‘Warehouse 13’ Brings Aaron Ashmore Onboard For Season 3

Published 4 years ago by , Updated September 4th, 2011 at 12:33 pm,

Aaron Ashmore on Warehouse 13 ‘Warehouse 13’ Brings Aaron Ashmore Onboard For Season 3

Has SyFy become a refuge for actors formerly known as Jimmy Olsen? After bringing Sam Huntington to Being Human, SyFy has added another actor who once played Superman’s pal by casting Smallville’s Aaron Ashmore in the third season of its hit series Warehouse 13.


Ashmore will portray ATF agent Steve Jinks, a human polygraph of sorts – he has the unique ability to discern whether someone is lying or not. After the events of last season, which saw Myka Bering (Joanne Kelly) leave her post at Warehouse 13, Jinks has been recruited by Mrs. Frederic (CCH Pounder) to be Pete Lattimer’s (Eddie McClintock) new partner.

While the young show is anything but stagnant, adding a new player to the mix could certainly add a bit of intrigue and conflict that will make for some interesting viewing once the new season kicks off this summer. Fans tend to congregate around similar subject matter and thematic elements, so from a ratings point of view, casting Ashmore was a no-brainer. He’s not only easily recognizable from his roles on Veronica Mars, Fringe and In Plain Sight, but Ashmore also has the added bonus of looking just like the dude who played Iceman in the X-Men movies.

This summer’s third season of Warehouse 13 will contain a lucky order of 13 episodes. Whether Ashmore will appear in all 13 hasn’t been revealed, nor has the fate of Joanne Kelly’s character. We can expect to see her in the premiere episode (likely in flashback) as it establishes the new status quo, but beyond that, the third season will hopefully resolve Mynka Bering’s situation.

Warehouse 13 on SyFy ‘Warehouse 13’ Brings Aaron Ashmore Onboard For Season 3

At 3.4 million viewers, Warehouse 13 is SyFy’s most watched original program. The popularity of the show is no doubt helping the network build its reputation as a premiere destination for quality genre television. In conjunction with other standout fare like Battlestar Galactica, the aforementioned Being Human and upcoming programs such as Among the Spirits and Randall and Hopkirk (Deceased), SyFy is slowly challenging the notice that its name is merely synonymous with made for TV movies like Mega Python vs. Gataroid and Mega Shark vs. Giant Octopus.

Do you think Ashmore is a good fit for Warehouse 13? If you’re not already watching the show, does his addition make you want to tune in?

Source: Entertainment Weekly

Get our free email alerts on the topics and author of this article:

65 Comments - Comments are closed.

  1. I stumbled onto this discussion after being blindsided by the Jinks character while catching up on my DVR. I noticed a few things in this conversation that bother me. First, I’ll touch on my view about the gay character, Jinks. In short I pretty much agree with Jane, Benjamin Garner, although I disagree with his “good Christian” comment, Ray, Jack, Lisa and Donna from what I can see. I mostly agree with Lisa and I feel this is more so a “politically correct plug” because up until that point I saw Jinks as a male bond for Pete and a conflict of interest for Myka in regards to Pete if you want to “ship.” Not only that, but up until his unveiling of his sexual preference, Jinks had great chemistry with Claudia. Now he’s reserved to her Gay BFF of sorts. So I am considering whether or not I will continue the show because I didn’t like the lifestyle pushed in my face on SGU and I don’t mess with Torchwood, etc. My decision, don’t like it, fine. I am Christian and yes my views about homosexuality and lesbianism stem from my Christian beliefs. Again, don’t like it, fine.
    Also don’t equate disagreeing with a lifestyle choice of belief as hate. It’s not. I disagree with the lifestyle choices of other religious groups such as Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism and the supposedly non-religious, Atheism and Agnosticism, but does that mean I hate anyone who holds those beliefs or follow that lifestyle? No, it doesn’t. We may disagree and have heated debates, but I don’t wish to oppress or persecute them.

    With that said, want to touch on some of these other issues.

    1) Everyone is erroneously assuming that because someone up here disagrees with the inclusion of the gay character then they must be Christian. Faulty logic, other religions disagree with the gay lifestyle and there are non-religious people who do as well. So far the only people who mentioned anything about Christianity are Jethro and Benjamin Garner. Nobody else did. See Ray’s post, he states he is not religious but disagrees with the gay character and or having that lifestyle forced on him. I agree.

    2) Zach said Science Fiction or Sci-Fi goes against religious beliefs. This is not true. Off the top of my head real quick, Matrix had religious undertones and X-Files dealt with religious topics on occasion. I’m going to venture to assume, although I run the risk of putting words in his mouth that this comes from the erroneous belief that science and religion don’t mix. Check your history, much of the modern science we have come from religious scientists of the ancient – early world.

