Sam Winchester: aka Moose

[catrox14]

2 minutes ago, Katy M said:

And that's what annoys me so much about it.  In Family Matters, Cas basically said, or at least implied, that soulless people have no emotions.  But, sometimes Sam was scared. Fear is an emotion.  Sometims he was cold and scary.  Other times he was just funny and clueless.  That's why I'm glad it didn't last any longer than it did, and would have been happier had it never happened.

I don't remember Cas saying that nor implying that but if he did, then IMO that was his misunderstanding of human behavior and thinking emotions were related to human souls, not that it was necessarily correct or true.

Personally, I never interpreted Soulless Sam being devoid of all emotions but that he was devoid of empathy and compassion for others. He hunted but IMO that was a logical life choice vs doing it to save people because he cared about them. He told Dean he didn't care about him or really anything. But he did feel basic emotions like lust, happiness, (he did smile at times or when he got what he wanted). And he expressed fear when being re-ensouled but IMO that was more because he liked being the way he was and didn't want to have empathy or compassion for others again because it would interfere with logical mind to a degree. Or at least that's what I thought Sera was going for; that she wanted to show how Sam wouldn't be Sam without his soul meaning he wouldn't be the empathetic, sympathetic person he was with it.   YMMV 

[auntvi]

2 hours ago, DittyDotDot said:

Yes, Jared knew. I guess during the hiatus Jared dropped by the writer's room--if I remember right, to congratulate Sera on her new position--and they told him Sam would come back soulless. Jared said he was really terrified by it all at first because they basically told him they were leaving it up to him to decide what that would look like.

Is Sera's attitude a difference between TV and movies? My impression (not first hand experience obviously) is that a film director tells the actors exactly what she wants. But on the positive side, that means the SPN's producers and writers trusted Jared's acting chops.

[catrox14]

9 minutes ago, auntvi said:

Is Sera's attitude a difference between TV and movies? My impression (not first hand experience obviously) is that a film director tells the actors exactly what she wants. But on the positive side, that means the SPN's producers and writers trusted Jared's acting chops.

I think TV is as bit different because there are several different directors that come in for episodic television, so the writers and producers have the most creative control to ensure that a story is going in a certain direction and that whatever the director for the episode is doing they are working to fulfill that overall vision. IMO, TV directors can help the actor get to a certain point or help them give what the script calls for but for an overarching character thing like they did with Soulless Sam I think that rests with the producers, writers, and the actor more than the individual directors.

[DittyDotDot]

2 hours ago, Katy M said:

And that's what annoys me so much about it.  In Family Matters, Cas basically said, or at least implied, that soulless people have no emotions.  But, sometimes Sam was scared. Fear is an emotion.  Sometims he was cold and scary.  Other times he was just funny and clueless.  That's why I'm glad it didn't last any longer than it did, and would have been happier had it never happened.

Well, they used to say angels didn't have emotions either, but clearly that wasn't the case from day one. ::shrugs::

51 minutes ago, auntvi said:

Is Sera's attitude a difference between TV and movies? My impression (not first hand experience obviously) is that a film director tells the actors exactly what she wants. But on the positive side, that means the SPN's producers and writers trusted Jared's acting chops.

Yes, it's the difference between TV and movie. In general, on movies, it's the director's vision primarily; the writer isn't even that involved. On TV, it's the showrunner's vision. It wasn't that Sera didn't have a clue about Soulless Sam, but they were leaving the acting up to Jared and not trying to tell him how to walk and talk. It's not just Jared they have a lot of confidence in, they left Demon Dean up to Jensen to find. They actually don't hand-hold their actors a lot on this show.

Edited August 15, 2017 by DittyDotDot

[trxr4kids]

Warning: This point is not meant to be taken seriously in anyway what so ever, I'm procrastinating because I hate grocery shopping.

I was debating which old episode to rewatch today and as I was deciding I wondered if my original opinion that Sam didn't sleep with (1)Sarah Blake was wrong because she's dead now, which of course led me to believe he must have also slept with Eileen Leahy and begs the question in my mind at least, of if Sam and Gabriel were really a thing. All those women who slept with SS in S6 are long dead I would think, good thing death put his soul back. I know based on Sam's hellucinations it was implied there was a non con situation but if that was the case shouldn't Lucifer be dead? Why isn't Lucifer dead dammit I'm so over him and have been forever!

(1) Hey maybe they just messed around but didn't actually have intercourse and that's why she didn't die right away.

[Katy M]

Sam's had sex with tons of women who haven't died.   And even more women who have never had sex with him have died. He tends to exaggerated his deadliness (or importance) in that arena.  LOL.

[trxr4kids]

34 minutes ago, Katy M said:

Sam's had sex with tons of women who haven't died.   And even more women who have never had sex with him have died. He tends to exaggerated his deadliness (or importance) in that arena.  LOL.

How many tons? J/K ; ) 

[Katy M]

OK, probably not tons.  At least 3.  Cara from Sex and violence.  The "hippy chick" from Clap Your Hands.  And the waitress in Baby.  Although it might be somewhat humorous if they had an episode and they found at that, yes, everybody Sam has sex with does die within two years.  He just doesn't realize it because he's moved on.

[AwesomO4000]

Brought over from the "Bring 'em Back Alive" episode thread:

1 hour ago, catrox14 said:

I came away from a different impression of Sam's speech. I honestly felt that Jared played it with an undercurrent of subtle bitterness that he had to accept this was his life. I'll have to watch scene again but each time I watched that scene, 3 times now, I still was struck that it really wasn't a particularly rah rah speech but more that somewhere underneath it was "Well, this is what we, as the ones that left, are stuck with now".  I can't quite explain why I got that vibe...just that I did.

