S10.E22: The Prisoner

[Demented Daisy]

After what I just read from Bob Singer`s panel, I wouldn`t bank on any answers for anything. He actually admitted they have no plan whatsoever and make shit up as they go along.  Especially cliffhnagers, it`s written and then afterwards they go "oh my, what now?". Jesus Christ.

 

Ditty, how long have you and I been saying this is exactly what they do?  Despite all their protests?  At least 2 years?  *sigh*

 

ETA  Whoops, should have gone to the next page before I responded.  *blushes*  Well, what's done is done.

Edited May 16, 2015 by Demented Daisy

[Bishop]

So. They just had Dean kill a child. A high school student. I just... I don't even know.

You mean the same kid who carved up another kid?  He's no innocent.  People can say he was "forced," but he wasn't.  Dean was absolutely right about the kid - he had darkness in him, and eventually, it was going to come out.  If carving up the kid didn't convince me, I was convinced when he told Dean that he would do "anything" to save himself.  If the kid truly was against wanting to kill someone, he would have fought a heck of a lot more than just whining for a few minutes and then allowing himself to partake in the disemboweling of the OTHER young high school student.  

 

Dean did not kill a child, imo.  He killed a young kid who had just help murder another kid and then promised Dean that he would do anything he wanted to save himself.  I don't care what anyone says - no normal human being would be able ot do what he did and yet remain normal.  That kid was pretty normal when the disemboweling was over.  He just wanted to "go."   I saw no trauma after doing what he just did, and he should have been so freaking traumatized, considering he did it while the kid was still alive.

 

Dean has done nothing so far that is irredeemable, imo.  All the Stynes he killed deserved to die, including the kid.  He beat up Cas, but he didn't kill him.  Dean understands that removing the mark by using the Book will result in something evil happening because you can't call upon magic like that without consequences, and Dean doesn't want anyone else to suffer.  He's choosing to endure whatever he has to endure rather than 'save' himself.  He's angry with Sam and Cas because they roped in Charlie, and it got it her killed.  She's dead when he specifically asked them to leave it all alone.  He thought Sam had burned the book, but he hadn't.  Sam is playing with fire, but I get it.  .Dean has done the same for Sam.  They are messed up.  Neither brother can give up on the other one when they are in trouble or spiraling.  

 

Also, I loved everything about Dean taking out all the Stynes.  I'm just saying.

Edited May 19, 2015 by Bishop

[Wynne88]

Except Dean didn't know the kid had helped carve up the other boy. We know, which makes it easier for us to justify what he did, but Dean himself had no way of knowing. I personally have a bit of an issue with punishing (or killing) someone for what they might do in the future, which is basically the reason Dean gave for killing him.

[mertensia]

Yes but Dean also saw him in the LoL with the other Stynes- for all he knew Cyrus was there giving the orders. Cyrus could well have been doing the "I'm an innocent bystander!" shtick that Hans Gruber did in Die Hard.

Edited May 19, 2015 by mertensia

[DittyDotDot]

I thought it was pretty clear that Dean didn't care if the kid was evil or not, he was just being thorough and killing all the Stynes he could find.

[mertensia]

Yeah Dean was in full "you're a Styne; you're dead" mode.

But really this wrangling is kind of silly - had Sam gone all Punisher on Cyrus in the same circumstances (and I would be defending him, too) it would be seen about the same except the rabid Samgirls would be busy defending him from everyone instead of excoriating Dean.

[Demented Daisy]

Regardless, our opinion on the kid's death is immaterial, from a certain point of view.  (Thanks, Obi-Wan.)

 

TPTB wrote it this way for two reasons:  1)Dean had to do something horrible to make Dean desperate enough to make a dumb decision; and 2)it had to be debatable.  So far, we're at 5 pages in this thread, which makes it one of the most-talked about episodes of the season (around here, anyway).  The majority of that discussion is whether Dean killing that kid was justifiable.

 

Dean is going to think that killing that kid was very bad.  Very bad, indeed.

[DittyDotDot]

Yeah Dean was in full "you're a Styne; you're dead" mode.

But really this wrangling is kind of silly - had Sam gone all Punisher on Cyrus in the same circumstances (and I would be defending him, too) it would be seen about the same except the rabid Samgirls would be busy defending him from everyone instead of excoriating Dean.

 

I'm not sure that seeing Dean's actions as questionable makes someone a rabid Samgirl? ::shudder at the use of that term::

 

The episode is titled The Prisoner and they went to great pains to show us how almost everyone was a prisoner in some fashion and are compromising themselves as a result. Dean is a prisoner to the Mark and is slowly losing himself to it's influence; Sam is a prisoner to his need to save Dean and allowing himself to be a hypocrite in order to do it; Cass is a prisoner to his want to help save Dean and keeps having to go again his instincts to remain on Team Save Dean; Crowley was a prisoner to being corrupted by human blood, but he broke free from his chains and now is evil again; Cyrus was a prisoner to his own family legacy and, in a way, was freed by Dean killing him; and despite Rowena being actually held prisoner, in my mind, she's the only one who wasn't a prisoner.

 

Dean's actions were not born out of any of the justifications being brought forward, IMO, but born out of how he is being held prisoner by the Mark. Even if the kid had been the most evil kid in the world I would find what Dean did wrong because the decision was made by the Mark and not Dean. So, even though I see the action as wrong, it's not an actual criticism of Dean, but a concern of what's happening to Dean.

[catrox14]

I really hope Dean doesn't think killing the kid is bad at all. For all Dean knows the kid is a lying liar that lies whose only loyalty is to the Stynes regardless of the begging and pleading. The Stynes collective was after Charlie for the book, they killed Charlie and Dean had just come back from being put on a table on the verge of being sliced and diced for parts and sees two Stynes destroying his home.

 
I think he's more concerned that he almost killed Cas and that he wished that it was Sam on the pyre instead of Charlie.  And he's told Cas that he and Sam need to stay away from him because the next time he won't miss.  This isn't going to be about killing an 'innocent' killer Stynes.  At least I hope not. 

