Bessie

That episode was fairly good. It was also very Dean-centric so I hope all you Dean girls appreciate that. I actually liked it more than I expected to in regards to jack. It was kind of fun to follow along with him.

Do it! Kidding. I know you're not. And I have no problem with people being critical of any of the actors. I don't know these guys so I don't feel any great need to defend them. It's just that these particular comments seemed so innocuous to me that I was curious about where this article was being linked to and discussed. ETA: I should add that I think it's a good thing when fans of an actor can be critical of behavior they think warrants criticism. Slavish fan devotion is a turn-off, for me. So, more power to you @Jeddah!

When actors are answering questions in an environment with screaming fans and fellow actors near them joking around and the significant possibility that alcohol may have been imbibed, I don't expect them to come up with a social critique of the the female roles on their show. If I were any of them, in that kind of environment I'd probably say "female roles on Supernatural are above my pay grade" and leave it at that, just to avoid any controversy. Although, it seems to me, that wasn't the question either. Based on the quoted transcript you provided, the question was basically, what's it like to have women on set. Which I think is kind of an odd question.

That was so completely over-the-top that it zoomed into hilarious territory for me. And I was a little pissed about that, to be honest. Castiel’s death and return should’ve been sad and melancholy not funny. I think Collins and ackles have joked about the coat thing. Nonetheless, it is cannon that dean carried around Cas’ overcoat for months.

Yup. Plus, I know nothing about this source so I’m not about to take what it publishes at face value. Reporters can slice and dice people’s answers and the reader has no clue unless a complete transcript is released. And, yes, both reporters and readers may have an agenda. This particular article is making the rounds on blogs known to dislike Padalecki. Which, in my book, makes them less likely to interpret the comments charitably and more likely to fall prey to confirmation bias I’m not saying these guys are perfect, but I am suggesting that everyone should be discerning readers. I have no issues with what he said, but I disagree with the implied criticisms in the premise of the question.

It’s not. But Castiel thinks Dean is his bff so it makes sense that the focus is on Dean and his actions and reactions. Bobby and sam weren’t particularly close to cas.

Table for two! Actually, I don’t think Castiel has much of a relationship with any character other than Dean, which I believe was a big mistake on the part of the writers and largely a function of fan service.

I guess I'll wait until the end of the season to see how many episodes she's in altogether, but I'm a little confused as to why sam smith isn't getting regular status. I have to admit, it bothers me.

That's what I always figured. Which would've helped him get the full ride.

I don't have an issue with that. He's been characterized as pretty intelligent. But why wouldn't someone at some school along the way have taken issue with a kid who has 5 million transcripts from different schools by the age of sixteen? You'd think it would raise a red flag somewhere along the line.

He may have overshot a bit. But, I think Sam's relentlessness in pursuit of a goal has been a consistent character trait throughout the series. For both good and bad.

I don't have a strong opinion on who had it worse. It was a bad situation for kids all the way around. They were just damn lucky they had each other. Can you imagine being John's only child?

Oh, I know. But I don't think they claimed they weren't making comparisons about who had it harder. It's not a big deal. I was just curious.

I was just curious about that statement that you weren't making comparisons about who had it harder, that's all. No apologies needed!

How are your posts not a who-had-it-harder comparison? I don't understand that because that's exactly how they're coming across to me - an argument that dean had it harder than sam. ETA: Which is fine. It doesn't bother me any.

That would be excellent! The boys could jump around AU worlds chasing after sproutifer or whoever the big bad is this season.

I thnk he probably did help out Castiel, but those boys have been pretty fricken clueless at times. How bout Magda (I think that was her name) who was just a kid that had to be severely traumatized after being tortured by her mother and witnessed the murder of her father and brother. And the boys just leave her at a bus stop. Really compassionate there, boys! So it's not like it would be completely out of character for Dean to be clueless about the needs of others. Especially when Sam's wellbeing is at stake. ETA: Although this did happen after the Castiel situation so maybe it doesn't count.

I'm trying to understand your point, and I admit I'm having trouble. Why does possession of the amulet impact the narrative for five seasons? Either you find it credible that Sam had it or you don't. Where's the impact on the narrative? Also, I agree with @RulerofallIsurvey and @DittyDotDot that the statement that "if it didn't happen onscreen it didn't happen" seems to be pretty flexible depending on the argument. Lots of people think Dean was parentified, but we haven't seen that onscreen and that would have a huge impact on the narrative.

Actually, Dean was in on the deception but I think his intentions were good. And maybe John's were too. I don't know how the writers intended for me to interpret the fact that Sam never calls Dean out on his lying, focusing his feelings of betrayal on John. But I always thought it showed remarkable emotional maturity on the part of a 10 year old to be able to discern the difference between the two. Most ten year olds I know, would've lashed out at both of them.

The only thing I can't buy, is Sam walking out of that room and leaving the amulet in the trash. And I don't think that's fan service. So, I'm cool with RT's comments about it.

Agreed. I've always viewed sam as something of a free spirit. Sometimes he leads, sometimes he follows and sometimes he does his own thing. He doesn't easily fit into one category.

I have to say that I'm very pleased with the organizations Random Acts has chosen. Solid, solid choices. Thanks @catrox14, for letting us know. My only caveat (and this is personal bias) is to not forget the pets. There are organizations out there doing heroic work to save animals; they need help too. If anyone has the extra money, think about giving to a local animal rescue. Often, when you're going through the most devastating event you've ever faced, pets matter.

More articles: http://www.kvue.com/mobile/article/news/local/supernatural-star-and-family-raising-money-for-harvey-victims/468313314 http://www.austin360.com/entertainment/supernatural-star-texas-brewery-raising-funds-for-hurricane-harvey-relief/k2Mk2qIKUyBgynTNXMNqjN/

This is so true. I am bibro, yet I get more frustrated by the writing for Sam but I can recognize that this is because of my own bias toward character-driven stories. I think the writers do a fantastic job with Dean on this level, which is what I value. I also believe they have a long way to go when it comes to Sam's characterization. Too much is brushed off as Sam being an introvert or compartmentalizing etc. I'm not saying I disagree with these explanations for his lack of relationships or internal struggles, but this isn't a novel I'm reading where that can be compensated for, it's a tv show where they need to get better at portraying Sam's inner life. I love the way they write Dean and his emotional/psychological life and I don't ever want that to change. I'd just like to see more of it with Sam. Because again, that's what is important to me.

Super sweet and thoughtful tweet from Kim Rhodes: