything" for the person that has seen me at my worst (and best) and still he watches my back unquestioningly; is so "romantic" in and of itself, that adding full-time female love interests is superfluous. The occasional love interest story during the season is perfunctory and easily forgettable. Other shows that were highly successful never allowed their regular characters to become permanently involved with love interests; "Bonanza", "Big Valley", even "Gunsmoke" (at least until the end of their long 14 year runs!)never let the "girlfriend" or "wife" live past that week’s episode! TV of old knew their audiences weren't interested in outsiders becoming permanent fixtures on their shows.
I loved season 1 of Supernatural!! I hadn't seen a show like it in so many years, I was thrilled to find a new show that I could look forward to watching each week. The brothers interactions and relationship brought me back hungering for more!
Then came season 2..... I am probably the only person who hated the roadies from day one and continue to do so even now! I do not like Ellen, Jo or Ash. They were interlopers into the show that I had grown to love. Suddenly the boys could no longer do their own research, we had whiz boy Ash to do it for them. Ellen was “mom”? Excuse me? John didn’t even trust her and her little family enough to mention them to his sons, so why on earth would Dean and Sam suddenly just kowtow to her! I was so sick of hearing "1-800-Call-Ellen" by the end of season 2 that I could have screamed!
(jo doesn't even bear mentioning)
Amazing how the boys did pretty well on their own in season 1! Yes, there were the occasional recurring characters (or mention of characters); John, Missouri, Jerry Panowski, Caleb, Pastor Jim, Bobby! These were welcome additions to the show. They were not done heavy handed and did not take screen or story time away from the boys. Then we get the roadhouse and suddenly there are hunters coming out of the woodwork! Queen Ellen has file folders with possible “jobs” in them that she hands out to her minions. I find it amazing that in a whole year, Dean and Sam never came across another hunter going after the same job they were!?? Now you can’t spit without hitting a new hunter. And to top it all off for season 3, we are getting two new “hot, kickass, female hunters, who are better at hunting than Dean and Sam AND will make them look like the “Hardy Boys”. Well, that just makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. I can just hardly wait to see these two do their stuff! NOT!
What makes CW and/or Kripke think that these two additions will be welcomed and wanted by the fans!??? Or that they will possibly bring in new viewers?? It doesn’t matter how well they are written or acted, they will take story and screen time away from Dean and Sam. Whatever their purpose is could be done in an episode and then they could be forgotten by the next!
Supernatural is a gem amongst all the teeny bopper trash that exists on CW and many other networks. It breaks my heart that this atrocity is being done to this show.

Let me see now...

Laurel and Hardy
Amos and Andy
Rogers and Astaire
Spencer and Tracy
Batman and Robin
Martin and Lewis
Todd and Buzz
Mulder and Scully
Sam and Dean and Ruby and Bella

What's wrong with this picture, CW? You'll have to use your upstairs brain, but keep at it. Sooner or later, you'll figure it out.

If not, the ratings will do it for you.

I don’t think it’s fair to accuse people of being “drama queens” – many people are voicing reasonable concerns. Introducing new characters is one thing, introducing “series regulars” to a show that has just two leads is completely different. Even if these characters are only on half of the season, that’s a lot of episodes when you consider that, since there are no real and consistent “background” characters in Supernatural, that means these two new characters will have to actually have decent-sized roles in those episodes. If Supernatural was a cop show, then these two characters could just be in the background at the police station, sitting at their desk, on the phone, etc. However, considering that the Winchester brothers spend a lot of time in their car and hotel rooms, if these new characters are hanging out with the Winchesters, then the new characters will have to have some actual screen time in each episode they’re actually in, and I’m sorry, but I believe that will necessitate taking some of the focus away from the brothers.

Also, with regard to the “love interest” issue, you are correct, just because two females are being added to the show does not mean they will be love interests; however, this is The CW, this network loves to have such storylines on its shows, so it’s not unreasonable or a complete leap to think that the love interest angle might be the future goal.

why does evryone have to be such drama queens? introducing new characters could be a good thing, it can expand the horizons of the show. adding new characters will not necessarily take away from the whole "two brothers fighting the supernatural", i think if could easily add more storylines for the show and create more depth. just because they are females doesnt mean they are definately going to be love interests, dont forget most of this talk is speculation!!! it doesnt mean its going to happen.

