Wayward Son

I'm gonna stay low 1.63

Is it just me or is there very little promotion for this weeks episode? Compared to the shows twitter accounts normal I mean haha

Red Sky is also season 3 I'm afraid. Straight after Bed Time Stories in fact.

The Librarians? Isn't that Sera Gamble'a new show?

It's weird but I think Regina and Fake!Robin had more chemistry than Regina and Real!Robin ever did haha

Sorry I worded it badly. I didn't mean that's what I thought you expected. What I meant was I don't think the writers were ever going to split the brothers up long term. It's the same reason we only got purgatory in flashbacks. The way I see it they had the following options 1. Long term demon Dean, which would involve the two brothers seperate long term and most likely Indulging in the cat and mouse game you mentioned. Sadly, this would never have been considered by the writers as they're too wary of alienating fans by going against the established dynamics ie Sam and Dean always together. 2. Long term Demon!Dean, but they find some common goal to get Dean willing to work with Sam, while Sam works behind his back to try and cure him. This is a feasible option, but in my opinion having him in his normal routine with Sam would have taken away demon Deans impact and made it long term but not very satisfying. 3. Long term but he's a prisoner. Probably could be made to work, but again it'd lessen the impact / drama of the storyline. Maybe I'm uncreative and there are other options, but overall I'd say demon dean long term was never going to happen. The writers are simply too afraid of alienating those fans who would cause a riot on social media if they dared attempt a long term (i.e longer than 2-3 episodes) separation.

I honestly don't think we were ever going to get Demon!Dean long term Fan Fiction or no Fanfiction. The show has always shied away from the path that would have the brothers separated for more than a handful of episodes, and I couldn't see Demon!Dean just casually hunting with Sam. We are just lucky we got some present day scenes and they didn't skip a year and have demon!dean occur in flashbacks like they did with purgatory.

Bit in Bold 1: I see it differently. In my opinion he must have done something rebellious; be it stirring up trouble by openly questioning the orders given, or out right refusing to obey them until Naomi 're educated' him. I don't think they'd go to the extreme of wiping his memories of Egypt just because of a few internal questions. The same way they didn't take him up to heaven for brainwashing during season four until he showed signs of actively rebelling i.e revealing the Angels true agenda to Dean. So I do think Dean pushed him into action during season 4 only now this wasn't the first time he rebelled. Bit in Bold 2: I was actually referring to the fact that IMO the Cas we met in early season 4 doesn't really fit with the eternal rebel he was retconned to be unless he was initially nice and brainwashed. Here's some thoughts I posted at the time the episode aired. Just because I think they still best express why I had a visceral initial reaction to the episode. P.S: I'm afraid I completely disagree on the issue of Sera's treatment of Castiel in season seven, but that's more bitterness territory haha

Hey guys, I found this talk a fan had with former writer Robbie Thompson. It covers things such as the shows timeline, how writer / episode distribution is handled and their use of characters. I thought I'd post it here for anyone interested in behind the scene details. Source: http://hells-half-acre.livejournal.com/497052.html

Honestly, I didn't get the impression Naomi's speech had anything to do with Dean in particular. By the time they had this conversation not only had Castiel already broken away from her mind control, but he had set himself on a different path to Dean by appointing himself as guardian of the tablet against all including the Winchester's. Remember they had this exchange, at the end of the Crypt Scene in Goodbye Stranger, Plus, if we look at the overall conversation you quote from, the issue of Castiel's nature is only brought up when they discuss the purpose of Angels. In my opinion we were supposed to accept Naomi's words as fact. Her general demeanour matches that of someone speaking of a genuine long term grievance. Plus there has been nothing since to suggest that her words weren't true. In my opinion Ben Edlund was genuinely trying to add the retcon to highlight the unique nature of Castiel. He wanted fans to be able to root for the rebel that always was and understand that Cas has always been inclined to place humanity before the host. However, in his zest to celebrate the "little rebel" he (or Carver depending on where this idea came from) failed to consider the implications it had on the storylines that came before it. Season Four presented Castiel's journey as the soldier who was inspired by the righteous nature of Dean into giving up everything he knew in favour of Dean and humanity. It made his friendship with Dean one of the most defining points of his life. Now that has essentially been reduced to "Oh, look it's Castiel rebelling again" as his actions were but one of several occasions where he acted in a manner that required his "head being washed clean". It's for that reason, along with the fact that apparently we didn't get to see the real Cas for nearly a season, that I was deeply upset after The Great Escapist first aired.

