“Bitch” Vs. “Jerk”: Where We Discuss Who The Writers Screwed This Week/Season/Ever

DittyDotDot · June 9, 2014

I thought we might need a thread to talk about TPTB. It was getting harder to talk about some of the writers and directors without putting a lot of it under spoiler tags.

Bringing over from the Dead In The Water Thread...

Dead In The Water though, really reminds me of why I preferred Sera Gamble to write the myth heavy episodes than the one offs. She has such a tendency to be heavy-handed and almost preachy, that the good things in an episode like this gets lost or forgotten by me.

I rarely know who wrote any given episode, but I can almost always identify the Sera Gamble ones, and I don't usually mean that as a compliment :) She does get really anvilicious, mawkish and After School Special-y sometimes, doesn't she?!...

I only know the episodes that were written by folks that stayed with the show long enough I could pick out their individual styles. I can almost always pick out a John Shiban or Ben Edlund episode as well--of current seasons, Robbie Thompson's are usually easy to pick out, but that's not really a compliment like it might be for Edlund, IMO. I did like a some of Gamble's later episodes--It's A Terrible Life and At Death's Door to name a couple--but most of the ones she wrote in the first two seasons were just too much for my taste. Funnily, the concepts and ideas were ones that I would normally latch onto--a ghost getting vengeance; a preachers wife binding a reaper to do her version of God's work; vampires that weren't eatin' folks; a priest's ghost that thought it was an angel; a werewolf that doesn't know it's a monster; and so forth--but she just hits me over the head with...well, everything that I end up rolling my eyes. I do think she was trying to do what most good genre shows do--asking the bigger questions--I just couldn't connect to her writing style much.

That being said, I do think that her voice has been missing from the show the last couple of years. I may not have always liked her individual episodes, but I do think she was part of that group that worked well together in the early years that made this show truly entertaining.

Mia-667 · June 9, 2014

I miss Raelle Tucker.

I don't know where to ask this but here seems like the right place.

Is Kripke still involved with the show? Any word if he or Edlund are coming back now that Revolution is cancelled?

DittyDotDot · June 9, 2014

I don't know if either Kripke or Edlund are coming back, I would assume not because I would think they would announce it and since the writers are back in the room and have been for a couple of weeks, it seems unlikely. I did hear that all the Revolution writers have landed elsewhere--I don't have any specifics though.

As far as whether he's still involved in the show, he did an interview last year where he said that he's not involved in the day-to-day or any of the specifics--and hasn't since S6--but he does get a call from time to time that he's happy to take.

7kstar · June 9, 2014

I miss Raelle Tucker.

I agree and I think her and Gamble made a stronger team. I think Gamble had some great ideas for the big picture but didn't see how to connect the dots.

One interesting thing for me, especially since I really hated a lot of season 7, I do see some things that really fit nicely with Carver's plan. Watching some you tube videos, combining 7 - 9 I saw a progression for Dean that makes sense for the direction they have taken him. I think if I hadn't been so fed up with the brothers angst and hating each other, I might be more pro Carver.

I do like half of his stuff, but I think he doesn't make it flow as well as he should so the storyline gets weird. One minute nothing is happening and then suddenly it is way too much in a few episodes.

I think some ideas have worked a little better but when you feel the repeat and rinse cycle is happening too often, it does make you stop and wonder.

I don't know if either Kripke or Edlund are coming back, I would assume not because I would think they would announce it and since the writers are back in the room and have been for a couple of weeks, it seems unlikely. I did hear that all the Revolution writers have landed elsewhere--I don't have any specifics though.

I am not sure that I care if they come back. I don't think they did as great a job as they seem to be credited with. Some parts work and other parts stunk, JMV. They did have some good ones but I didn't love everyone, so I won't miss them if they never come back.

Edited June 9, 2014 by 7kstar

Pete Martell · June 10, 2014

Edlund said after Revolution was canceled that he wasn't coming back.

Kripke, I don't know if he's said anything, but I hope he doesn't come back, as he was not a very good scriptwriter and for me he destroyed most of the show from seasons 3-5.

I agree and I think her and Gamble made a stronger team. I think Gamble had some great ideas for the big picture but didn't see how to connect the dots.