I hate the idea of two chick hunters being regulars. That will ruin the show. so long Supernatural!

First I will apologize right now if I am jumping to conclusions about WHY the new characters are being added. But if it is not just for the T&A the network has had plenty of
time to state otherwise.

Attention: CW is looking for new employees. Anyone over the age of 25 need not apply. Good looks are required, a brain is not. We need advertisers so wear your skimpiest outfits and tightest fitting clothes. You don't have to know what company you are selling ad time to because, well, they're JUST going to be looking at your body. All older employees will be let go immediately, you are of no use to the network anymore.

Way out there, I know, but this is exactly the message you are sending. You, CW, have a show that appeals to ALL age groups, male and female. The fans are very loyal AND protective of Supernatural and the cast and crew. WE are spreading the word about what a
wonderful show it is and, by-the-way, would appreciate some help with that.

People think that the CW only has teen drama's on and evidently that is EXACTLY the audience you want but then you complain because your numbers are low. Why can't you see
how fortunate you are to have a show that sees no boundaries in age.Advertise it!! Act like you care about it! WATCH it! It's an amazing show.

Mr. Kripke and everyone that works on Supernatural, thank YOU for such an extraordinary show.

Don't fix what's not broke!!

Introducing new characters that are said to be regulars into a show that was meant to be about two brothers is a bad idea. Two seasons in the main guys ahve a large and protecive fan base and of course doesn't react well to hearing they could try to be overshadowed just so someone can have more hot girls. Not only that almost every 'tough' girl I've seen portryed on tv just doesn't seem natural unless she is a bad guy even Jo seemed natural and not too too forced but Bobby, Ellen, Sam and Dean make it hard for you to image that they don't hunt and act like that in real life. I think it's a bad idea and I just hope that it doesn't riun to show so much that I would ave to stop watching.

Reading through the posts put up by the supernatural fans, I realized that
almost all that I wanted to say against Rubella has already been stated with
ample proof as to why bringing in these characters is a bad idea. I will put my feedback on a few of the thoughts as follows:

I Agree with those that say............

......Supernatural should have worked on using the fantastic guest characters
already introduced.

......If they wanted interesting recurring roles that give Jensen and Jared a bit of time and do something great/different for the show, they shouldn't have killed Andy AND John.

I Disagree with......

...... everyone posting that people opposed to the Rubella idea are jealous of the
two characters hanging out with the guys and are not real fans on account that
they do not agree to the plans of ruining an original themed show.

I believe such people themselves are teenage fangirls, trying to enjoy
vicariously through these characters.(How's that for shallow assumptions on
the concerns and intentions of true fans :p)

...... I kinda hope these girls are gonna give 'em a run for their money!

Ugh! these kinda hopes makes me wanna puke! Do you really watch the show.....do you even understand what they have gone through their whole lifetimes to be easily given a run for their money for???

My bit of objections and opinions are:(Couldn’t help myself)

Why the hell do these characters have to be hunters (female at that) & not someone else; why do they have to compete with two established leads?
Why not be accomplices in different departments and professional fields, they
guys get to interact with on professional help status. Why not allow to later expand their roles to interests from thereafter. (If that's what they really
want)

Or How about adding a completely new character concept say a lawyer friend Sam hung out with back at Stanford. Such a character can help flesh out the Stanford backstory.
Then there also could be a person they once saved from a gruesome baddie and now wants to help them as a payoff.These ideas could make for some interesting storytelling.
BUT

We get to suffer this utter nonsensical teenage crap! Why oH WHY?? this
torture? (One Guess is that it's on the CW!)

To conclude; I will continue from what someone else said :
Whoever is out to destroy SN (we all suspect who that is) is about to

succeed..........unless Kripke decides to move it to another network.

PS: I know it's rambling but I couldn’t think of another way to vent off steam.

I'm trying to keep an open mind about these 2 new females, and I will hold off most
of my judgement until I actually see them onscreen.
But in all honesty, I think this sounds like a terrible idea. And the word regulars, just scares me. Recurring would have been hard enough to swallow.