I can see this depending on what character interpretation you think more represents Sam as "baseline Sam."

For example "The French Mistake" throughout season 7 Sam versus "We Need to Talk About Kevin" Sam. I personally think "The French Mistake" Sam is baseline Sam, i.e. how Sam sees himself and his place in the world now. For me, "WNtTaK" Sam wasn't. Sam there was either damaged by Dean's death too much to be his usual self - which could've easily been portrayed if the writers had wanted - or, in my interpretation, he was given a personality over-the-top boost and regression for plot / angst purposes. And so season 10 Sam, for me, was a return to "baseline" Sam. Hunting is what he wants to do now because he now understands that it makes him feel like he has a purpose in the world. For me, Sam had been learning that since season 2. Season 4 was one last attempt to force something else - and it failed spectacularly - and season 5 through 7 was Sam coming to terms with yes, he understands this now and he's good with and actually satisfied with his place in the world... enough so that given the chance to potentially leave it all behind and have not only a normal, but a potentially comfortable life, Sam barely considers it ("What? Don't be stupid."), because he can't imagine now not making a real difference.

Edited to add: I posted this before I saw your follow up post. I addressed that - that you only saw this in Jared's portrayal - a bit in the episode thread.

Quote

This is one of the reasons I find Sam such a hard character to get a bead on. And for me, it's one thing to have a conflicted, complex character and one who has two modes and it flips according to plot needs. 

For me, I think both things actually exist. I think Sam is a complex character who not only has real empathy, but can also put that in a box and/or use that if he has an important goal*** and has a conflict if those two things clash. A good example for me would be "Death Takes a Holiday." In that case, Sam likely had sympathy for the kid ghost, but at the same time what needed to be done conflicted with what would be sympathetic to the kid, and Sam lied... the goal winning out. At other times, such as with this episode ("Bring 'em Back Alive"), the sympathetic thing won out - he gave Gabriel back his grace.

How Sam decides what tack to take likely is made up of a whole bunch of factors he crunches in his head, and in this case, he likely hoped that his doing the right and sympathetic thing for Gabriel would also win him some points... and then tried to give that a little push also with his speech. It didn't work out in this case (so far), but another thing likely making Sam even more complex is that what happens to him / the outcome isn't always related to whether Sam does the right or sympathetic thing or not. And this goes way back to season 1 for his character. (Example: "Devil's Trap" - Sam does the morally and sympathetically right thing rather than the Machiavellian thing - doesn't kill John - and that turns out to be fairly bad in the end. "Lucifer Rising" Sam does the Machiavellian thing, and it still turns out badly. I'm pretty sure that there are other examples of both of these and the other way - like the Machiavellian choice in "Death Takes a Holiday" turned out to stop the seal from breaking.) So this then would tend to complicate Sam's decision process even further in what he decides to do.

All of this, however, also doesn't mean that the writers don't use this character trait of Sam's to accommodate their plot needs at times... and in my opinion to very varying degrees of success. So I tend to look at it as an over all kind of thing. Does the instance make sense to me on most of Sam's past behavior - like Sam's downslide in season 4 - or does it seem for me to come flying out of nowhere - like Sam abandoning Kevin and saying yes to the BMoL?

*** Since I think Sam can definitely be goal orientated and sometimes Machiavellian in that regard.

Edited April 15, 2018 by AwesomO4000

[SueB]

I saw Sam's speech as he genuinely sees the similarities between himself and Gabriel and thought he could bring Gabriel back by telling him that running away was ultimatley not the right decision for either Sam or Gabriel.  I have zippy-do-dah issues with his word choice (it was a personal plea based on similar life choices), and think he showed genuine concern for Gabriel.  Even if they didn't need him, he would try to help Gabriel recover.  Sam's crushed-face look at the end (and OY! that hurt) was the "I dissappointed Dean face because I was stupid to believe in Gabriel" look IMO.  Now I don't think Sam was wrong, nor stupid, in his dealings with Gabriel.  I think Gabriel let the boys down.  It could be the trauma driving him to run again, it could be he regressed from the maturation Gabriel displayed over seasons 2-5.  IDK.  But it's on Gabriel.  And again, cold hard logic: without being given the grace, Sam and Cas would be dead and Gabriel captured.  Sam chose wisely IMO.  

[bethy]

15 minutes ago, SueB said:

Sam's crushed-face look at the end (and OY! that hurt) was the "I dissappointed Dean face because I was stupid to believe in Gabriel" look IMO

I finally watched the last scene yesterday and was trying to put my finger on how to describe Sam's expression. This is pretty much exactly it. Thanks! :) Though I don't agree with Sam, either, that he was stupid or that he had truly disappointed Dean other than Dean's generalized anger and frustration with the whole situation. 

[cavelupum]

Happy 35th birthday to my favorite fictional character! May he have many more. :)

Here’s to hoping the next year brings Sam a fantastic storyline!

[AwesomO4000]

Brought over from the Spoilers thread. No spoilers here:

4 hours ago, Casseiopeia said:

Can I disagree?  It wasn't like Sam saw the toy and all of a sudden remembered how much Dean loved him. I don't think it was Sam who was overwhelmed with the memories of the love he and Dean felt for each other.   I think initially it was Lucifer.  He couldn't handle the flood of emotions (something angels were both incapable of and confused by) and for that instant Sam was able to take control.  The look on Lucifer/Sam's face when he saw the toy soldier was one of confusion.. The first time I watched SS that was how I interpreted that scene.  