[catrox14]

 

Yeah Dean was in full "you're a Styne; you're dead" mode.

  

  But really this wrangling is kind of silly - had Sam gone all Punisher on Cyrus in the same circumstances (and I would be defending him, too) it would be seen about the same except the rabid Samgirls would be busy defending him from everyone instead of excoriating Dean.

 

I do wonder if there would be as much upset if it had been Sam that just walked in on the Stynes. This was a home invasion by the Stynes who murdered Charlie. They blew off the door to the lair, so really I think there is an argument for self-defense. They were going after the Lair once they knew it existed regardless of Dean's attack on the Stynes.  Sam knows that the Stynes are using body parts to enhance themselves and knows they can jump out of a 3 story window with no problem and they already killed Charlie and they are about to burn HIS books.

Edited May 19, 2015 by catrox14

[Demented Daisy]

I think Dean will have a moment of clarity, so to speak, and be disturbed by all of it.

 

I can't speak for anyone else, but Dean, Sam, Cas, anyone -- the kid did not deserve to die.  

[catrox14]

 

I think Dean will have a moment of clarity, so to speak, and be disturbed by all of it.

 

I can't speak for anyone else, but Dean, Sam, Cas, anyone -- the kid did not deserve to die.

 

The more I think about it , the less problem I have with Dean killing Cyrus.

 

To me having Cas call him "a kid" is a cheap ploy to make us worry about him more and IMO he was not "a kid" .   He was an older teen probably close to 18.  Dean was making a judgment based on what he saw in the Styne compound which was nearly every Styne being in on the conspiracy.  Dean knew the entire family legacy is destroying the world for their own benefit. They bankrolled the Nazis apparently, they were harvesting parts from living victims to make themselves into super humans.  And Dean was getting vengeance on ALL THE STYNES. Dean decided to kill him because he saw what he came from and believed he was going to become the same monster as the rest of the Stynes.  And yes Dean was thinking of himself in that moment too, Dean believes that he is now that monster so that's why he's telling Cas for him and Sam to stay away from him.

 

But nah, I've decided that I can't be upset with Dean, Sam or Cas for killing Cyrus even if the show wants me to be. 

[DittyDotDot]

See, I don't think the show wants us to be upset with Dean, but worried for Dean--especially knowing that Dean will be upset with himself.

[catrox14]

See, I don't think the show wants us to be upset with Dean, but worried for Dean--especially knowing that Dean will be upset with himself.

 

Worry for the Winchesters is par for the course; part and parcel of the show. I think we are supposed to be worried for both brothers for different reasons. But now they took away hero status for both and that pisses me off more than anything. I can live with unlikely heroes. I can live with anti-heroes( which I don't think they are). What I can't live with is the deconstruction of the brothers for reasons that I just can't cotton right now. 

 

But now IMO they want us to really doubt the brothers' moral compass which started in s8 for both brothers. Sam doesn't look for Dean but now he's going to do any and everything to save Dean no matter the consequences.  And Dean says he found Purgatory pure because it was just kill or be killed and is apparently ending with Dean Winchester: Serial Killer of Humans (THINMAN, Lester, Randy and the Rapists, the Stynes).

 

Where is the redemption for both?

[DittyDotDot]

Yet to come?

[Aeryn13]

 

Even if the kid had been the most evil kid in the world I would find what Dean did wrong because the decision was made by the Mark and not Dean.

 

If the kid had secretely been a GOT!Joffrey, that would change my reading of the situation. I`d think "lucky break" then. It wouldn,`t have been a decision made for the right reasons but still resulted in something good so it wouldn`t bother me. Now, the person doing the killing in such a situation should probably still reevalutate their actions. Can`t expect lucky accidents all the time after all.

[Demented Daisy]

Yet to come?

 

I was going to say "Next season?" but yours sounds better.

 

ETA  I don't doubt Sam or Dean's moral compass.  Dean is under the influence and Sam (as yet) has no knowledge that what he's doing is dangerous to the world at large.  I've yet to see intentional immorality from either brother.  

 

Am I forgetting something?

Edited May 19, 2015 by Demented Daisy

[catrox14]

I was going to say "Next season?" but yours sounds better.

 

ETA  I don't doubt Sam or Dean's moral compass.  Dean is under the influence and Sam (as yet) has no knowledge that what he's doing is dangerous to the world at large.  I've yet to see intentional immorality from either brother.  

 

Am I forgetting something?

 

There are many things both brothers have done that are intentionally immoral depending on one's viewpoint but most recently

 

Dean allowed an angel to possess Sam without Sam's consent to save Sam's life.  Some say it's a rape metaphor which UGH NO. Many viewers have never forgiven Dean for that and they think it's the literal worst thing Dean has ever done.  No supernatural influence over Dean when he made that decision.

 

Sam convinced a human to sell his soul so that he could find Dean. There was no supernatural influence when Sam did that.

 

But I supposed it could be traced back to Mary selling her soul to save John and John selling his soul to save Dean and Dean selling his soul to save Sam. The only one that hasn't sold his soul to save someone else is Sam not that I can remember. He ended up soulless because he tried to save the world by being Lucifer's meatsuit but that wasn't the same as selling his soul.

[Demented Daisy]

Dean allowed an angel to possess Sam without Sam's consent to save Sam's life.  

 

I'm not sure I'd call that intentional immorality, but obviously mileage varies.  (What others think of his actions have no influence on my opinion, so the fact that others think it's the worst thing he has ever done means nothing to me.)

 

 

Sam convinced a human to sell his soul so that he could find Dean. There was no supernatural influence when Sam did that.

 

Again, I'm not sure I'd call it intentional immorality.  He had no intention of the guy actually selling his soul.  He was stupid, no doubt, but I don't think he would have done it if he had known what would happen.  Again, mileage varies.