I don't want a new improved "sexed" up version of Supernatural, and that's
the direction this sounds like it's heading. If anything, that's the one
big thing I loved about this show. No love triangle messes, no sexual tension forced into areas it shouldn't be, no 'will they or won't they' get the girl.
Just good storylines about two brothers, on the road, hunting ghosts.
Give me more of that, and i'm happy.
I understand the need to possibly expand the hunting world, but I could think of a hundred different ways to do that, without resorting to this.
Which is why I think this is simply to add a little T&A, and not to expand anything.
I'm still getting over the pointless disaster that was Jo. (No offence to the actress there)

And would it really be necessary to have one or both be better than the boys?
That thought alone, just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
I wouldn't want any new characters, especially regulars, showing up and
making the boys look incapable.
And please, please, please. If this is indeed going to happen. At the very least, make them look like hunters. No inappropriate clothing.

Should I feel offended? IF it’s true that these 2 Barbie regulars are being brought in to attract the younger male audience then I'm absolutely offended. I'm a 20-year-old male and I love this show – just the way it is. Shocking as it may be, we are capable of thinking with our upstairs brain and appreciate a good show without having females running around like Barbie. The whole reason I love this show is because it's not like any other show on TV. Why screw up a show as amazing as this one? Not only is it by far the best show your network has to offer (by a large margin) it happens to be one of the best shows available on TV. When a show has excellent writing, an incredible cast and a formula that works – YOU DON’T CHANGE IT! The combination of the brother’s relationship, the road trips, the music, the spook of the week and the Impala (which has all the curves I need to see on this show) you can’t go wrong. But if you insist on putting in 2 Barbie regulars why not give the boys a nice red shiny Volkswagen Beetle, maybe play some bubble gum pop music, throw in some doctors and some kind of Demon-Idol contest and let’s see how the show does. Does no one see that the problem with the ratings has absolutely nothing to do with the show itself? First of all, it’s in the time slot from hell, one only the Yellow Eyed Demon could think up himself, but most importantly it’s about lack of promotion!!! That is where your problem is. Leave the show alone!!

I just read that great post by Scifidiva. Smart and true.

Want a bigger audience? Dump the dumb plan for regular females. Work out a deal with the Scifi Channel to show Supernatural, Season 1 episodes this summer, when viewers are looking for something they haven't seen. And if the Scifi Channel won't show Supernatural, go to TNT, the USA network, FOX, or your own CBS. How do you think "Heroes" brought in such a big audience? Because it's a good show? Come on. Much better shows have been cancelled by the dozens because of low ratings.

"Heroes" got a big following because its network worked out a deal with the Scifi Channel so viewers were hit with reruns right away, again and again. If want to make a TV show a success, you've got to turn people into habitual buyers. How? You get them comfortable with the storyline so they know what's going on. You get them emotionally invested in the characters' lives. And you get them hankering to know what happens next.

But to turn them into habitual viewers, you have to make them watch in the first place. To do that, you can't just depend on word of mouth. Don't tell--SHOW!

The Sunday reruns are a good move, but they aren't going to increase your audience the way they would if they were shown on another, more popular network. I became a habitual viewer of Supernatural when I saw Saturday reruns on FOX. Two reruns later, I was turning off my usual major network to watch new episodes of Supernatural on the WB--a network I'd never watched before. Now Supernatural on the CW's become the best viewing habit I've ever had.

Spread Supernatural around and, by fall, you'll not only increase ratings for the series, you could attract a whole lot of new viewers to other CW shows. And, by the way, you don't have to air Supernatural on that other network week after week. People love marathons. That'll work.

I am so disappointed in the addition of the two new characters. Even though I have barely any more information than roughly sketched character descriptions, although it has still not been confirmed that the girls will appear in the majority of episodes, and although it is highly unlikely that they will destroy the dynamic between the leads, it is clear that the two new characters will forever ruin the show.

Therefore, before I get any concrete information on the characters I am going to wail and bitch and spam the Supernatural forum with threads containing poorly written "metaphors" and terms I don't actually understand, but since everyone else is using them wrongly I may as well jump on the bandwagon. (For example: Mary Sue.)

#1 “Vaccinate against Rubella!”
#2 “Not in my backseat!”
#3 “If it ain’t broke don’t fix it!”
#4 “Fight the Good Fight!” - Triumph

These are the CW Supernatural Forum’s campaign slogans.