 

2 hours ago, trxr4kids said:

I've read this a lot and IMO it doesn't paint Sam in a favorable light.

In my opinion: Why doesn't it? For me, I don't care if Sam didn't overcome Lucifer but that instead Lucifer was probably defeated by "the power of love" and the wounding of his own ego.*** It was canon that a human wouldn't be able to overcome an archangel under normal circumstances, so Lucifer having to be compromised makes total sense to me. And none of that takes away from the fact that Sam had to be constantly fighting (he hadn't given up) and ready to take advantage when Lucifer was vulnerable or that he had to look in that deep, dark hole to the box in hell, knowing what it would mean because of what happened to Dean, and willingly taking that fall to stop the apocalypse. That's plenty strong enough for me. I don't think it puts Sam in a bad light at all.

And as cassieopeia said in that other thread, it doesn't mean that Sam wasn't fighting against Lucifer hurting Dean. To me it just means he couldn't over come Lucifer without help, which made sense because it was Lucifer after all.

*** In fact I like this consistent plot point in the show that the villains often fail due to their hubris and/or ego. I don't think it's coincidence that this keeps coming up.

Edited July 17, 2018 by AwesomO4000

[trxr4kids]

The whole reason Sam saying yes to Lucifer was touted as a good idea was contingent on Sam's ability and Sam's ability alone to overcome, ie: gain control of Lucifer long enough to open the cage and swan dive them in. That was the whole plan, that Dean may have pulled a save out of not wanting to let Sam die alone and thereby driving the car with the little green army man that saved the world is incidental.

ETA: MMV

ETA2: If Sam had no hope of overcoming an archangel without assistance then why did he push that plan, hubris?

Edited July 17, 2018 by trxr4kids

[Casseiopeia]

1 hour ago, trxr4kids said:

The whole reason Sam saying yes to Lucifer was touted as a good idea was contingent on Sam's ability and Sam's ability alone to overcome, ie: gain control of Lucifer long enough to open the cage and swan dive them in. That was the whole plan, that Dean may have pulled a save out of not wanting to let Sam die alone and thereby driving the car with the little green army man that saved the world is incidental.

ETA: MMV

ETA2: If Sam had no hope of overcoming an archangel without assistance then why did he push that plan, hubris?

They all hoped that Sam could pull it off.  Even Death thought Sam could do it.  I don't think it was hubris it was just the only card they had to play.  In the end it took everyone.   Dean was never going to let Sam die alone.  They were going to face and cage Lucifer together.  Sam was supposed to gain control immediately, that is why Dean had the rings, said the spell and opened the door.   The fact that Lucifer already knew about the rings and Sam couldn't take control (no matter how much DB he consumed) was the inevitable curve ball.  One that Dean wasn't going to accept.  It took everyone (yes even the Impala) to defeat Lucifer in the end.

[gonzosgirrl]

4 hours ago, Casseiopeia said:

Apparently he tried to apologize (sort of).  But it was too late.  

 

1 hour ago, DeeDee79 said:

I just reread the guy's tweet and apparently the people that were assaulted were his friends. While I don't think that he should have added the "die slow" at the end of it I don't find fault with him for being angry. As a friend of the people involved he may know more than we do hence the anger in his tweet. That being said if he is ( or was ) an actor he should have realized that his actions would have consequences and it appears that they did.

Honestly not sure where to post this, but since we don't have an actor's thread, I'll try here. Regarding Jared's altercation last fall and this actor calling him out on Twitter last week.

The 'apology' was what I saw first, as part of a thread/response to "Stands" (the person does does the merchandise/fundraiser stuff). He specifically "apologized" for the "die slow" part, but not the feelings about Jared. I'm sure there is more to the story, but the fact remains he Tweeted himself out of a job and earned an ugly mark on his career.  

It is ironic that the actual violence (seemingly)  has less consequences than the expression of a desire for it. 

[bethy]

39 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

It is ironic that the actual violence (seemingly)  has less consequences than the expression of a desire for it. 

Right? This low-level actor tweeted himself out of a job, and the guy who actually assaulted a couple of people still has his job, another lined up, and apparently, at this point, no consequences at all for his actions. AND never publicly addressed his behavior or even attempted to apologize for it. Blech.

[Casseiopeia]

1 hour ago, bethy said:

Right? This low-level actor tweeted himself out of a job, and the guy who actually assaulted a couple of people still has his job, another lined up, and apparently, at this point, no consequences at all for his actions. AND never publicly addressed his behavior or even attempted to apologize for it. Blech.

  

Jared has a problematic tendency to get himself into situations that are hard to overlook.   Hopefully he will try to do better.

John Elvis' problem was pretending he knew something about the case when he didn't and tagging Jared in his timeline telling him to die.  He was a star on a show promoting tolerance.  He argued for hours to gain attention for himself...and he did.  Apparently he has a reputation for this kind of behavior.  Maybe the producers had just had it with him and let him go.

[BlueSapphire]

Whatever transpired last year is between Jared and the other people involved in the altercation.  It’s a private matter.   He doesn’t owe the fandom an apology nor does he need to explain himself to anyone other than the others involved and his close friends and family.  This actor suddenly 7 months after the incident tweets about it and I’m not sure what prompted him.  And with a season left, I find it hard to believe that if Jared were fired that Jensen would have continued the show without him.  