    3) Traditional values are not synonymous with Christianity only. Islam has traditional values; Hinduism has traditional values, etc. However, with that said, the argument about the violence, pre-marital sex is kind of moot. Some people may have a level they can deal with. When that level is reached they back away. Plus, WH13 doesn’t have in your face sexual situations like that, or rampant cursing. The closest argument to this is the violence which in most cases is a necessary evil considering the story line deals with capturing people who abuse power.

    4) Don Hastie Cain quotes Ephesians 5:22-24, 5:33 which actually states in the New King James Version:

    Ephesians 5: 22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. 24 Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.

    Ephesians 5:33 Nevertheless let each one of you in particular so love his own wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.
    Not sure about the reason for attempting to use this in a derogatory manner, because the combination of verses speak against a bad situation. Nothing wrong with a wife submitting to a husband, only the modern secular society based on ultra-feminism would have an issue with this verbiage. This elevates the stay at home mother and tells the husband to love his wife as he would himself, meaning treat her as he would want to be treated.

    Not sure why he places Acts 5:29 in there which states, “We ought to obey God rather than men.” Might be a copy and paste error.

    He quotes Titus 2:4-5 which if the whole chapter of Titus is included also gives out instructions to old men, young women, young men as well as bondservants. Nevertheless, in regards to the instructions to women…what’s wrong with teaching a young woman to love her children, be discreet, chaste, good, a homemaker (which she’ll be even if she works) and an obedient God loving woman. I imagine everyone sees the obedient to husband part and goes in frenzy. Let me direct everyone to Proverbs 31. Read about the virtuous woman who ran the family business, was in charge of servants, etc while her husband handled Politics at the gate. The Bible does not destroy women rights like most people would argue incorrectly.

    He also 1 Timothy 5:14 which if read in context is dealing with widows who are young and become troublemakers. Timothy is stating he would rather they go marry and live their own life rather than be in other people’s business.

    Finally, this “personal attack” assumes Jane or anyone else other than Ray, Jethro and Benjamin Garner have a religious or non-religious reason for disagreeing with the inclusion of the homosexual character.

    I know the post is long, but I wanted to address several points made in attempt to defend the homosexual character.

    • BrotherRoy,
      I was a bit worried when I checked the word count on your post, but I was increasingly impressed with each one of them. Your argument was perceptive, specific and thoughtful.

      • Thank you.

      • I take issue with your term “lifestyle choice”. It’s not a choice. It’s who you are.

    • Nice post and I agree with a lot of what you said. It’s just I hate how people can say there Christian on one hand, but say that promoting gay marriage as normal is okay. It’s clear the stance the bible and the church takes. Some say it’s out of hatred but it’s not. I and the church do not hate gay people, the act they are doing is what is condemned. So in my view the promotion of a sin is wrong, not the person, and any real Christian would understand that.

  2. This discussion has been turned into a religious debate on the ethics of homosexuality. I am not a church goer, nor do I consider myself ‘religious’. When I comment on a storyline it is through personal ideals, not bible citations or verses. I do not condone a society that flaunts homosexuality as ‘normal’, after all, if the human race were meant to be Gay, we would cease to exist. But, nor do I condemn it. It is nature, not nurture that creates homosexuals, i.e. beyond their control, surely a case of ‘there but for the grace of God’ etc, etc, and anyone that thinks otherwise is ignorant to the mechanics of human creation.
    Now, back to the real topic, Warehouse 13′s new format. I think it works, I also stand by my previous post and say, Jinks’ sexuality is irrelevant to the storyline, and as such, should of not been an issue. It is a token politically correct addition to an already very popular show. However, I do like the addition of Jinks, and now Claudia can go ‘out in the field’. I am just disappointed that the shows Producers felt they needed to jazz up the show in such a blatant inconsequential way.

    • Lisa, I’m not trying to start a debate, but I disagree with your statement that it is “nature & not nurture.” There has really been no definitive proof about biological homosexuality. The only cushion I could give on this, unfortunately for you would be the fall of man corrupting the natural order of things and thus we may have a reason for abnormal birth defects. I just got finished listening the testimony of two former long-term lesbians (1 for over 20 years and one for over 10-15) who argue that they do not believe in the birth argument because they use to use it when the knew they made a choice to be that way for their own emotional reasons. Also, yes as you saw in my post…most people responded to Jane’s initial distaste for Jinks as if it were automatically a religious statement when she did not state her religion. It did not come up until Jethro who is FOR Jinks and then Benjamin.

      Ray and Benjamin Garner, thank you for your words.

      I understand where you are coming from. However, that statement could be misunderstood and misapplied to you and other Christians later as, “See they are bigots.” I’m glad you elaborated more.

      • Nice post