[DittyDotDot]

I don't doubt Sam and Dean's moral compass either. IMO, they aren't intentionally trying to hurt people. I do realize they are massively naive and stupid sometimes, but that's a whole different kettle of worms if you ask me.

[millennium]

Did I miss something in Dark Dynasty?  Was Charlie chained in a basement like Rowena and forced to crack the code against her will?   Because if not, everything Dean said about her death came off like paternalistic, sexist bullshit.

 

Telling Sam "you got Charlie killed."   Charlie participated of her own free will, out of a sincere desire to help Dean.   I didn't like Charlie much, but Dean making it sound like she had no say in the matter does her character a deep injustice.    She gave her life for her friend, a fact that has been trampled amid the carnage of Dean's vengeance ride   Sam buying into Dean's analysis of the situation also robs Charlie of her legacy (but to be fair, Sam is overcome by shock and guilt).

 

This was a very intense episode.   I kept hoping for a commercial break just to dial it down some but I watched on the CW site and it's commercial-free. 

 

Regarding the execution of Cyrus Styne:  Yeah, he knew his family was bad, but there are lots of kids living in homes with parents who are up to no good.   Should they all be considered complicit?   Or is it more like Stockholm syndrome?   As far as we know, Cyrus had never willfully committed an evil deed.   BUT ... something bugs me.   Remember how he stood up to the bully in the opening scene?   That didn't seem very nerd-like.   I thought he was going to manifest super-strength and tear the kid apart.   Yet, later, he tells Dean, "I'm not like them!" and lifts his shirt to show no stitches.   So why then was Cyrus so cocky to the bully?   Was it because he knew his cousin was watching from the car and would come to his rescue?   And if so, did he anticipate the bully's ultimate fate?   Is that why he was so confident standing up to him?    That scene doesn't jibe with the characterization of Cyrus as a timid nerd.  

[catrox14]

Understand I don't agree that those are intentionally immoral. I am being the devil's advocate here for the segment of viewers that post places not here and the perception of those things. It's a pretty wide split IMO but I think the writers want us to look at these choices with a side-eye. I don't personally see it that way. 

 

As I have posted here many times, I had no problem with Dean making his choice to save Sam, I have no problem with Sam making his choice with Lester, I have no problem with Dean's choice to kill Cyrus.

 

I'm explaining what I see elsewhere and why I think the writers are wanting us to see the choices the boys make as losing their moral compass. I don't see it the way the want me too.

 

 

 

Did I miss something in Dark Dynasty?  Was Charlie chained in a basement like Rowena and forced to crack the code against her will?   Because if not, everything Dean said about her death came off like paternalistic, sexist bullshit.

 

Telling Sam "you got Charlie killed."   Charlie participated of her own free will, out of a sincere desire to help Dean.   I didn't like Charlie much, but Dean making it sound like she had no say in the matter does her character a deep injustice.    She gave her life for her friend, a fact that has been trampled amid the carnage of Dean's vengeance ride   Sam buying into Dean's analysis of the situation also robs Charlie of her legacy (but to be fair, Sam is overcome by shock and guilt).

 

 

I can't fathom where paternalism or sexism comes out of that statement by Dean. Dean didn't have all the info on Charlie's involvement but it's true that if Sam had never called Charlie to get involved after she was in hiding and the Stynes had left her alone, she likely is still alive right now.  Charlie's agency is nowhere lost in Dean's opinion that this was on Sam.

 

That was Dean being Dean. He's extremely protective of Charlie and he always has been but he never tried to stop her from doing anything. He advised her but she made her own choices. She made her own choice to leave the location but Sam's call is what got her involved in this case.

Edited May 19, 2015 by catrox14

[AwesomO4000]

The only one that hasn't sold his soul to save someone else is Sam not that I can remember. He ended up soulless because he tried to save the world by being Lucifer's meatsuit but that wasn't the same as selling his soul.

 

Not for lack of effort though. That was one of my favorite drunk Sam lines: "I don't want ten years. I don't want one year. I don't want candy!" Aw come on Sam, might as well take the candy or at least a fruit basket with you if you're going straight to hell anyway.

 

Again, I'm not sure I'd call it intentional immorality.  He had no intention of the guy actually selling his soul.  He was stupid, no doubt, but I don't think he would have done it if he had known what would happen.  Again, mileage varies.

 

Sometimes I almost wonder if I'd rather Sam be like "Screw it. He's a jerk, anyway," because at least then he would have considered the consequences and not been stupid yet again. Almost... if they give me yet more Stupid Sam in the upcoming episode - and the events of this past episode are making me think that's where we're headed -  I'm going to be even closer to wondering if. Would I rather have a more moral Sam who is stupid or a less moral Sam who isn't (as) stupid?... This show is cruel for making me even have to consider that.

[DittyDotDot]

Understand I don't agree that those are intentionally immoral. I am being the devil's advocate here for the segment of viewers that post places not here and the perception of those things. It's a pretty wide split IMO but I think the writers want us to look at these choices with a side-eye. I don't personally see it that way. 

 

As I have posted here many times, I had no problem with Dean making his choice to save Sam, I have no problem with Sam making his choice with Lester, I have no problem with Dean's choice to kill Cyrus.

 

I'm explaining what I see elsewhere and why I think the writers are wanting us to see the choices the boys make as losing their moral compass. I think the writers are wrong.

 

I base my opinions of the material by what the writers put on screen, not by how other people react to it.

 

IMO, based on the episode itself, the writers wanted us to think Dean's actions were wrong but not because Dean is a bad guy and want us to hate him, but because he is being influenced by something greater than himself right now. They want us to root for Dean to get the Mark removed. I don't think it has anything to do with questioning their moral compass myself.

[Demented Daisy]

Would I rather have a more moral Sam who is stupid or a less moral Sam who isn't (as) stupid?... This show is cruel for making me even have to consider that.