 

 

 

[Katy M]

6 hours ago, BlueSapphire said:

Whatever transpired last year is between Jared and the other people involved in the altercation.  It’s a private matter.   He doesn’t owe the fandom an apology nor does he need to explain himself to anyone other than the others involved and his close friends and family.  This actor suddenly 7 months after the incident tweets about it and I’m not sure what prompted him.  And with a season left, I find it hard to believe that if Jared were fired that Jensen would have continued the show without him.  

 

 

 

I pretty much agree with that, but I  would tweak it a bit and say it's also between law enforcement and the courts.  But, definitely has nothing to do with any fans or anyone else.

And I agree that' it's just odd (and I know that they are two different shows, so it's not the same people), that someone would get fired for a tweet about hope for death, while there are no career consequences for someone who committed actual violence.

[DeeDee79]

@Casseiopeia in the media thread regarding whether or not the tweeter’s friends would have spoken for themselves: I don’t necessarily know how lawsuits work but would the people involved even be allowed to talk about their case/feelings on social media while it’s ongoing? 

[Myrelle]

9 hours ago, Casseiopeia said:

  

Jared has a problematic tendency to get himself into situations that are hard to overlook.   Hopefully he will try to do better.

John Elvis' problem was pretending he knew something about the case when he didn't and tagging Jared in his timeline telling him to die.  He was a star on a show promoting tolerance.  He argued for hours to gain attention for himself...and he did.  Apparently he has a reputation for this kind of behavior.  Maybe the producers had just had it with him and let him go.

IDK, but it sure does sound to me as if this John Elvis could and might have a very similar sort of "problematic tendancy" that JP has.

The only difference I see is that one is apparently a "low level" actor on a show and the other is the "star" of his.

Privilege is privilege and, sadly, in the entetainment field nothing apparently speaks louder than the Almighty Dollar.

That's how I see this latest Twitter dustup, anyway, what with JP even getting a personalized apology from the other actor's showrunners/writers.

And yeah, sorry to those who feel differently, but something just doesn't seem or feel right about that to me either. 

 

 

[gonzosgirrl]

3 hours ago, Katy M said:

And I agree that' it's just odd (and I know that they are two different shows, so it's not the same people), that someone would get fired for a tweet about hope for death, while there are no career consequences for someone who committed actual violence.

This is exactly what I said. Granted, we don't know if this has cost him anything financially (yet), or if it will have legal repercussions if it ever actually makes it to court, but the perception is absolutely that he's 'gotten away with it'. Not only that, now he's actually being portrayed as the 'victim' thanks to this jackwad. The mind boggles.

[Casseiopeia]

19 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

This is exactly what I said. Granted, we don't know if this has cost him anything financially (yet), or if it will have legal repercussions if it ever actually makes it to court, but the perception is absolutely that he's 'gotten away with it'. Not only that, now he's actually being portrayed as the 'victim' thanks to this jackwad. The mind boggles.

So far Jared hasn't gotten away with anything. The case is still pending, the other parties involved are still pressing charges. Nothing has been dropped. I'm guessing Jared will have to pay considerable remunerations to the bartender and the general manager of his bar in civil court after the criminal court case is resolved.  This incident is going to drag on for awhile yet. We will know the outcome of the criminal case but the civil case will probably not be made public.

My guess is that this "jackwad" was let go because of recurring behavior that the producers couldn't tolerate anymore (not just on SM).  His latest twitter tantrum was probably just the last straw.   

 

[ahrtee]

10 hours ago, BlueSapphire said:

Whatever transpired last year is between Jared and the other people involved in the altercation.  It’s a private matter.   He doesn’t owe the fandom an apology nor does he need to explain himself to anyone other than the others involved and his close friends and family.  This actor suddenly 7 months after the incident tweets about it and I’m not sure what prompted him.  And with a season left, I find it hard to believe that if Jared were fired that Jensen would have continued the show without him.  

 

This is true to some extent, but the other thing to understand is that "privilege" cuts both ways.  If this were Joe Schmo then no one would have ever heard about it, and it probably would have all been settled one way or another many months ago.  But the fact is that it's probably his celebrity that has made this drag on so long (I'm pretty sure there's a lot of negotiations going on behind scene either to settle or at least had postponed things till a more convenient time for his work schedule back before the lockdown) and that has brought it back into the public eye, between the ones who think he's "getting away with" something and the ones who think he's a victim. 

But I think you're wrong in saying he doesn't owe the fandom an apology or need to explain himself.  Legally, no, but ethically.  If he's been holding himself up as being a "good guy" (and has so many people defending him) then I think he does need some kind of explanation/apology so that those who believe in him absolutely won't think that it's OK to do whatever he does.  If he's being so open about his mental health issues, then a simple, "I'm sorry.  That was not a good thing," should be easy. 

The only thing I can think of is that his lawyers have told him not to admit to any wrongdoing or make any apologies because of the ongoing case.  Maybe if it ever gets settled he can be honest with his fans.  

[Katy M]

37 minutes ago, ahrtee said:

If he's been holding himself up as being a "good guy" (and has so many people defending him) then I think he does need some kind of explanation/apology so that those who believe in him absolutely won't think that it's OK to do whatever he does. 

People shouldn't think that regardless of what he does or does not say.  People need to stop celebrity worship.  They are just people.

[ahrtee]

2 hours ago, Katy M said:

People shouldn't think that regardless of what he does or does not say.  People need to stop celebrity worship.  They are just people.

IA.  But they're people who make about a quarter of a million dollars per TV episode, millions per movie, and ball players with multi-million dollar contracts for a limited number of games per year.  That's not exactly "just people."  

[DeeDee79]

10 hours ago, DeeDee79 said:

@Casseiopeia in the media thread regarding whether or not the tweeter’s friends would have spoken for themselves: I don’t necessarily know how lawsuits work but would the people involved even be allowed to talk about their case/feelings on social media while it’s ongoing? 

