The Winchesters split the Supernatural fan community into several parts: some claim that it’s amazing, others think it’s horrible, and a few people are stuck in this “it’s too early to judge” limbo. There’s an overwhelming number of people who keep watching the show and cursing it at the same time.
While their logic on this department is questionable, there’s one common grudge they’re all holding against the show: lazy (or terrible, according to some) writing. Based on a recent discussion, let’s see what they mean by it. The biggest thing is that the story feels like it’s only advanced with a series of convenient plot devices. We never see the characters pierce the barrier, we’re just told that they did. All the crucial answers are given in a series of monologues: ironically, the show does not show you anything. It just tells you about it.
There’s no build-up to the finale: why do it if you can later just launch a monologue to explain what’s been happening all this time? This is how the plot is being advanced, and it’s not OK since The Winchesters is a show, not a podcast. Speaking about the plot: one of the main concerns plot-wise is the Akrida — specifically, the matter of their invincibility and weaknesses. During the season, the Akrida went from “nothing of this world can kill them” to “literally anything of the infinite universe can kill them” for no good reason.
If the latter was the case, then what about all the worlds they destroyed on their way here? Why were they not killed there if they’re so vulnerable to all other worlds’ weapons? There’s no logic in how their invincibility works. There are many other complaints regarding the logic of The Winchesters and its writing. We’re not taking any sides, but there’s a lot of sense in what the haters’ opponents say: few shows start off strong, so we should wait and see what happens in season 2. If the series gets a season 2, that is.