Catchy sounding, aren’t they? Sure, #3 has been around for awhile, and #2 is very clever rephrasing of “NIMBY” but #1, OMG, #1, conveys our extreme distaste for infecting our show with REGULAR exposure to the Rubella virus.

#4 is our battle song.

Two of my favorite movies - Armageddon and Independence Day - feature end of world scenarios with dangers coming from space. An “asteroid the size of Texas” and (virus –ridden) “little green men” from outer space have invaded our airspace and threaten our world with annihilation. This asteroid is about to crush our Texans, Jared Padalecki and Jensen Ackles; left unchecked, this Rubella virus may cause a massive infection that could kill our favorite sons.

But “We will not go quietly into the night!” President Whitmore, Independence Day.

Many fans feel The CW Network is behind this push to introduce two “kick a$$, gorgeous, better Hunters than Sam and Dean – who make them look like the emasculated Hardy Boys”, in a blatant, sexist attempt to increase ratings by courting the young male demographic. (If this rumor is in fact, incorrect, then we would like this addressed.)

On the CW Supernatural Forum our male forum members (and friends and spouses of Supernatural’s female forum members) are coming out the woodwork to shout “JUST SAY NO TO THE HOT CHICKS! We don’t want ‘em, we don’t need ‘em, that’s NOT why WE watch the show!” And even more potent are the combined statements from our male viewers that if “T&A” was all they wanted to see, the CW ratings for other shows should be through the roof – but the ratings are actually quite lukewarm - because the CW has some of the – how did several posters phrase this – sleaziest programming on TV today.

No – we won’t allow you to do this to Supernatural!

Of course, they’re stating this message in a far more succinct, articulate way than I am, but hey, I’m just 40–plus year old, college educated female with two degrees and sufficient disposable income to actually buy your Sponsor’s products. But since I’m not in your desired target demographic class or broader target demo of 18-35 years olds, my voice isn’t heard and doesn’t count. But I should be – because many young males in your desired “target demo” are struggling pay their college expenses or rent or both, and cannot afford the sponsor’s products.

I have been a fan of the show from the beginning. I do not watch soaps – cannot abide them. I was a devoted X-Files fan and because Supernatural’s premise was so similar - “two heroes, alone, fighting the forces of evil” - I fell in love with the show immediately. I sweated far more to see if the new CW network would choose to include this unique, crown jewel of a show in their Fall 2006 lineup, than I did for Sam, Dean and John’s lives because I knew they would be “okey dokey” and knew that our beloved “Metallicar” would rise again like a phoenix from the ashes. I checked almost daily to see if the network would add it and when the CW did announce its Fall 2006 schedule with Supernatural listed I think my neighbors heard my whoops of joy. I’ve never, ever been this invested in a television show before.

It’s not that we fans are not grateful for a third season renewal, because we are ecstatic. It’s not that the fans are threatened by new character additions – because we welcome well fleshed out characters, either as villains/villainesses or as friends, “ONS” or Hunter allies to the boys. There is even a place in the myth arc Eric Kripke seems to be crudely following for the introduction of these new characters, but why on EARTH literally “HOWLING OUT LOUD” do they have the status of SERIES REGULARS?

What have they done to deserve this exalted position? Nothing! Only Jared Padalecki and Jensen Ackles have earned that right. Expansion of the regular cast to ease the J’s workload – please - don’t buy that for a moment – there’s plenty of ways to do accomplish that goal, and it’s been achieved very successfully and creatively in the past.

This entire maneuver smells of network interference and a premature, exploitive interpretation of Eric Kripke’s vision to “sex up the show”, a move that is not clearly not desired by our increasingly vocal male fans, in a misguided attempt to garner increased ratings, that will probably fail.

This show, if left at the careful pace of Eric Kripke’s vision allowing for course corrections as was done in Season 2, can become the new “Flagship” for the CW, a shining star, a classic like the X-Files which started out by slowly gaining an audience and had the staying power to last nine full years. Supernatural is an intelligent show that this network can proud of because it did not allow the show to devolve into a Hidden Palms ratings disaster.