Their episodes as a team hold up well. I didn't care for most of their individual episodes. In my season 4 rewatch I notice that every Gamble episode is heavy-handed (she even says on the commentary that Kripke had to ask her to rewrite much of the Sam/Ruby hotel scene in When the Levees Break for this reason) and coarse. I do think "Are You There God?..." works, but some of the others are among the most destructive episodes in the history of the show. Then there's "It's A Terrible Life," which has Sam characterization and a message I just don't understand.

Gamble seemed to get increasingly giggly about fetishizing the brother angst and ugliness of Supernatural (so did Kripke). It took all the heart out of her writing. I think she and Kripke may have truly believed their fanbase was Becky Rosen.

I don't know what to say about her showrunning, because I just end up putting a lot of blame on Bob Singer, whether I should or not, for the mistakes each showrunner has made.

Edited June 10, 2014 by Pete Martell

DittyDotDot · June 10, 2014

In my season 4 rewatch I notice that every Gamble episode is heavy-handed (she even says on the commentary that Kripke had to ask her to rewrite much of the Sam/Ruby hotel scene in When the Levees Break for this reason) and coarse. I do think "Are You There God?..." works, but some of the others are among the most destructive episodes in the history of the show.

I totally agree that Gamble was a very heavy-handed writer, but just to clarify a few things...Now, I haven't listened to the commentary on this episode for a while, but I believe that Gamble said usually her notes from Kripke were to "unpack the dialogue"--basically add more. But In The Levee Breaks, her scripts were covered with notes telling her to cut out the dialogue in the scenes where Sam is locked in the panic room basically talking to himself--I don't think she was referring to the scenes with Ruby. But, she also states that it was the right call and she overwrote a lot of the dialogue in the panic room because the episode felt so claustrophobic, but was glad that Kripke saved her from herself. She also made fun of herself for coming up with the most ridiculous, over-the-top ideas for all those seals that were breaking.

So, even though I don't personally care for her writing style, I think Kripke did for the most part. And I do give her credit for owning up to it and having a sense of humor about herself.

PeteMartell · June 11, 2014

She made the comments about Kripke's concerns with the scene during the Ruby/Sam hotel portion of the episode. I may have misheard though.

I sometimes felt like she and Kripke had a little too much sense of humor in their comments. It all felt very detached from the material they were writing, which was unbearably heavy. I think the show lost a lot of perspective about itself after the first few seasons, perhaps because they saw this heaviness as some sort of fanservice or process, rather than organic to the characters. That's just my interpretation.

DittyDotDot · June 11, 2014

I think it was them seeing the humor in the horror. I actually appreciate their not-taking-themselves-too-seriously attitude. I do understand that kind of dark humor is not everyone's cup of tea, though. I rather wish the current folks had a bit more of a funny bone and took themselves a lot less seriously, that's why I generally think the show was more fun back in the day.

Pete Martell · June 11, 2014

I think it was them seeing the humor in the horror. I actually appreciate their not-taking-themselves-too-seriously attitude. I do understand that kind of dark humor is not everyone's cup of tea, though. I rather wish the current folks had a bit more of a funny bone and took themselves a lot less seriously, that's why I generally think the show was more fun back in the day.

It's not that I mind dark humor, it's just that I think they often replaced complex dark humor with what felt like crude jokes that didn't fit the material. Dick of death jokes and lolgay jokes and "it's...supernatural" jokes seemed to be their repertoire starting around seasons 3 and 4. There were times when this just seemed somewhat crude and distracting to me (like Gamble reducing Madison's death to an animal shelter joke in "It's A Terrible Life," and the endless, endless gay joke scenes in the first half of the episode).

They often seemed jovial in their panels or interviews, which is understandable, because they're trying to sell their shows, but the contrast between some of the panel or interview merriment and the endless agony of most of the onscreen material outside of the frat boy stuff always seemed glaring to me. I just ended up wondering if they had perspective over their material. I felt like in the first two seasons they did.

I know Edlund talked about a boy's club mentality at the show. Perhaps that was the problem. Perhaps that's why Gamble's writing lost most of the nuance it had in the first few seasons (for me anyway).