Quoting myself because I'm not sure of how this works and I would appreciate if someone would shed some light on it for me. 

[Casseiopeia]

11 minutes ago, DeeDee79 said:

Quoting myself because I'm not sure of how this works and I would appreciate if someone would shed some light on it for me. 

I don't think there is any legal reason they can't talk about it. But I'm sure all the respective lawyers have told them to shut up about it. The bartender and the general manager want retribution. Jared doesn't want to exacerbate the situation anymore than it already has been.

 

[DeeDee79]

I did some research and read that social media posts can indeed be used against you in court or damage your lawsuit. With that information I'm guessing that the men involved in Jared's suit wouldn't post their feelings about him or what he has or hasn't done since the assault occurred. That brings me back to my original thinking that if this guy is a friend who is privy to info that the public doesn't have he may be angered enough to post about it while they wouldn't be able to despite how they may or may not be feeling. Whether or not they don't need or want him to speak for them is something that we don't know and can only speculate about. I don't have a clue about who this guy is and I don't have twitter so I can only assume that the vitriol that is coming his way is either due to a pattern of behavior or in defense of Jared. Either way it's not worth losing his job over. Recent events have shown that people can and do worse to their fellow man and continue to keep their jobs while doing much more than just telling them to "die slow". Just my opinion, don't want to get political. 

[Casseiopeia]

1 hour ago, DeeDee79 said:

. Either way it's not worth losing his job over

Agreed.  Which is why I think the producers have had other issues with him.  He apparently has a history of doing these kind of random twitter attacks against celebrities in order to draw attention to himself. 

As to whether he had permission from the two men involved in the incident what would be the legal advantage of trashing Jared on twitter?  The courts won't care about it. It would be inadmissible hearsay.  He wasn't there. The only possible outcome would be to influence public opinion in order to ruin Jared's career or encourage him take his own life.  I just don't see the upside here.

[DeeDee79]

13 minutes ago, Casseiopeia said:

As to whether he had permission from the two men involved in the incident what would be the legal advantage of trashing Jared on twitter?  The courts won't care about it. It would be inadmissible hearsay. 

My comment wasn't about this. It was about how his friends probably wouldn't be able to comment on social media during an ongoing case even if they wanted to, not whether or not a friend of theirs could damage their case. I'm aware that his opinion wouldn't have any bearing on the case. Also, no matter how bad this guy may or may not be I doubt that he was trying to get Jared to take his own life. 

Edited June 19, 2020 by DeeDee79

[Casseiopeia]

19 minutes ago, DeeDee79 said:

My comment wasn't about this. It was about how his friends probably wouldn't be able to comment on social media during an ongoing case even if they wanted to, not whether or not a friend of theirs could damage their case. I'm aware that his opinion wouldn't have any bearing on the case. Also, no matter how bad this guy may or may not be I doubt that he was trying to get Jared to take his own life. 

Sorry I misunderstood your comment.

[7kstar]

18 hours ago, Myrelle said:

Privilege is privilege and, sadly, in the entetainment field nothing apparently speaks louder than the Almighty Dollar.

That's how I see this latest Twitter dustup, anyway, what with JP even getting a personalized apology from the other actor's showrunners/writers.

And yeah, sorry to those who feel differently, but something just doesn't seem or feel right about that to me either. 

I can get John Elvis felt angry that Jared had done something to his friends but image can destroy a show before it gets off the ground and right now with all the stuff happening, you don't want to get negative fan backlash. 

Had he just said something short and sweet and thought it out, he could have voiced his opinion but attacking Jared and using violence in his message got him fired.  He doesn't have the clout to do this.  As an actor, sorry but he should know better.  You get jobs based on who you know.  They still black list, even if they will never admit it.

16 hours ago, ahrtee said:

The only thing I can think of is that his lawyers have told him not to admit to any wrongdoing or make any apologies because of the ongoing case.  Maybe if it ever gets settled he can be honest with his fans.  

Those involved can't talk about it.  The more they do, the more people that will not be valid for a jury.  I dealt with something not great this year and I had to keep my mouth shut and I wasn't even allowed to socialize with my work friends.  So those involved staying silent basically have to especially if they are trying to work out a deal.

Jared has to get it under control though.  Once he is off Supernatural he will lose some of his clout.  If the show doesn't get the ratings or keep fans happy where they believe it is worth continuing his show, the show will be canceled.  It is a business about profit.  Remember Rodney Downey Junior, his drugs problem got him in jail and when he got out he had trouble getting work.  He's also very talented.  There are many very talented actors that never make it.

Those actors at the top, which by the way is a very small percent, make the money.  The rest struggle or don't make a living at all.

Even as a teacher, although now I'm retired, I had to watch any online post.  It could get me fired.  Hence having names that don't really show my real name so I can post without having to worry about someone seeing it and it coming back to haunt me. 

No one is perfect.  Which is one reason I wondered if John had not been sober when he made his post.  He played with fire and right or wrong it cost him.  The field of performance is about clout, about who you can draw in to watch you. 

Jared isn't a A list actor.  He will need to make changes or it will cost him.  We don't know all the details.  But I will say this.  What happened to me this year, makes me careful about throwing stones.  Anytime something happens you there are two sides. Even in teaching I seen middle school best friends horse playing around and one gets mad.  Then oops it's a real fight.  The one that pushed it too far, usually always states, "I was just kidding or I didn't mean to fill in the blank."  We may never find out the real story.  Nor do we need to know IMO. 