“Oh no, you did not shoot that green sh*t at me” Captain Hiller, Independence Day

This is how many fans feel – that by not addressing our valid concerns over the direction the show seems to be taking we are essentially being “excreted" on and this not the "fertilizer" that makes Mr. Kripke's "Garden" thrive. We are not asking Mr. Kripke to reveal his entire game plan for this season – I am a rabid non-spoiler myself and I did not want to know anything about this – but once “spoiled” absolutely heard the “The Call” and have been one of many fans to take action to mitigate this potential disaster in the making. But rumors that he will not be permitted to address this topic at ComicCon has made the fandom very uneasy.

“…Tell the world to prepare for bad news” Harry Stamper, Armageddon

We remind the CW Network of Bobby’s statement at end of AHBL 2: “Hope you boys are ready, because the war has just begun”. Dean replied, grinning broadly, even though he has only one year to live unless little brother Sammy figures out how to get him out the deal without dropping dead himself:

“We got work to do”

And we do, too, as dedicated, mature fans - because “We will not go quietly into the night!”

On a twist of the Independence Day scenario, we will inoculate ourselves against this Rubella virus because we don’t want our “Mother Ship”, Supernatural, to crash and burn.

Mr. Kripke, as the Master Gardener, please tend to your garden before it becomes choked with poison ivy vines.

I am NOT for kick-ass girls coming into the middle of the series for the sole purpose of having the "girls are just as good as boys are" theme- that's what shows like "Veronica Mars" and "Buffy" are for. Especially ones that are gonna show up Sam and Dean? Please. I hope it turns out they're demons and Sam and Dean waste 'em.

Can someone PLEASE fire Dawn O. before she makes the CW into a teenage version of Lifetime?

So...they managed to repair a few loose ends from seasons 1 going into 2, and NOW they are just gonna throw away what they've built up on?

WHAT THE HELL???-I am swearing, that if this show turns into another BUFFY-ANGEL thing, I am seriously outa here!
For good!

NO SAM /DEAN plus another two chiks is gonna keepme hooked.

THIS IS GONNA BE A DISASTER!

You want to get guys to watch Supernatural? Listen to the males who post here and on the boards. Tell 'em, Ty:

"If they're trying to reach 'young males' then I'm part of that demo and I'm definitely not into the idea of adding two demon hunting chicks as regulars. It's stupid. Guys don't watch the show for hot girls. . . .People watch Supernatural because it's different from all other shows. It actually has good writing, acting, storylines, and an awesome car. Man, I want that car!....We understand the show and know bimbos dressing slutty doesn't help the ratings."

Apparently whoever's behind this screwy move doesn't know the first thing about young males. (I'm guessing it's an older female exec.) Most young guys like to see other guys driving great cars, blowing things up, and beating the hell out of each other. You'll see plenty of males line up for movies like "Fight Club" and the new "Die Hard" film, but "Batwoman"? Forgetaboutit. And if you don't believe me and other posters, try turning off the Lifetime Channel and watching Spike TV.

Better shake yourselves out of that chickflick haze and take a look at the real world before it's too late. People out here know better than you do what they like.

We don't Need new female characters, we've already got some! And it sounds like female versions of Dean and Sam... Either way, they'll take attention away from the boys, this does not need to become 'Charmed'.
I've always seen this as a boy's show, with the brothers and their dad, and I like it that way, it's one of the reasons I love it so much.

We already have Joe (can barely put up with her even) we do Not need more women!

If these characters do appear as a permanent new fixture to the show, it will change the whole dynamics of it. In a bad way. It won't be the same at all, if we wanted a show about women kicking demon ass we would watch Charmed!

It wouldn't be special anymore with them in it. At least I don't think so.

Basically, I don't like it, and I think it would ruin everything... lol.

Seriously.

You'd be losing a lot of fans in doing this, just to let you know.

We need to start a petition or something! This is all WRONG!

I was never a viewer of the WB network. Even during it's absolute hey day, I found the network to be trite and bothersome. And the older I became, the worse it seemed to get. My younger cousin talked about shows like One Tree Hill and I rolled my eyes. I was tired of these teeny bopper shows that provided young teens with a completely faulty view of what's "normal" as a teenager.

And then, last November, my cousin told me about a show called Supernatural. "It's the perfect show for you!" she gushed as I fought with her to watch Grey's Anatomy instead of a rerun of this show she was talking about. I rolled my eyes about her statements. It was on the CW, the new WB, which automatically meant it would be a low quality show based on sex and hot guys running around shirtless. And then we watched the entire first season in three days.