 

I'll take moral, but stupid any day.  What good is intelligence if Sam does evil with it?

[catrox14]

This is where I have trouble with how Dean and Sam have been written over the past 3 seasons. 

 

The stuff they have had these boys do in the past 3 seasons isn't even for the greater good in the end or it seems they want me to think. It sure doesn't make them look like heroes, so it does feel like they are writing for us really wonder why we still like them or love them.

 

Sam not looking for Dean resulted in many viewers hating Sam. Straight up hatred. How could Carver not anticipate that would be the reaction? Dean let an angel into Sam, blames Sam for Charlie's death and then shoots the Sam avatar in the head, after considering his choices. Surely Carver would anticipate hatred towards Dean. It's these events over the past 3 seasons that leave me questioning whether I should still love these guys, other than the cache they have earned over the prior 7 seasons. 

 

If I were a new viewer in s8 I'd be thinking WTF . Who are these assholes and why should I care about them?  It makes me really sad.

Edited May 19, 2015 by catrox14

[AwesomO4000]

I'll take moral, but stupid any day.  What good is intelligence if Sam does evil with it?

 

True, but for me immoral or a lapse in morality isn't always evil. Evil is a choice to do evil. People do non-moral things all the time: lie, cheat on their spouse, steal (Sam and Dean do two of those on a regular basis)... but that doesn't make them necessarily evil. If Sam had a lapse in morality because it meant saving Dean, I don't think it would make him evil or it wouldn't even mean he couldn't have regrets about it later, and make up for it / atone. It's fixable, in my opinion.

 

But sadly "stupid" seems to be sticking to Sam lately like a fly to fly paper. He can't seem to go a few days without making a completely stupid decision. And sadly, in the Winchester's world, stupid might be even more dangerous on the whole than questionably moral. The chance for major world catastrophe - I'm looking at that "partnership" with Rowena that I suspect has already resulted in the return of evil Crowley and maybe worse to come - is much greater. Good intentions don't mean much if you cause yet another potential apocalypse by doing something stupid. The rest of the world isn't going to care much if Sam "didn't mean it" or not. Personally if it were me, I'd rather hear "I wanted my brother back, damn the consequences" - because at least that's standing for something - than "oops, sorry. Did I do that?" *

 

So I'm conflicted still on that.

 

* Being a Mike Nelson, Destroyer of Worlds is only amusing if your show is a comedy. And if the comedy is Mystery Science Theater 3000, then it's hilarious.

Edited May 19, 2015 by AwesomO4000

[catrox14]

True, but for me immoral or a lapse in morality isn't always evil. Evil is a choice to do evil. People do non-moral things all the time: lie, cheat on their spouse, steal (Sam and Dean do two of those on a regular basis)... but that doesn't make them necessarily evil. If Sam had a lapse in morality because it meant saving Dean, I don't think it would make him evil or it wouldn't even mean he couldn't have regrets about it later, and make up for it / atone. It's fixable, in my opinion.

 

But sadly "stupid" seems to be sticking to Sam lately like a fly to fly paper. He can't seem to go a few days without making a completely stupid decision. And sadly, in the Winchester's world, stupid might be even more dangerous on the whole than questionably moral. The chance for major world catastrophe - I'm looking at that "partnership" with Rowena that I suspect has already resulted in the return of evil Crowley and maybe worse to come - is much greater. Good intentions don't mean much if you cause yet another potential apocalypse by doing something stupid. The rest of the world isn't going to care much if Sam "didn't mean it" or not. Personally if it were me, I'd rather hear "I wanted my brother back, damn the consequences" - because at least that's standing for something - than "oops, sorry. Did I do that?" *

 

So I'm conflicted still on that.

 

* Being a Mike Nelson, Destroyer of Worlds is only amusing if your show is a comedy. And if the comedy is Mystery Science Theater 3000, then it's hilarious.

For me, it comes back to what Cas told Dean in Road Trip.

 

"You were stupid for the right reasons".  So I think that will apply for Sam here too.

[Demented Daisy]

If I were a new viewer in s8 I'd be thinking WTF . Who are these assholes and why should I care about them?  It makes me really sad.

 

 

Mileage definitely varies because if I had started watching in S8, I would have found Sam's decision not to look for Dean perfectly reasonable.  

 

I'd say closing the gates to Hell was intended to be for the greater good, but we'll never know.

 

True, but for me immoral or a lapse in morality isn't always evil. Evil is a choice to do evil. People do non-moral things all the time: lie, cheat on their spouse, steal (Sam and Dean do two of those on a regular basis)... but that doesn't make them necessarily evil. If Sam had a lapse in morality because it meant saving Dean, I don't think it would make him evil or it wouldn't even mean he couldn't have regrets about it later, and make up for it / atone. It's fixable, in my opinion.

 

IMO, Sam's morality is already rather fluid (as you pointed out).  Giving up even more of that morality might tip him over to the evil side.  

 

I'm not convinced it's a zero sum game, though.  I think Sam can be smart and moral.  Unfortunately, I think the writers aren't talented enough to write that story these days.  It's easier to make a character stupid to get the desired results.  (How many times did they fail to notice someone was following them this season?  Sam and Dean always knew when they were being followed, even on foot, in earlier seasons.)

Edited May 19, 2015 by Demented Daisy

[millennium]

Sam call's got Charlie involved; it didn't get her killed.   That falls squarely on the shoulders of the Stynes.  And Charlie, who took her chances and lost.    Yet Dean blames Sam, because he regards Charlie as a kid sister rather than a warrior who can make her own decisions and take responsibility for them.  Charlie made the choice for herself to help Sam save Dean -- yet Dean blames Sam.   I think it's a sexist point of view.  YMMV.

 

ETA: This Dean was ten times more fearsome than Demon Dean earlier in the season.

Edited May 19, 2015 by millennium

[catrox14]

 

Mileage definitely varies because if I had started watching in S8, I would have found Sam's decision not to look for Dean perfectly reasonable.