I just know how it feels when your accused of doing something you didn't.  So hopefully they will come up with a solution that is a win/win.   In the long run only the people involved need to know the details.  Us knowing is because we are curious or nosy.  lol.

[Casseiopeia]

Happy Birthday Jared!

[Casseiopeia]

Jensen's Bday message to Jared...

 

and then Misha's...

 

[AwesomO4000]

18 hours ago, Pondlass1 said:

(Brought Over from the media thread:)

[snip] ...Baby is an extension of Jensen’s character Dean. And Jensen loved that damn car. Sam was never much bothered or involved throughout the series.

I disagree. Just as with many things in the show, however, Sam's connection with the car isn't the same as Dean's. In my opinion, Dean sees Baby as one of his partners almost. He loves her, but she is also closer to a prized possession than how Sam sees her. And Dean's connection to Baby stays fairly constant throughout the show... except when he is Demon Dean, where his lack of connection to Baby indicates he isn't himself.

Sam's connection to Baby, on the other hand, evolves throughout the show along with Sam. Interestingly I agree with you that Baby is an extension of Dean's character, and Sam, too, seems to connect Baby to Dean, but in my opinion that makes his relationship with Baby very much a thing in it's own right. In the beginning of the series, Sam wants to drive sometimes... a representation to Dean that he wants to be a part of the decision making in their life. When Baby got wrecked at the end of season 1, Sam insisted they take her back, because Sam knew Dean would want to fix her... and that Dean would need Baby as a constant. But in my opinion, Sam is just as invested. he doesn't want to see Baby as a lost cause either. Then Sam is emotional when Dean wants to teach him how to fix Baby, because he (Dean) soon won't be there anymore, because Sam knows what that represents. He doesn't want necessarily to have Baby to himself, because that means he'll  be alone. In season 4, he's changed her a little, and he balks a little at giving her back to Dean... showing Sam isn't in a good place and holds some anger with Dean about what happened and about being left alone (i.e. Dean abandoned both of them. Why should Dean just get Baby back like nothing happened?). In "Free to Be You and Me," Sam leaves, refusing Dean's offer of Baby, reflecting how Sam doesn't feel that he deserves to be "home" anymore until he can fix himself. And finally, after Sam goes through some things and starts to realize what he really thinks is important (minus the idiocy of season 8A), Sam sees / realizes and starts to assert that Baby is his "home" something he mentions a few times throughout the later years of the series. He still sees the car as Dean's - which is also telling, in that it's Dean's car but also home (as in Dean / family = home) - as Sam stated / sang in the episode "Baby" - "out in the back seat of my brother's 67 Chevy" - but he later says in that episode that his brother's 67 Chevy is home. Something Sam seems to continue asserting even though they live in the bunker - which Sam also took a long time to even settle into, never mind see as "home." Which is interesting since they have been in the bunker longer than Sam was anywhere as a kid. But Sam never remembered their home in Kansas as home like Dean did. The only childhood he remembers is being on the road with Baby and Dean as a constant, and as Sam got older, he came to appreciate what that meant. And to Sam, that's what Baby is to him.

So, in my opinion, Baby may be an extension of Dean's character, but Sam very much has his own relationship with her... maybe because of that very fact that she is associated with Dean, and family, and a constant in his life. Different from how Dean sees Baby, but in my opinion, no less relevant. In some ways, Sam's connection to the car may be even more interesting, because his relationship with her changes throughout the show and reflects how Sam himself changes.

Edited September 17, 2020 by AwesomO4000

[Aeryn13]

7 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

I disagree. Just as with many things in the show, however, Sam's connection with the car isn't the same as Dean's. In my opinion, Dean sees Baby as one of his partners almost. He loves her, but she is also closer to a prized possession than how Sam sees her. And Dean's connection to Baby stays fairly constant throughout the show... except when he is Demon Dean, where his lack of connection to Baby indicates he isn't himself.

Sam's connection to Baby, on the other hand, evolves throughout the show along with Sam. Interestingly I agree with you that Baby is an extension of Dean's character, and Sam, too, seems to connect Baby to Dean, but in my opinion that makes his relationship with Baby very much a thing in it's own right. In the beginning of the series, Sam wants to drive sometimes... a representation to Dean that he wants to be a part of the decision making in their life. When Baby got wrecked at the end of season 1, Sam insisted they take her back, because Sam knew Dean would want to fix her... and that Dean would need Baby as a constant. Then Sam is emotional when Dean wants to teach him how to fix her, because he (Dean) soon won't be there anymore, because Sam knows what that represents. He doesn't want necessarily to have Baby to himself, because that means he'll  be alone. In season 4, he's changed her a little, and he balks a little at giving her back to Dean... showing Sam isn't in a good place and holds some anger with Dean about what happened and about being left alone (i.e. Dean abandoned both of them. Why should Dean just get her back like nothing happened?). In "Free to Be You and Me," Sam leaves, refusing Dean's offer of Baby, reflecting how Sam doesn't feel that he deserves to be "home" anymore until he can fix himself. And finally, after Sam goes through some things and starts to realize what he really thinks is important (minus the idiocy of season 8A), Sam sees / realizes and starts to assert that Baby is his "home" something he mentions a few times. He still sees the car as Dean's - which is also telling, in that it's Dean's car but also home (as in Dean / family = home) - as he stated / sang in the episode "Baby" - "in the back seat of my brother's 67 Chevy" - but he later says in that episode that his brother's 67 Chevy is home. Something Sam seems to continue asserting even though they live in the bunker - which Sam also took a long time to even settle into, never mind see as "home." Which is interesting since they have been in the bunker longer than Sam was anywhere as a kid. But Sam never remembered their home in Kansas as home like Dean did. The only childhood he remembers is being on the road with Baby and Dean as a constant, and as Sam got older, he came to appreciate what that meant. And to Sam, that's what Baby is to him.