Supernatural is a show that has completely captured my usual Grey's Anatomy addicted soul. It's adult, it's edgy, it's frightening, it's virtually sex-less. I'm consistently amazed by the level of the writing that rivals that of CSI's and Grey's Anatomy's, and by the amazing acting by the two young men who carry this show. I am amazed that the CW picked up this show. It's not your usual fare, at all, is it?

Over the past month, I have gotten nearly 125 people to watch the show. You'd be amazed by their reactions: "Wow, this show is awesome!" "This show is on the CW?" "This show is the best show on TV!" And then came one frightening answer, "I didn't even know about the CW."

I understand you're concerned about Supernatural getting low ratings, which is why I believe you're adding these two female regulars. In the network's thinking, T&A brings viewers. T&A brings the young males in. Twenty-somethings want to see strong kick butt females. I am here to say that those beliefs are inherently wrong. I AM a twenty-something and I want to see a show that is adult and edgy and completely breaks away from the apparently new rule that every single show on television has to have romance and sex and hot girls. I'm tired of that. I'm tired of Grey's Anatomy shoving sex down my throat like it's going out of style. I want TV to grow up. And Supernatural has done that. It has made the CW grow up.

If you're truly concerned about Supernatural's ratings, here is a simple suggestion: PROMOTE it. During this week's rerun of Supernatural, I saw six Hidden Palms commercials, a show that is already being canceled! You promote the T&A of the Pussycat Dolls like it's the end of the world. Promote Supernatural and you will see its numbers completely explode. Promote the show, and the fans can do the rest. The show can do the rest.

I am still not a regular CW viewer. I only check in for Supernatural every Thursday. I still find this network to be, at times, immature and obsessed with sex. If you want to pull in more viewers, if you want to become a network that battles with the big wigs over at ABC, you have to let this network grow up. You have to let this network float away from sex and tortured emotional teenagers.

If you add these regular characters, if you put in the T&A, fans will leave. And I will be sorely disappointed that you allowed one of the best shows on television, one of the most original shows on television, to go the way of One Tree Hill, The O.C., and Grey's Anatomy. If you want my continued viewership, I ask that you allow Supernatural to continue to grow and develop into a show that will make history. Into a show that doesn't need sex to be the best. Into a show that, I believe, could put the CW on the map.

Why don't we follow in the footsteps of Jericho but instead send those little packets of SALT to the CW and Dawn O. in protest of the new HOT (God I hate that word)female regulars. Why can't they just keep and build on the Ellen and Bobby characters? Addy: Dawn Ostroff, President of Entertainment
The CW
11800 Wilshire Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90025

I am not against having these new girls be on the show, if it's done right. My favorite thing about the show is the relationship between the brothers. they can have girlfriends or whatever else the writers cook up for them, but I still want to see the boys looking out for each other, and the banter, and the brotherly moments.

I think the thing that would help the show the most would be the promotional campaign. I can't tell you the number of times that I have told my friends about the show, and they have never even heard of it. If people don't know the show exists they aren't going to watch it.

Well, when you throw words like "gorgeous" and "doable" into the mix, people start to infer "love interests", and frankly, Supernatural doesn't have a good track record with those. Jo...don't even let me go there. And then there's the ones some people like (e.g. Madison) who meet less than pleasant fates (e.g. death by silver bullet). The chemistry between the two leads is just so right, it's hard to add anything to the mix without it combusting. The formula is already so perfect as it is. That being said, if it's handled well (and in the hands of the talented Mr. Kripke, it will be, natch), I'm sure it will either work like a charm... or be altered quickly before we start breaking down doors, kicking booty and taking our own names.

S.L you're totally clueless about why people don't want them on the show.

"And the reason most fans don't want sexual tension or love interests in the show is because there mad or jealous that it's not them with Sam or Dean, if not than they don't want to watch. You have to understand that this is a young peoples show, not a old peoples show..."

Let's face it, CW. You are not doing well. You've had to cancel a number of old favorites, and many of your new offerings lost the ratings race when they were barely out of the gate.