 

 

Funny thing.  The first scene I ever saw of this show was Dean finding Cas in Purgatory only after seeing it after watching Arrow. .  My impression was oh gosh these guys are saving each other, but this long haired guy messed up and is trying to make it right.  If I had seen 8.1 as my first foray, other than Dean's hotness and Sam's great hair, I would have been like these are terrible people LOL.

[DittyDotDot]

The stuff they have had these boys do in the past 3 seasons isn't even for the greater good in the end or it seems they want me to think. It sure doesn't make them look like heroes, so it does feel like they are writing for us really wonder why we still like them or love them.

 

I think "hero" probably means something different to most people and for me, I don't particularly think of it as a compliment. But then again, I don't find it complimentary when someone tells me I look nice today...so I look like crap every other day? Personally, I'd say Sam and Dean are just a couple of guys that try to help people, but frequently get it wrong. That doesn't make them terrible people in my book.

 

I definitely think new viewers in S8 probably had no problem with Sam and Dean and they probably made sense to them just fine. It's the history of the previous seven seasons and characterizations, that makes it confusing, IMO. I understood why Sam quit looking for Dean, it just didn't make sense with the Sam I'd known before S8. But if you think of S8 as a brand new show with new characters that only resemble Sam and Dean in name only, then I don't think it's really all that confusing.

[Aeryn13]

 

Mileage definitely varies because if I had started watching in S8, I would have found Sam's decision not to look for Dean perfectly reasonable.

 

I think the episode played out oddly. You would have one dude who was obviously missing/presumed dead so the "not looking at all" scenario could be feasible if you leaned more heavily on the latter but if someone was just missing, I`d expect another person to be looking for them. That is not even unhealthy but perfectly normal if you cared. And not even bothering to look AT ALL for someone? Would IMO always come across as WTF.

 

Then you had Sam`s la-di-da reaction and where he seemed more annoyed, like Dean being not dead after all was seriously cramping his style. This made it look pretty bad IMO and Kevin`s "eat me" voice-mails put it over the top.

 

But I think Carver just didn`t see much of a problem with it and honestly didn`t anticipate any hate thrown the characters way. This last episode with Dean shooting the kid, it was definitely supposed to show Dean succumbing to the Mark. Here, I believe the writers were aware the character might be hated afterwards but didn`t give much of a crap. They did have him stop himself from killing Cas so they stopped just shy of the pitchforks. .  

 

 

I think "hero" probably means something different to most people and for me, I don't particularly think of it as a compliment.

 

Heh. For me it is a compliment of the highest order. Whereas normal/regular is...well, shall we say, yikes. For fictional characters at least I consider it the death knell.

[catrox14]

 

I definitely think new viewers in S8 probably had no problem with Sam and Dean and they probably made sense to them just fine

 

I was a new viewer with 8.2 .Never watched a second of the show before that. 

 

I think I tried to watch a couple of more episodes but I was kind of lost and I think there was something else I was watching, Basically I decided to watch the whole series when another blog was doing a re-watch.  So I dunno for me personally they were hot but were dicks. LOL JMHO

[AwesomO4000]

[snip].. and Kevin`s "eat me" voice-mails put it over the top.

 

But I think Carver just didn`t see much of a problem with it and honestly didn`t anticipate any hate thrown the characters way. This last episode with Dean shooting the kid, it was definitely supposed to show Dean succumbing to the Mark. Here, I believe the writers were aware the character might be hated afterwards but didn`t give much of a crap. They did have him stop himself from killing Cas so they stopped just shy of the pitchforks. . 

 

Even though there were some points here about this episode, there were also some ranty bits, so I moved my response over to the "Bitterness" thread just in case.

 

I'll leave the last relevant bit here, so others can skip the ranty part if they want. Those who want to get on that rant train, come join me in the "Bitterness" thread later.

 

Episode relevant part:

 

On the other hand I think very much that the writers care about what the audience would think with Dean's killing of the younger Styne. I agree that it's supposed to show Dean's succumbing to the mark, but the narrative went to great lengths to show that Dean had fought the mark for a long time, that he definitely wished there had been a way out even if that meant sacrificing himself, and generally did a great job of explaining Dean's point of view (for example Dean's hallucinations with Benny), so that we would understand and sympathize with what happened to him. For me, not caring is when the writers don't even bother to show anything that explains a character's change in behavior, and that's not what happened with Dean. That's what happened with Sam in season 8. Miles are going to vary on that I realize, though.

[Julia]

Yet Dean blames Sam, because he regards Charlie as a kid sister rather than a warrior who can make her own decisions and take responsibility for them.  Charlie made the choice for herself to help Sam save Dean -- yet Dean blames Sam.   I think it's a sexist point of view.  YMMV.

But if Sam blames himself, "to be fair" we should consider his shock and grief and not judge him for it?

[millennium]

I think Sam's grief is letting him fall into the trap of blaming himself.   Maybe he wouldn't blame himself if Dean wasn't in his face pushing that particular storyline.

 

Sam's attempt at a farewell speech to Charlie was one of the lamest things I ever heard.   "Charlie ... you were the best."  Ugh.

[catrox14]

That suggests that Sam wouldn't feel regret and didn't already have blame himself and I don't think that's true at all.

[Julia]

I think Sam's grief is letting him fall into the trap of blaming himself.   Maybe he wouldn't blame himself if Dean wasn't in his face pushing that particular storyline.

I seem to have fallen into the center of a fannish factional divide I wasn't aware of about this show, and that's not a roundabout I want to ride, so I'll just leave it at this: Sam Winchester is a grown human, and has agency. He actually has a damn sight more agency than Dean does, right about now, and he's the one who petitioned Crowley to bring Dean back to begin with. So if Dean is a contemptible sexist for believing that Sam played a role in Charlie's death (which I dispute, because Sam did play a role in Charlie's death), Sam is equally a contemptible sexist for believing that Sam played a role in Charlie's death.