I don't think the situation has really improved very much since their departure (other than less lolgay stuff), so I guess that's on Carver or Singer. I do think Robert Berens is very good at writing serious, non-gimmicky episodes (sometimes his episodes have comedy but it doesn't seem tacked on to me - and a lot of the comedy in Heaven Can't Wait was ad-libbed by Misha). His episodes remind me the most of the first few seasons, along with, this past season anyway, Adam Glass.

Edited June 11, 2014 by Pete Martell

DittyDotDot · June 22, 2014

From the Faith thread:

Preachiness? of course there's going to be preaching, its a story about faith. All kinds of faith whether in God or brotherhood or in someone's own worthiness or others beliefs.

...

Serah Gamble catches a lot of flack for what she did as show runner but I've always thought this was one of her best scrips. Maybe it was the influence of Raelle Tucker or maybe it was before Serah became a total Sam fan-girl.

When I talk about the Sera Gamble preachy factor, I'm really not talking about faith or religion at all. I'm talking about how heavy-handed she tends to be with who is supposed to be right or wrong or good or bad and she has all the characters spout on about it. She hardly ever leaves it up to the audience to decide these things for themselves--it's very after school specialy and not a style I'm particularly drawn to. That's why I prefer her myth heavy episodes to the one-offs and I do think this episode could have been something really great if it wasn't so heavy-handedly written. I'm going to take the rest of my comments to TPTB thread or else everything will have to be under spoiler tags.

When you look at some Sera's episodes--especially her S1 and S2 ones--they are rather heavy-handed: Dead In The Water, Faith, Nightmare, Bloodlust, Crossroad Blues, Houses of the Holy, Heart. But some of her more myth heavy ones are less so, IMO: Salvation, All Hell Breaks Loose: Part One. Somewhere in S3 I felt she became less heavy-handed and I started to actually really like a few of her episodes: The Kids Are Alright, Fresh Blood, Dream a Little Dream of Me (although, she didn't write this one in it's entirety), Jus in Bello, Time Is on My Side. I find her S4 episodes to be free of most of the peachiness and to be some of her best work: Are You There, God? It's Me, Dean Winchester, I Know What You Did Last Summer, It's a Terrible Life, When the Levee Breaks. S5 is hard for me to judge because, in general, I don't really care for much of S5. I never felt like her episodes as show runner were particularly preachy, but just found them more hit and miss than heavy-handed.

So if you take just Faith, Houses Of The Holy and Are You There, God? It's Me, Dean Winchester--which all three deal with faith and religion--I find I just prefer the tone of Are You There, God? It's Me, Dean Winchester to the previous two simply because it feels less preachy. The episode is still asking some bigger questions, but I don't feel like I'm being told "this is how it is" as much as it's more a discussion and an exploration of the subject.

Anyway, I just wanted to clarify what I was saying. I am, in no way, trying to beat up on Gamble or anything. In fact, I've never seen this Sam-girl factor that people speak about and never really felt like she was that bad of a show runner. I actually prefer S7 to most of S5 and I prefer both S6 and S7 to S8 and S9. I also think that she was a very important voice to the early seasons and the show wouldn't have been what it was without her. I've really come to think that this show was something special only by luck--it was the coming together of this certain group of folks that made it work.

7kstar · June 22, 2014

Just a place to talk about what you wish the show would do. If anyone has a better title not a problem of it being changed. I didn't see a place we could discuss this...so I started one. So I'll start it off with.

1. I want Sam to acknowledge how when he was placed in a similar situation he immediately went to have to find a way to fix this. He also knows point blank that Dean wanted to die instead of being turned into something not human...so when he meets Dean again that we get a brotherly moment and of course Dean being a demon, says everything he's ever bottled up and spits it back in his face. Then of course Sam is somehow saved so he can figure out a way to help Dean rediscover his human side again.

2. That the show moves to the brothers conflict be against Crowley and somehow unite mid season. Maybe Demon Dean goes on a killing spree hunting Demon's and Angels and accidentally or on purpose helps Cas get heaven in a better position.