To make matters worse, in the year of your existence, you've managed to develop a poor reputation. You've done this by airing and widely publicizing shows like "Pussy Cat Dolls," "America's Top Models," and "Beauty and the Geek." Yes, all that T&A publicity has brought in some good ratings, but at what price? Millions of potential viewers don't even consider watching the CW because it's fast become known as a network that specializes in sleaziness and schlock. Like a poor hooker who demeans herself for a quick buck, you've compromised your integrity to gain some fleeting points. As a result, you're rapidly losing your chance to be taken seriously by viewers, critics, advertisers, and other networks.

When you renewed "Supernatural," I told myself there was hope for the CW. The network had to recognize and respect the high quality of this program; otherwise, it might have cancelled the series because "Supernatural's" disastrous timeslot led to low ratings. Then I found out that the CW (apparently) intends to sex up the show by expanding the cast to include two hot chicks.

Now I know the reason why "Supernatural" wasn't cancelled. The CW clearly plans to degrade this fine series by using it as still another vehicle for sexual titillation.

It's obvious that the CW execs neither understand nor appreciate "Supernatural." Perhaps this is because practically every program your network has initiated focuses on sex--especially sex among adolescents or adults in their early twenties. "Sex sells!" most of your programming seems to shout--whether in the form of comedies, reality shows, or heavy-handed dramas offering nothing but an excuse to get teens and college-aged students in sexual situations.

Is this the kind of image you want your network to project? If so, the CW will soon be history. If not, it's imperative that you focus on attracting a more mature, discriminating audience than Jerry Springer once did. Adolescents alone need not be your bread and butter. Millions of adult viewers have grown weary of shows like "Grey's Anatomy" and "CSI." They'd welcome the chance to see a horror show offering the depth, complexity, and excitement of "Supernatural." But most American viewers know little if anything about it.

I suggest you promote this show. And maintain its vision and its integrity. Don't try to turn it into adolescent trash, much less "Buffy" or "Charmed." "Supernatural"is far better than any show of its kind that's gone before. In fact, it's one of the finest dramas television has ever offered. It's also a classic in the making and a cult favorite--much as was "Star Trek" before it found the right timeslot in reruns and became a cultural phenomenon.

With even a fraction as much publicity as the vastly inferior "Heroes" was given, "Supernatural" can help you increase your ratings, improve your reputation, and save your fragile network. The series is a treasure. If you're wise, you'll leave it alone.

If they're trying to reach "young males" then I'm part of that demo and I'm definetly not into the idea of adding two demon hunting chicks as regulars. It's stupid. Guys don't watch the show for hot girls. If that's the only thing that got us to watch tv then the CW would be one of the biggest networks on tv. It's not so the idea of hot girls=big ratings needs to be trashed-NOW! Why do they want to go and make Supernatural into another One Tree Hill?!?!? People watch Supernatural because it's different from all their other shows. It actually has good writing, acting, story lines, and an awesome car. Man, I want that car!!

The CW needs to stop changing Supernatural just to get ratings-they need to A-D-V-E-R--T-I-S-E it and listen to the fans. Yeah, Supernatural is a cult thing right now. But come on fans of cult classics are die hard, they don't give up on a show, they tell you what's wrong with it..and don't hold back either. Fans of cult classics tell EVERYBODY they know about the show and dont stop until they have all their friends/family hooked. The CW is sitting on a freakin' gold mine and just wants to screw it up. Oh and a better time slot would help too!

The CW needs to listen to the fans on this one. We understand the show and know bimbos dressing slutty doesn't help ratings. Sorry but whoever thinks that shoud be fired-then ran out of Hollywood. Just because it's different from all their other shows doesn't mean it isn't as good. Actually it's better. SO much better.

Okay so I haven't read everything, but from what I have read, fans are not happy about the new 'sexed up' version of Supernatural.

I don't care for the new 'SERIES REGULARS', but I'm all for giving Jensen and Jared some free time. Those boys work their behinds off, and well let's just say the incredible quality of the show proves that.

However, the show is about two brothers on a road-trip, 'saving people, hunting things..... the family business', not two brothers and two tag alongs who are better then them.

Series regulars, nope I don't think so, maybe one or two episodes to get them familiarized, but then and only then bring them in gradually. They DO NOT NEED TO BE REGULARS.....

I will fight to the end of the Earth for Supernatural, promoting it as much as I can, telling my friends to watch even though I know that there is no chance in them switching from Gray's or CSI....