Yeah, I definitely agree about Edlund. He was the best Cas writer and one of the best overall in my opinion. I love The End, The Man Who Would Be King and Reading is Fundamental. I loathe The Great Escapist and consider it one of the worst on the show for Castiel. The implications of the retcon they introduced to his character made me uncomfortable. Plus, I feel it took away from his history on the show so far. Throughout the course of season four we got to see how an angel who started off as the good little soldier, obedient to the host, ultimately learnt to care for Dean and rebelled for his sake and the sake of humanity. Personally, I feel like a lot of that journey was belitted by the "he's always been a rebel retcon". I'd have to agree on the overall quality of the writers this season. I am intrigued to see how Glynn handles him later in the season. Although I get the impression (based on the fact he didn't star in any of her episodes and its likely she was placed on ep 19 last minute) she has replaced Adam Glass as the writer who doesn't write him (for whatever reason) and focuses on the brothers instead. Agreed! With the exception of the episode I mentioned above he always wrote the Dean!Cas dynamic wonderfully! He was definitely one of the greatest proponents for that pairing in my opinion :)

So I've seen a lot of discussion lately about which writers are good at writing for Sam and Dean especially in the "Bitch" vs "Jerk" thread! It got me thinking... who is everyone's favourite and least favourite Castiel writers? My long term favourite of the current team is Robert Berens. Yockey and Perez have also impressed me! My overall favourite writer ever was Ben Edlund whose love for Cas came across in his writing IMO. I also enjoyed Robbie Thompsons portrayal of him. My current least favourite would be BuckLemming. Although they are my least favourite overall so that's not surprising. Overall, Sera Gamble would be my least favourite considering her horrific treatment of him in seasons 6 and 7.

I dunno I think if we were going down the point scoring route some Sam's fans could make the argument that Sam deserved to kill Azazel more than Dean. After all, he has the same grievance as Dean (Mary, a messed up childhood). But on top of that he also has his own deep complaints like the fact Azazel orchestrated the death of an additional loved one (Jess), and it was Sam's blood he polluted as a child.

Continued from the Supernatural Forum Oh I agree that the curse had something to do with it. However, in my opinion, it only gave Angel the morality and moral compass needed to potentially choose Heroism. The curse alone did not put any pressure on him to join the good fight in the same way receiving visions of those in trouble (Cordelia), or being told you were the ultimate force against evil (Buffy) did. His Ensoulment gave him the potential, but it certainly didn't thrust heroism on him. Just look at how he spent the first 100 years or so post curse. From my perspective what drove angel to initially join the fight was his love for Buffy. Later, he would go on to make the mission his own. It would no longer be about her, but it would be about humanity and "helping the helpless". I just don't think that Angel was forced / pressurised into it. He was given a nudge by Whistler and the Powers, but it wasn't until after he had chosen to be a champion that he found out about the prophecies surrounding him. He made the decision to join of his own freewill without any major pressure / guilt tripping. That is why I personally don't see Angel as a reluctant hero, but YMMV.

I'm going to take this response to the Angel forum since we're discussing him rather than how he compares to the Winchesters now :)

Yeah, I can see him as a hybrid of sorts :) . And I completely agree that he ultimately makes it his own mission. I was referring to what initially drew him into the fight :) .