3. Demon Dean isn't all bad...that he provides something positive even when he is being a demon. Maybe even having the twist that Demons can be nicer and kinder than Angels. Not sure if I'm saying this in a clear way.

4. A very shallow request, More Shirtless Dean. I don't want Jensen sick mind ya, but it would be nice to have another special shirtless moment.

Edited June 22, 2014 by 7kstar

7kstar · June 22, 2014

From the Faith thread:

Anyway, I just wanted to clarify what I was saying. I am, in no way, trying to beat up on Gamble or anything. In fact, I've never seen this Sam-girl factor that people speak about and never really felt like she was that bad of a show runner. I actually prefer S7 to most of S5 and I prefer both S6 and S7 to S8 and S9. I also think that she was a very important voice to the early seasons and the show wouldn't have been what it was without her. I've really come to think that this show was something special only by luck--it was the coming together of this certain group of folks that made it work.

Well she did give us the Sam shirtless scene doing pullups. Dean didn't get equal treatment. darn it. :)

I agree she was an important voice and it is the mix of the group that has sparked such a love for this show all over the world.

Every showrunner or writer has given us some what moments. I think Sera's problem is that she has great ideas but and she certainly could have done two years on the mother Eve and alpha monsters. Leviathans were just a plain mess. Less is more idea. The big bad just wasn't that great so I wish they hadn't done that story period or dropped it a lot sooner. One or two shows on them were interesting but most of season 7 I just don't watch.

As far as the after school special effect since when doesn't tv shows not use that? I guess I expect it too much so I just blow it off. I would rather they left it more open ended but when you get passionate about something, sometimes you forget those points.

Also since I've done so much bashing, let me point out how creativity works. It is never one person that can do it. It requires a group working together to spark that magic. Then it build off of each individual creating something stronger than one person could ever vision. A strong leader, which in the Theatre world is the director. But in TV it is the showrunner / writer because he or she is the only one that is constantly there from the beginning to the end. That is something that is now missing. Singer isn't that person in my opinion.

Every interview show how much heart and soul they have put into this show. The crew and cast love working together. Otherwise this show would have died a long time ago. It has grown and if I wasn't so tired of why are the brothers fighting now, I would think Carver is moving the show in an interesting direction. I wonder if Craver and Sera could have created something better together?

Edited June 22, 2014 by 7kstar

DittyDotDot · June 22, 2014

Well she did give us the Sam shirtless scene doing pullups. Dean didn't get equal treatment. darn it. :)

I don't know, I've always thought is was pretty even. That episode does have a shirtless scene with Dean in bed with Lisa, so... ::shrugs:: I'd say that S1 has more dis-robing moments of Dean than Sam. And maybe S2 has more of Sam than Dean, but other than that it's been fairly evenly distributed, IMO. I don't think Jensen particularly likes to disrobe in-front of the camera, unless it serves story. This may be more a contributing factor to the amount of layers Dean wears than anything. I don't think he's a prude or anything, just that he would rather be appreciated for his work than his abs. Personally, I think he's got the right attitude.

7kstar · June 22, 2014

Jensen says he's no dummy, he likes wearing layers so he doesn't have to work out that hard. So I agree he has moved on from doing lots of shirtless stuff but it is nice when they find a creative way to do it.

To make myself clear in case it is coming out wrong since you can't see my expressions, I'm teasing about Jensen having to be shirtless. I'm not really counting.

catrox14 · June 22, 2014

Oh boy I sure am counting. I want shirtless Jensen at least once per season, and we haven't gotten that DAMMIT. I just want to see that man's back more than his front (not there is anything wrong with his front) but damn, that back and those broad shoulders?

I'll be in my bunk.

Also, I don't think SKIN should count because EWWWWWWWWWW

Mcolleague · June 22, 2014

I soooo wanted to support Sera as showrunner, there are so few women who get to do it, and I liked many of her episodes before Season 6. But it just couldn't be done. I stopped watching in Season 6, I hated it so much. I don't really see her as being more preachy than the other writers, I think quite a few of them are pretty heavy handed. The issue I had with her writing style was that some of her dialogue gets a bit too sentimental, which I tend to really dislike (Heart, anyone?). Some of the individual episodes were good when she was showrunner I suppose, but I didn't like any of her mytharcs - and I watch for the mytharc more than MOTW episodes. I was bored by soulless Sam, the Campbells, and the leviathan were a complete incoherent disaster. Cas as big bad was somewhat interesting, but IIRC wasn't even planned from the beginning? I never thought anything could be worse than the Season 7 corporate America stuff, until Carver came along and had his fun with all the character assassination. How could this be the same guy who wrote Mystery Spot?!!? I have such a love hate relationship with this show.