I used to love Law & Order - Criminal Intent, but nowadays I can not, wait no that should be I will not watch it anymore because they added two more series regulars. I can't stand Chris Noth and him being on it, just makes me switch the station. If this example doesn't convince you, then I don't know what will.

Say no to the new series regulars!!!!

*goes to mourn the death of Supernatural*

Hey, I've got a brilliant Season 3 mytharc. Why don't Sam and Dean (AKA the Scaredy Boys) repair the broken railway lines of the massive Devil's Trap so they can hide out there in relative safety for the duration of 22 episodes? :-P

Meanwhile, the two hot sexy kickass huntresses battle the couple hundred demonic entities outside the boundaries of the gigantic trap. In the daytime, both couples hole up inside their duplex love shacks, and then the girls proceed to dazzle us with their amazing physical prowess while the boys keep house at nighttime.

Why do I get the feeling that Sam's and Dean's characters are going to be slaughtered this season??? What a monumental waste of Jensen Ackles' and Jared Padalecki's talents!

What show is this again?

Bring on the hot and sexy new hunters and the sexual tension I think the boys could use a little about now especially Dean, he's so fine. Jensen (Dean) is the reason I watch Supernatural. Supernatural is going to rock in s3!

I'm not into the idea of two more regulars at all. I like the show the way it is. Nothing needs to be changed, Supernatural just needs a decent time slot and some advertising-not sappy love interests.

I positively, absolutely HATE, HATE, HATE the idea of the 2 new gals!!!!! >:(
I say, bring Jo back!! She was an awesome character, and Alona does a great job of playing her!
Ellen is great too! I think that if the CW wants to add love intrests they should be for one epi only, like Cassie and Madison!!!
My whole point: IF IT WERE UP TO ME, THERE WOULD BE NO CHANGE IN CAST!!!!!!!! AT ALL, PERIOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ya know... if CW wanted to increase ratings, they might try PROMOTING THE SHOW. I was just at the WB studio and Smallville has a huge section in the store as does the Harry Potter stuff, and long gone Friends, canceled Gilmore Girls and Nip Tuck - Supernatural had a rack of t-shirts and on that rack they didn't even have all the sizes - no promo on the tour - nothing - yes I Know WB is the parent company - but CW is leaving our show out to dry - the execs need to hear this - don't change a formula that isn't broken - just promote the show.

Must applaude poster "naughty's" brilliant post below. What is the most ironic is that within days of the "New and Improved Supernatural" becoming public knowledge I saw about half a dozen articles from the US and elsewhere written in the days just prior to it praising the show's unique point of view and brotherly focus as compared to all shows that focus that focus on soap opera-esque romances. I don't really care whose idea this is at this point, it's horrible and the show once again is wasting a summer where fans could be selling the show to all and sundry by instead threatening to mess with the formula they love.

Last season, some CW exec came up with the ridiculous notion that a butt-kicking female hunter would raise SN's ratings. When "Jo" elicited a furious response from most fans, the exec evidently decided he or she still had a great concept; it was just put in the wrong packaging.

So now, instead of teeny-bopper type "Jo," SN will feature two REGULAR EXPERIENCED butt-kickers, Bela and Ruby.

Exec, are you smarter than a fifth grader? Guess not.

YOU DID NOT GET THE MESSAGE.

THE PACKAGING IS SECONDARY. MOST SN FANS DO NOT WANT ANY REGULAR FEMALE BUTT-KICKERS. WHY IS THAT SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND?

Getting rid of "Jo" showed that someone at the CW has the wisdom to recognize a mistake and reverse it. Don't make another potentially fatal error by expanding SN's main cast to include two female hunters. Listen to the viewers.

Not only do the regular viewers watch the show, they pass the word, respond to the polls, demand more publicity from the media, and attract the advertisers that pay the bills. Tick off the fans by expanding the regular cast to include these female hunters and not only will SN's ratings drop, the ratings of all CW shows will drop as well. In case you haven't noticed, viewers become extremely hostile towards networks that change their favorite programs.

If that CW exec is obsessed with T&A, fine. Air it, salivate over it all you like. Just don't make it a regular part of THIS series. SN is a ROAD SHOW ABOUT TWO MALE HUNTERS, not female hunters.

This isn't rock