So, in my opinion, Baby may be an extension of Dean's character, but Sam very much has his own relationship with her... maybe because of that very fact that she is associated with Dean, and family, and a constant in his life. Different from how Dean sees Baby, but in my opinion, no less relevant. In some ways, Sam's connection to the car may be even more interesting, because his relationship with her changes throughout the show and reflects how Sam himself changes.

There are some things in the show associated with Sam that have stayed Sam's and Sam's alone. Like being the bookish college guy character.

I have no beef whatsoever with both actors getting a prop car but character-wise it should be okay if one or two things stay Dean's and Dean's alone. And I don't mean the disgustings things nobody wants like gross eating or humiliating "humor". The car could be one of those things. 

[AwesomO4000]

1 minute ago, Aeryn13 said:

There are some things in the show associated with Sam that have stayed Sam's and Sam's alone. Like being the bookish college guy character.

But is this really only associated with Sam? It's actually shown early on that Dean also reads, and in some cases knows things that Sam doesn't. We even have Sam confusing Metatron with Megatron with Dean correcting him if I remember correctly. Dean knows his Bible and his Aesop's Fables, and so is no slouch himself in that kind of knowledge. And Sam's nerd status got further usurped by Charlie. And some by Kevin. Both of them took over in terms of translating languages and other things that used to be Sam's area of expertise. So in my opinion, it's hardly a unique thing that has stayed associated with Sam. If it was anyone's thing later on, it was Charlie's not Sam's.

5 minutes ago, Aeryn13 said:

but character-wise it should be okay if one or two things stay Dean's and Dean's alone. And I don't mean the disgustings things nobody wants like gross eating or humiliating "humor". The car could be one of those things. 

It is okay, and Dean has many things associated with him alone. Dean is the good cook (and if anyone should have been a good cook, picky eater Sam should've gotten this one out of necessity). Dean is the expert shot. Dean is the mechanical one. Dean is the rock music and movie knowledge guy. Dean is the hand to hand combat guy. Dean is the amazing driver. Dean is the "nester." Dean is the one who adapts to almost any situation and fits in (Sam never does.). And I'm probably forgetting some.

The only unique hobby we know of Sam's is that he has a serial killer fetish. Sam used to have more unique talents,*** but the show dropped many of them a long time ago or gave them to other characters (like Charlie).

And Sam gets his own "humiliating humor." Like when he's all squeamish about eating lizard or is portrayed as bothered by stuff that shouldn't make him bat an eye considering he hacks up monsters for a living. And his propensity for getting turned into a giant damsel in distress. How Sam hasn't learned to get himself out of being tied to a chair more often is beyond me considering he gets tied to them enough.

Getting killed by Nick was just the final humiliation.

*** My favorite was Sam's ability to notice important photographic details.

[Aeryn13]

29 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

But is this really only associated with Sam? 

Yes, between the brothers, Sam is the bookish College guy. Dean never went to College for one. Him knowing something every 50 episodes (and not in the last 3-4 Seasons) doesn`t change that. Bookishness consistently goes to Sam.

Now guest stars usurping the brothers, like Charlie the can-do-everything is another matter. Kevin, I felt, was reduced to his prophet-ness so they never made much of his academia. 

Quote

It is okay, and Dean has many things associated with him alone. Dean is the good cook (and if anyone should have been a good cook, picky eater Sam should've gotten this one out of necessity). Dean is the expert shot. Dean is the mechanical one. Dean is the rock music and movie knowledge guy. Dean is the hand to hand combat guy. Dean is the amazing driver. Dean is the "nester." Dean is the one who adapts to almost any situation and fits in (Sam never does.). And I'm probably forgetting some.

In the last few years Sam has been shown to do almost all of those things. And often expertly. On top of that he somehow became a powerful witch on the weekend.

He also had a leadership arc where the showing might have been one thing but it was clearly supposed to be the tell of "he is a great born leader" that was supposed to carry through.    

The "you are better than me at everything" in that one episode from Dean to Sam in a recent episode was put in as a supposed statement of fact.

Will Sam still play second fiddle to Jackie-poo or Charlie or even Nickifer if need be? Yes. Because those characters are more certain writer`s pets than he is. But that is the same for Dean.

[ILoveReading]

1 hour ago, AwesomO4000 said:

Sam's connection to Baby, on the other hand, evolves throughout the show along with Sam. Interestingly I agree with you that Baby is an extension of Dean's character

I've always seen Sam's connection to the car as being more about Dean than the car itself.  In IMTOD, when Sam is insisting the car can be fixed, 'Even if there is one working part, that's enough' He was talking about Dean himself, and using the car as a metaphor.  And when Sam turned down the car in Free to Be, it was more about making a clean break rather than him feeling like he didn't deserve it.   I'm not saying Sam doesn't care about the car, but it comes across to me more about I care because Dean cares.  It never really seemed all that connected to Sam. 

That line about being home in Baby seemed awkward coming out of Sam's mouth.   He never looked at the car that way before unless it was required for the episode.

I have no problem with Jared getting a car, I'm sure he sees it as sentimenal, but I don't see that attachment from Sam.

[bethy]

1 hour ago, AwesomO4000 said:

Sam's connection to Baby, on the other hand, evolves throughout the show along with Sam.