Edited June 22, 2014 by Mcolleague

amazinglybored · June 23, 2014

Gamble as a showrunner was a mess. I think her biggest initial problem was having too many ideas and the vetting process being too lax, so you end up with a lot of poorly thought out ideas. Soulless Sam, Campbells, Alphas, Eve, Angel war, Angel weapons, etc. That's way too much, and then season 7 was an over correction where they just had the Leviathans (and ghost!Bobby!). She was a Kripke protege with Sam, but I think the show has struggled with the original idea for it since the beginning. The greatest irony to me was that I think she loved Sam, she just couldn't make anything happen with him that wasn't either badly done or making him less likable. She tried so hard and just made the problems with the character worse, but that's been an issue with 3 showrunners (original identity of the show).

Also, I hated Ben and that shit wouldn't go away, she took away the Impala and I hated Soulless Sam... and the Campbells sucked. The wrong things got focused on.

I don't think they've ever actually had a good show runner for this show, they've all had too many warts. Kripke just had the best supporting cast around him. You watch a show with a good showrunner with a clear vision and good adaptability, it shows, and that was never Supernatural. There's too much wasted potential, too many continuity problems and too many things that don't hold up well over time.

catrox14 · June 23, 2014

Here's a thread name idea

The Wishverse: Non-Djinn Division: What Wish Do You Have for Supernatural?

Pete Martell · June 23, 2014

I think the show in the early seasons, probably season 2 or 3, got the wrong idea about what they thought the audience wanted to see and what the show should be, and they, especially Singer, have stuck to that ever since, often to the show's detriment.

Misery for misery's sake and then going into WACKY AND FUNNY!!! just doesn't work well for me. The show has done that for far too long, but Gamble in particular seemed to do this as showrunner.

mertensia · June 23, 2014

I want DemonDean to be one scary son of a bitch.

I also want Dean to basically tell Sam off. It's been a long time coming.

7kstar · June 23, 2014

Here's a thread name idea

The Wishverse: Non-Djinn Division: What Wish Do You Have for Supernatural?

I don't have a problem changing the title what does everyone want to name it...which one is the winner? Or do you have a better suggestion?

7kstar · June 23, 2014

If you listen to the commentary from Kripe, on "What is and What should Never Be, that show would have been totally awful. I really think it was Manners that figured out what was working and tried to move them in a better direction. Kripe first directing would have been a mess if it hadn't been that Manners basically helped him figure it out.

Plus, the notion that good acting is just plain good casting. Yes that helps, but no good acting comes from strong training and skill and mix that with talent you've got a master piece. Good directing really helps the actors do their best work.

I think most go for the average conflict. I'm suppose to be sad now, so let me be sad, instead of I'm really depressed and sad, but you won't see it. I'm going to play something else, this adds reality and layers. Jensen thinks this way which helps him be such a strong actor. Two because of his eye of directing, and taking photos, he has helped Jared improve. But talented actors still can't overcome bad scripts.

I think they understand bouncing off ideas off of each other, but they just get too excited about their vision and lose the opportunity by having someone to be objective about it.

Kripke talked about how he was blessed in having such a foundation to help his vision, his idea transform into something better than he ever thought of. This is the element of good elaboration.

Honestly, I think the Campbells, The alpha Monsters, and Souless Sam could have been a good thing if they had spread it out over two years. I think the problem with Lisa and Ben would have worked if we saw Dean still being a badass when he fought beside Sam. Instead of him becoming weaker, it should have been a true battle with Sam winning a bit more than normal. Then the fun would have been organic and the stories could have flown so much better.