[rue721]

But you said a couple of times that you haven`t like him for years, maybe not ever? So what would the conclusion of the dark arc right now change really? Personally, I don`t want him to be like Sam or something because I happen to like Dean as is and I don`t want my favourite character to fundamentally change. Especially into a character that bugs me oftentimes.

 

"Maybe not ever"? Dunno where you're getting that.

 

I didn't like Dean in S4 and especially in S5. He was too dour and macho for me at that point. But I found the show as a whole too dour and macho in S5 and dropped off watching it -- but then came back for S6, enjoyed it, and have stayed on. Dean was the main reason I even watched the early years of the show, and then I enjoyed him again in S6, and enjoyed him in S7 but found that he was getting wound a little tight. Which was understandable/in-character but imo could get abrasive. Then in S8 I started feeling like I couldn't really get a handle on even who the character was, and that has continued to grow worse over the past couple seasons -- but that's not just an issue I have with Dean, that's an again an issue I have with the show as a whole.

 

I think that Dean *has* changed as a character over time, just like other aspects of the show and other characters have changed over time. I don't know what liking/not-liking him has to do with whether he or the rest of the show remain in stasis.

 

The show doesn't need to alter Dean to suit my tastes like the character is some piece of custom-made furniture that I'm ordering, and I don't want the show to try. The point of any of the character's arcs is not to make him more or less custom made to anyone in the audience or even the audience as a whole imo. That would be boring for the audience and it's futile for the writers/actors/everybody to try, anyway. So no, I'm not thinking or hoping that that will be the result of the dark arc or any "redemption" arc the show might want to do afterward.

 

Since you don't believe in redemption what could Dean do that would make you like him or root for the character?  I guess I'm rooting for him to fight his way out of his situation without taking everyone he loves/loved down with him.

 

What would make me like Dean again would be if he had more personality again -- made jokes, had clear likes and dislikes, just had a more singular point-of-view. He's become practically interchangeable with Batman to me at this point, and there's no reason it has to be that way. He started out with a personality and JA is capable of making it feel like Dean is an individual with an inner life. Personally, I like cleverness and a sense of humor/absurdity/self-awareness in any character, and Dean had that in spades (and was generally quick-witted in the earlier days), and that's what I miss most. It's not just Dean that's had the personality sucked out of him, but I liked Dean's personality the most, so I miss it the most.

 

Not that I NEVER find him likeable even now. This season, I liked him in About a Boy and in Fan Fiction. It's probably not a coincidence that both those episodes brought up who he was in the long-ago past even while taking place in the present, but eh. I think what's also not a coincidence is that both those episodes were obviously written with a lot of care, and I think that's actually what differentiates them from a lot of the season.

 

In About a Boy, I especially liked when he was shooting the shit with Tina, and when he picked up the dropped motel key for that older woman, and when he was all upbeat and reassuring while trapped in that dungeon. Oh, and when he found Tyler Swift music distractingly good. She's not my bag, but I found that really endearing. In Fan Fiction, my favorite was when he was arguing music with that high school girl and was all exasperated with Sam when Sam clearly didn't care.

 

What would make Dean rootable to me again would be if he:  1. didn't seem so invincible and like he outmatches everyone. He's just some human man, so that shouldn't even logically be the case within the world of the show. But he's somehow become over-powered and it's no fun to root for someone when he's over-powered. 2. had goals I could understand emotionally. I don't even need to actually believe in his goals, I just need to understand them. Obviously, if he's fighting for something altruistic, that's great. But it doesn't have to be that heroic, tbh. Like, if he's fighting for his own survival? Cool, I get that. When he was getting upset and wanted to burn or cut off his arm to get the Mark away from him, so it would stop poisoning him, I got that. I was rooting for him right then! But when he's acting like the world can burn, that any and all collateral damage is acceptable, as long as Sam doesn't die -- I don't get that, and/so I can't really root for it.

 

Honestly, my first reaction to that is to wonder which of us are damned and which are perfect, because that seems to be what the options are. Except, none of us are perfect, so we're all damned, and there's nothing we can do about it, and no reason to try. That seems a bit more nihilistic to me than the lines the show runs on.

 

Those aren't the options, unless *you* are a determinist. Because damnation and redemption are two sides of the same coin.

 

Personally, I don't believe in either, because I don't think the universe is that orderly. I think it's much more arbitrary and chaotic than that. I don't think that your actions get you damned or saved or really anything as comprehensible/predictable as all that. I think that shit happens, and you try to deal with it (and everyone else does, too), and there's not some ~greater meaning~ to your fuckups or your successes. YMMV, obviously everyone is going to have a personal way of looking at it. If you believe that you have answers to existential questions or that there's some external balance scale that you have to make sure comes out "right" or else you're damned, then cool. But that's not something that I personally believe or a universal belief.

 

In terms of the world of the show specifically, I think they've made it clear that "redemption" and "damnation" in the practical sense of where someone goes when they die is ultimately pretty arbitrary, or at least Byzantine. None of the people we've seen sent to Hell have actually been notably "bad." They've either sold their souls for pretty understandable or even "heroic" ends -- saving Sam's life, saving Dean's life, becoming a good surgeon, becoming a good musician, getting away from abusive parents, etc -- or they've just ended up there because of some asshole or another, like Bobby. The people we've seen get sent to Heaven have been good, but no better than the ones who got sent to Hell afaik. Ashe said the reason he was in heaven is because he got "saved" by becoming a Pentecostal snake handler, not because of the good deeds he'd done. Both the bad deeds and the good deeds he'd done were apparently irrelevant. So yeah, I think that it's pretty nihilistic. It doesn't seem like doing good results in rewards, even heavenly rewards, or that damnation is the result of doing bad.