I really liked the rundown you gave here! I agree that initially Sam didn’t have much connection to the Impala for her own sake, just as “Dean’s car” that his brother was abnormally attached to. 🙂 

But I also think that changed as time went on. One indicator of that for me was in “The French Connection.” The boys come out of the studio and see Baby. While Sam doesn’t say anything, you see him heave this huge sigh of relief as they approach the car. I loved that.

To me Sam’s relationship with the Impala is tied to the 15(!) years he spent in her with Dean. He didn’t always feel a connection, but time and experience grew one.

[AwesomO4000]

1 minute ago, Aeryn13 said:

In the last few years Sam has been shown to do almost all of those things. And often expertly.

I'll agree to disagree so as not to get into "Bitch vs Jerk" territory. I don't think Sam has been shown to be good at any of the things I mentioned, except maybe his brief plot related stint into mechanical stuff in season 8 that went away as soon as the plot didn't call for it anymore.

21 minutes ago, Aeryn13 said:

He also had a leadership arc where the showing might have been one thing but it was clearly supposed to be the tell of "he is a great born leader" that was supposed to carry through.    

It wasn't clear to me. I thought it showed exactly what was intended. The main deliverer of the "natural born leader" line was a false narrator, considering Mary was a terrible judge of character about everyone else she made assumptions about, too - like the BMoL and Jack  - and the narrative showed that she was a bad judge of character. So Mary calling Sam a good leader was going to be about as accurate as Mary saying that the BMoL just wanted to do good things and that she trusted them. And the rest of them? Just as bad judges of character considering that they are all dead. I'm not sure how I'm supposed to conclude anything else but that what we were shown was what was intended considering how it all turned out and the track record of the person giving us the "Sam is a good leader" narrative. History is full of people who others thought and said were "great leaders," but turned out not to be in the end.

Quote

The "you are better than me at everything" in that one episode from Dean to Sam in a recent episode was put in as a supposed statement of fact.

I saw it as an "and Dean is humble too" thing, because that's also a Dean trait. Doubly so since Sam was obviously being snookered... which is ironic since he's supposed to be good at hustling people, so should have been able to spot it a mile away. (Sam is apparently also now bad at seeing the huge, flashing "it's a trap!" signs.)

[Terese]

10 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:

I'll agree to disagree so as not to get into "Bitch vs Jerk" territory. I don't think Sam has been shown to be good at any of the things I mentioned, except maybe his brief plot related stint into mechanical stuff in season 8 that went away as soon as the plot didn't call for it anymore.

It wasn't clear to me. I thought it showed exactly what was intended. The main deliverer of the "natural born leader" line was a false narrator, considering Mary was a terrible judge of character about everyone else she made assumptions about, too - like the BMoL and Jack  - and the narrative showed that she was a bad judge of character. So Mary calling Sam a good leader was going to be about as accurate as Mary saying that the BMoL just wanted to do good things and that she trusted them. And the rest of them? Just as bad judges of character considering that they are all dead. I'm not sure how I'm supposed to conclude anything else but that what we were shown was what was intended considering how it all turned out and the track record of the person giving us the "Sam is a good leader" narrative. History is full of people who others thought and said were "great leaders," but turned out not to be in the end.

I saw it as an "and Dean is humble too" thing, because that's also a Dean trait. Doubly so since Sam was obviously being snookered... which is ironic since he's supposed to be good at hustling people, so should have been able to spot it a mile away. (Sam is apparently also now bad at seeing the huge, flashing "it's a trap!" signs.)

Both Sam and Dean are being depicted as losers this season and last. That, after 15 years of acquiring knowledge and skill, the only thing they can do right is play pool, is insulting, degrading, actually,; as it is not particularly noteworthy and has nothing to do with hunting things and saving people.

[gonzosgirrl]

On 6/18/2020 at 11:19 AM, Casseiopeia said:

So far Jared hasn't gotten away with anything. The case is still pending, the other parties involved are still pressing charges. Nothing has been dropped. I'm guessing Jared will have to pay considerable remunerations to the bartender and the general manager of his bar in civil court after the criminal court case is resolved.  This incident is going to drag on for awhile yet. We will know the outcome of the criminal case but the civil case will probably not be made public.

My guess is that this "jackwad" was let go because of recurring behavior that the producers couldn't tolerate anymore (not just on SM).  His latest twitter tantrum was probably just the last straw.   

 

Do we know if this ever made it to court?

[Katy M]

1 hour ago, gonzosgirrl said:

Do we know if this ever made it to court?

I think it got dropped. A quick search doesn't show anything about it recently beyond JP addressing it in an interview.  But, he didn't say anything about court.

[Casseiopeia]

14 hours ago, gonzosgirrl said:

Do we know if this ever made it to court?

It didn't sound like the others involved pressed charges. So basically it was a first offense public intoxication. Which is just a fine.

[gonzosgirrl]

1 hour ago, Casseiopeia said:

It didn't sound like the others involved pressed charges. So basically it was a first offense public intoxication. Which is just a fine.

He's a lucky guy, in so many ways.

[ahrtee]

17 hours ago, gonzosgirrl said:

Do we know if this ever made it to court?

I don't know about Texas, but here most minor court cases have been postponed (pretty much indefinitely) because of Covid.  No jury trials at all.  

[Casseiopeia]

45 minutes ago, ahrtee said:

I don't know about Texas, but here most minor court cases have been postponed (pretty much indefinitely) because of Covid.  No jury trials at all.  

Since no one pressed charges there won't be a jury trial for a simple fine. It sounded like it was over and Jared isn't drinking at all anymore.