From the Unpopular Opinions Thread Perhaps I'm using the wrong terminology, and if I am someone feel free to correct me. The key difference for me between a hero and an anti-hero is the lengths they are prepared to go to during the fight against evil. I'm not saying that heroes are perfect Mary Sues who are without faults. Buffy for instance can be a bit vapid and self-absorbed, she is overly bossy and finds it difficult to concede control to others and she possess violent tendencies. However, for all these flaws there are certain lines she will not cross that an anti hero would. For instance I could never imagine Buffy locking humans in a cellar with two hungry vampires like Angel did during the events of Reprise. Nor can I imagine (when fighting against humans) her going for the kill rather than the hurt unless she really, really had to. Unlike Sam and Dean who we've seen repeatedly go for the kill when other options such as exorcism or non-fatal wounds are available to them. Hell, we've seen Sam use a reverse exorcism to force a demon back into a body so he can kill it when the host most likely would have survived had he let it go. But that's how I understand the difference between heroes and anti-heroes. I'm not saying that anti-heroes are bad people / villains. They're certainly capable of heroic acts hence the word 'hero' in the description, but ultimately they're willing to cross lines that a traditional hero wouldn't to get the job done. Personally, I'd regard him as an anti-hero rather than a reluctant hero. I must confess that I'm not the most most knowledgeable about literary archetypes, but my understanding of a reluctant hero is as follows. 1. They begin as an everyday person. 2. They're plucked out of obscurity and presented with some epic destiny they must fulfill in order to save the world / their loved ones / their local area etc. 3. A large part of their character journey is the internal struggle between their desire to be normal and the obligation they feel to fulfill their destiny. Within the context of the Buffyverse, Buffy is the perfect example of a reluctant hero. When Merrick first meets her at Hemery High she is a stereotypical valley girl. Suddenly she is told she is an important warrior in the battle against evil, that she is the slayer and therefore the only one capable of fulfilling the role handed to her by destiny. She actively begins her slayer duties as a result of her inherent goodness and the desire to see the ones she loves kept safe. Her journey as a reluctant hero, and the efforts she has to put in to maintain something resembling a normal life as a result, is a large part of her arc throughout the course of seasons one to four. It is only when Buffy fully embraces her calling and calls on Giles to train her in further depth at the end of Buffy Vs Dracula that she transitions from a reluctant her to someone who has fully embraced that heroism. I'd also class Cordelia as a reluctant hero. Yes, she was involved prior to the visions, but I feel her receiving of them was a turning point for the character. Much like Buffy, her powers made her a unique player in the fight against evil and her inherent goodness would never allow her to just walk away while innocent people suffered. She definitely didn't want the visions as her vehement protests in season one reveal, but she stayed and did her duty because that's who she was. I'd say Cordelia made the transition to hero / no longer reluctant during the events of Birthday. Outside of the Buffyverse I'd consider Harry Potter to be another perfect example of the reluctant hero trope. Angel on the other hand does not fit this criteria, at least I don't think so. His call to join the fight depicted during Becoming was very different. Whistler doesn't place the onus of a huge destiny on Angel. Instead he is taken to LA where they witness the calling of Buffy whom Angel is said to fall instantly in love with. His initial motivation for joining the fight was the hope of redemption and helping a particular girl. He isn't made to feel forced into it due to an epic destiny only he can fulfill. The knowledge of prophesies about the vampire with a soul only come during the course of Angel the Series

Ah perfect! Thank you Dot! I'll edit my post and move it there :)

The shows I've put in bold are ones I've also watched! I'm curious to try out Sleepy Hollow and Arrow now. I've tried BSG, but unfortunately I couldn't get into it. I need to try Bates motel. My top three shows of all time are Buffy Charmed Supernatural (Kripke era)

Although I wouldn't go as far as the author (I do still believe the brothers are far better than the monsters they hunt) this article is overall a good examination of how little regard for human life the brothers have developed the years. This growing disregard is also an example of why I see them as too dark to be 'heroes' and closer to the more morally ambigious anti-heroes. Source: http://www.gamesradar.com/blog-supernatural-who-are-the-real-monsters/

If I remember correctly, which I mightn't considering my earlier mistake, I think Death feared Sam would undo the deal. He was confident that for as long as Sam was alive he would seek a way to free Dean from isolation and from the mark of cain. He wouldn't be capable of respecting the deal and leaving things be. Death was right of course. His mistake was underestimating how quickly Sam had succeeded in finding a way to free Dean.

I would say probably overall anti-heroes would be the way I'd class the Winchesters. I'm not sure if you've ever seen the Buffyverse, but of it's two leads I'd class Buffy as a hero and Angel as an anti-hero. The Winchesters in my eyes are more similar to him than her hence anti-heroes.

Ah yes, I remembered that scene wrongly, but my point remains that his decision to put Sam before the world was a selfish and unheroic one. I do want to clarify that I don't hate Sam, Dean, and Cas (who I also mentioned as lacking true heroism). My favourite characters are the nuanced and complex ones I can really earn to admire. So I do think they're good people. I'm not saying they're major villains. I just don't think they're heroes. They've put themselves and the other (especially the other brother) before the world one too many times for that. This is all just my opinion. I'm not looking to convert anyone to my way of thinking :)

In my opinion a true hero, in the most classical sense of the word, is the one who will make the hard decisions for the greater good! They are the ones who will make the heart wrenching decision simply because they know it's the right thing to do. Buffy Summers for instance was a hero at the end of season two when she refused to put Angel (the love of her life's) life before the rest of the world. Some examples of when the Winchesters failed to match up to that heroism include; Sam's decision to put himself and Dean before bettering the world by refusing to close the gates of hell at the end of season eight, or Dean's decision to kill Death rather than allow himself to be isolated for the sake of the greater good at the end of season 10. Overall, the Winchester's may speak of doing the heroic thing, but most of the time when it comes to dying to save the world they won't do it. They'll do it for each other, but the greater good... Not so much. The Winchester's are good men I'm not saying otherwise, but ultimately unlike like a true hero they'll often place themselves before others when push comes to shove. They haven't been heroes in the truest sense of the word since season five. Again just My UO

No, it was definitely Amara. During the episode she states "Dean, you gave me what I needed most, I want to do the same for you" before fading away. I do think it could have been interesting to have something go wrong for the reason you state (she destroys), but the writers seem to have decided Mary is Mary.