 

In terms of how the audience views the characters and whether they can be redeemed in the audience's eyes -- I have no idea. I actually don't think that they've been "damned" in the audience's eyes anyway, and that the audience is by and large still rooting for both Sam and Dean. It seems like TPTB are trying to push the envelope on keeping the characters' rootable, but apparently, the audience as a whole is hanging on and just stays on the guys' side. So, *shrug.*

[catrox14]

Re-watching this episode.  It's pretty damn great IMO.

 

I want to know what the chanting/singing was saying that was leading up to Dean's slaughter of the Stynes.

[sarthaz]

I know you're grieving, Dean, but could you be a little less of a dickbag towards Sam?  Geologically speaking (since you spent those 40 years in Hell), it was like a week ago that you sneaked around behind Sam's back trying to save him by messing with shit you don't understand and got Kevin killed.  And now you want Sam on the pyre for doing the exact same thing?  Ass.

[Myrelle]

On ‎6‎/‎10‎/‎2015 at 1:35 AM, catrox14 said:

Re-watching this episode.  It's pretty damn great IMO.

ITA. I love this one. It reminds me of Early Supernatural so much.

[RulerofallIsurvey]

Rambling stream of consciousness (or semi-consciousness, as the case may be...)

• I almost liked the Stynes for a nano-second there.  I mean, they put family first, and isn't that what the Winchesters are all about?
• It started off so well.  I actually squeed!  I mean, Dean carrying logs and Sam chopping wood?  And then I realized it was for Charlie's funeral pyre.  Damn,  Nm.
• Could have done without the Charlie-sympathetic montage.   No offense to anyone who felt it was needed.
• Could Sam have looked any more like an abused shelter puppy?
• No wait - and I notice weird crap like this so I had to rewind and watch again (ah! The advantages of Netflix over live!)  Dean was carrying MummyCharlie all by himself with no problem until he gets close to the funeral pyre and then Sam helps him lift her feet over the standing logs.  But Sam makes a face like it was heavy.  Doesn't track.
• Shut up Dean for telling Sam to shut up.  Sam did not get her killed.  Charlie got herself killed.  He does get to apologize for his part in asking her to get involved.  That's between Sam and Charlie, not you, Dean.  And whoa - way too cold saying that should be Sam burning on the funeral pyre.  Is this supposed to be the show making up for the nasty Sam Purge speech?  Cause that was way above and beyond.  I don't think Sam ever told Dean he should have been the one dead, unless I just don't remember. 
• I almost quit watching right here.  Had to force myself to continue.  
• That was Dean talking.  Not the Mark.  IMO.
• What?  Cas didn't know that Charlie was dead?  I would have thought angels could sense that kind of shit.
• Wow.  Charlie's email took awhile to connect.  Or Sam just doesn't check his email regularly.  On my phone, it automatically comes in, even if I don't actively open the email app.  Get a damn iPhone, Sam.  
• Angels shouldn't be "happy" to kill anyone.  Just saying.  Unless you're one of those smiting angels like Raphael or Uriel  Even then, I don't think it should be "happy" they're feeling. 
• Wow, I hated that personification of Southern Law Enforcement.  Could we get any more cliche?  And you know what?  After dealing with Hurricane Matthew in SC, FU, for that Show.  Am I a little too sensitive?  Perhaps.  Or maybe just tired of being the brunt of some Goddamn Stupid Yankee's joke.  Don't judge me.
• Waiter dude leaned up again a hot coffee maker?  I don't think so.
• Damn, is it wrong that I love that Dean slugged the crooked sheriff for his Baby?
• Crowley's "De-e-e-an" was precious.  :)  But not loving Sam here.
• FINALLY the Mark of Cain does some damn good.  
• Ah, what?  The Stynes in the Batcave?   Say it isn't so!!
• So what if Dean killed everyone in the Styne estate brutally?  Seems like we like to say in the South: They needed killing.  
• Damn, I just hate to see books (knowledge) burned.  Glad they weren't.  
• But that end with Dean and Cas...Wow.  Just Wow.

I don't think I could really appreciate this episode as much as others (from my ultra-quick perusal of comments) because of all the shit that happened.  

[RulerofallIsurvey]

Rewatching...(What am I doing?) and something else that bugged me, but I forgot to comment on it first time through:  Sam didn't even bother to tell Cas that Charlie died before they burned her?  It took some time to get that funeral pyre together.  Maybe Cas would have liked to pay his 'last respects', no?  Maybe for an angel, human 'death' doesn't really make a difference - since supposedly she'll be in Heaven, right?  I don't know.  It just seemed weird that Sam took so long to tell Cas what happened.  

[RulerofallIsurvey]

On 5/14/2015 at 0:20 AM, Goldmoon said:

Why isn't Cas teleporting himself any more?  And can't he heal?  He didn't heal Charlie, and now the nerdy kid.

 

On 5/14/2015 at 0:23 AM, catrox14 said:

Cas hasn't been able to teleport since his wings burned.  I think he's saving his grace to save Dean or Sam when they time comes. 

 

On 5/14/2015 at 0:42 AM, catrox14 said:

I didn't think Cas got all of his grace back.

Cas didn't get all of his grace back.  I believe that some of it was used to cast the spell? curse?  that cast the angels out of Heaven.  But he was attempting to heal Amelia just a couple episodes ago, so it doesn't really make sense he didn't try to bring back Charlie or the nerd Styne - except of course that he didn't find out that Charlie was dead until after she was burned, so too late then.

On 5/14/2015 at 2:08 AM, Altered Reality said:

And it's interesting how we can see the same images yet perceive things differently.  Until Cass referred to NerdyStyne as I teenager, I read him as college age.  1st year maybe, but still older and (IMHO) a little more culpable in his participation in and/or lack of action against the family "game".

Oh and I thought his Dad's threat wasn't that they would kill him, but rather they'd start "enhancing" him against his will.  Which I actually thought was a worse threat than being killed, but that probably says something about me that I don't want to think about ;D

So glad the bunker is (mostly) intact.  I guess the thing is warded against all evil, but no one thought to reinforce the front door against bombs!  But the books, aaaaaaggggghhhhh the books.  Made me want to cry.

1st year college would still be a teenager - any where from 17 to 19, depending on when his birthday was and if it was his first or second semester.

I didn't catch the threat to enhance Cyrus against his will until I watched it again.  Then it made sense, and I agree with your assessment.  Good catch!

And yes - I was absurdly upset at the prospect of the books being burned.  

On 5/14/2015 at 2:50 AM, ahrtee said:

Honestly, I still haven't forgiven Sam for The Purge speech.  That, to me, was the cruelest thing I've ever heard a character say on this show. (Not the part about not saving him, which I know wasn't meant the way it sounded;  rather, when Sam told him flat out that he had never saved anyone or done anything good, that everything he'd ever done was for selfish reasons, and that he didn't want to be brothers any more.  That basically negated Dean's whole sense of self and his only source of self-worth.)  

Wow, really?  I thought Dean saying Sam should be dead instead of Charlie was much more cruel than what Sam said to Dean in The Purge.  And don't get me wrong, I thought what Sam said to Dean was unnecessarily cruel there also.  But at least Sam didn't practically wish Dean dead.

On 5/14/2015 at 10:44 AM, Julia said:

And yeah, Dean was pretty harsh with Sam. I still think Dean still has a way to go to catch up with the crap Sam gave him all last season for doing pretty much what Sam's doing now, only without lying about it or letting someone else take the risks for him.

But Dean did lie about letting Gadreel possess Sam last season.  And he basically let Kevin take the risks for him, which also got Kevin killed.  Only Kevin didn't even have all the information like Charlie did.  At least Charlie knew the risks she was taking and still did it of her own free will.  I think with his pyre-side comment, Dean has caught up with and surpassed all the crap Sam gave him.

On 5/14/2015 at 11:01 PM, AwesomO4000 said:

Me though, I'm going to bypass that for just a moment to dip into the shallow end of the pool. I don't think it's been mentioned yet, but Sam and Dean can come chop firewood for me any time. I'll provide hot chocolate or something and just watch from the porch.

I, too, like the shallow end of the pool!  Thank for this comment.  ;)  Mind if I join you on the porch?

On 5/15/2015 at 2:16 PM, Mulva said:

Dean murdering Cyrus was worse than anything Sam has ever done.

Nah -  but I think that Dean practically saying he wished Sam were dead instead of Charlie is worse than anything Sam has ever done or said to Dean.

On 5/19/2015 at 10:57 AM, catrox14 said:

I really hope Dean doesn't think killing the kid is bad at all. For all Dean knows the kid is a lying liar that lies whose only loyalty is to the Stynes regardless of the begging and pleading. The Stynes collective was after Charlie for the book, they killed Charlie and Dean had just come back from being put on a table on the verge of being sliced and diced for parts and sees two Stynes destroying his home.

Not to mention, didn't Papa Styne tell Dean while he was strapped to the table that his minions were on their way to the bunker to destroy it and kill his (Dean's) family?  As far as Dean knew when he walked in, Sam could have already been dead.

On 5/20/2015 at 0:38 PM, Julia said:

I seem to have fallen into the center of a fannish factional divide I wasn't aware of about this show, and that's not a roundabout I want to ride, so I'll just leave it at this: Sam Winchester is a grown human, and has agency. He actually has a damn sight more agency than Dean does, right about now, and he's the one who petitioned Crowley to bring Dean back to begin with. So if Dean is a contemptible sexist for believing that Sam played a role in Charlie's death (which I dispute, because Sam did play a role in Charlie's death), Sam is equally a contemptible sexist for believing that Sam played a role in Charlie's death.

Dean didn't just believe that Sam played a role in Charlie's death (which, Sam did play a role in it.)  Dean placed the complete and total blame on Sam for Charlie's death.  There's a difference.    

On 5/21/2015 at 3:43 PM, rue721 said:

What would make me like Dean again would be if he had more personality again -- made jokes, had clear likes and dislikes, just had a more singular point-of-view. He's become practically interchangeable with Batman to me at this point, and there's no reason it has to be that way. He started out with a personality and JA is capable of making it feel like Dean is an individual with an inner life. Personally, I like cleverness and a sense of humor/absurdity/self-awareness in any character, and Dean had that in spades (and was generally quick-witted in the earlier days), and that's what I miss most. It's not just Dean that's had the personality sucked out of him, but I liked Dean's personality the most, so I miss it the most.

Yes! Yes! to all this!  Curiously, I actually saw more of this 'personality' the last few episodes - like his sense of humor.  I really enjoyed seeing that again.

[DittyDotDot]

56 minutes ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

Cas didn't get all of his grace back.  I believe that some of it was used to cast the spell? curse?  that cast the angels out of Heaven.  But he was attempting to heal Amelia just a couple episodes ago, so it doesn't really make sense he didn't try to bring back Charlie or the nerd Styne - except of course that he didn't find out that Charlie was dead until after she was burned, so too late then.

Didn't Cass get his grace back? It was hidden in that library he and Marvatron visited...what was that episode, it was the one that ended with the Last Pizza Supper.

[RulerofallIsurvey]

1 hour ago, DittyDotDot said:

Didn't Cass get his grace back? It was hidden in that library he and Marvatron visited...what was that episode, it was the one that ended with the Last Pizza Supper.

Yes, but I thought that was 'what was left of his grace' after Boogertron used part of it for his sealing off Heaven spell.  

[Diane]

17 minutes ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

Yes, but I thought that was 'what was left of his grace' after Boogertron used part of it for his sealing off Heaven spell.  

I agree, I understood he got most of his Grace back, but not all of it.

[Diane]

This is off of: http://supernatural.wikia.com/wiki/Book_of_the_Damned

Cas then reabsorbs his grace, (causing an energy blast that reduces half the library to smithereens) and is restored to his full power and status as a Seraphim, though his wings remain broken/burnt.