I will give Carver one more season, to see if he can improve his work. I think I can see some of the layers he has prepared and it might move into a good direction if he moves the brothers relationship forward. He can separate them and not have to have them working together. If the separation isn't about them hating each other but something new, that would spark interest. I need to stop because I'm getting too long winded. Hopefully it makes sense. :)

Edited June 23, 2014 by 7kstar

AwesomO4000 · June 23, 2014

In fact, I've never seen this Sam-girl factor that people speak about and never really felt like she was that bad of a show runner. I actually prefer S7 to most of S5 and I prefer both S6 and S7 to S8 and S9.

While I actually liked season 5 a lot, I agree with you about season 6 and 7 being better than 8 and 9... and for me that would be a lot better.

Well she did give us the Sam shirtless scene doing pullups. Dean didn't get equal treatment. darn it. :)

While this is true, season 6 did give us "Live Free or Twihard" where Dean was the most awesome hunter that ever awesomed by both not succumbing to being a vampire where everyone else we'd seen turned on the show succumbed, and despite all his hunger, took out all of the other vampires all on his own to boot. There were a few scenes in that episode that fan-girled Dean big time, in my opinion.

I stopped watching in Season 6, I hated it so much.

The first few episodes were not at all good. I really only rewatch 2 or 3 of the first 8 episodes, but I thought that Sera did a good job of course correcting, because after that, I watch them straight through, and there are some great episodes in there for me.

Cas as big bad was somewhat interesting, but IIRC wasn't even planned from the beginning?

If it wasn't, I think it was one of the most skillful afterthoughts I've seen, because weirdly when I rewatch, it looks like it was planned. Castiel's objetcion to saving Sam's soul for example doesn't really make much sense unless there's a reason he'd be concerned what Sam from the cage might know or somehow the truth might come out. I was watching "You Can't Handle the Truth" and "Family Matters" recently and it almost seems like Castiel has some guilt or evasivenes concerning Dean asking him what's wrong with Sam or who might've had the mojo to get Sam out of the cage. It may just be me knowing the outcome that's coloring it, but after knowing what does happen, it seems to make sense. When Dean asks who would have the mojo to get Sam out, it almost like Castiel looks away and his answers are evasive.

Gamble as a showrunner was a mess. I think her biggest initial problem was having too many ideas and the vetting process being too lax, so you end up with a lot of poorly thought out ideas. Soulless Sam, Campbells, Alphas, Eve, Angel war, Angel weapons, etc. That's way too much, and then season 7 was an over correction where they just had the Leviathans (and ghost!Bobby!).

I can see this, but I thought that the course correction around episode 9 or 10 - where they jettisoned some of the excess - worked out well, and I thought the last half of the season was well done. Compare that to Carver's season 8 mid season course "correction" where he only got it half right (for me), but bungled it on the endzone, and I'd take season 6 every time over season 8.

Even though I wasn't so enamored with the Leviathan aspect either, for me the main emotional arcs of season 7 were well done. One of the main draws for me of season 7 was Sam and Dean's relationship. The conflicts between them were not drawn out - compared to season 8 and 9 for example - and there was actually a satisfying resolution to those emotional conflicts for me.

The greatest irony to me was that I think she loved Sam, she just couldn't make anything happen with him that wasn't either badly done or making him less likable.

I thought the second half of season 6 and season 7 allowed Sam to grow quite a bit. When he and Dean had conflicts in that season and a half, Sam was able to see where he had been wrong, apologize, and accept his mistakes. He showed concern for Dean and appreciated him, thanking him for saving him (more than once) and admitting to Dean that he did need him. Except for the one bad episode in that regard - "Defending Your Life" - which didn't really make sense compared to the entire rest of the season or what we saw in the second half of season 6, I thought that Sera did a good job of believably and not instantaneously (i.e. letting it take some time) redeeming Sam. For me that was one of the strengths of season 7. The other was some great individual episodes.

On the other hand this...

...until Carver came along and had his fun with all the character assassination. How could this be the same guy who wrote Mystery Spot?!!?

I could not agree with more. Carver did way more damage to Sam in my opinion. Everything I mentioned above that Sera took time and developed in the second half of season 6 through season 7 Carver undid, in my opinion, in the span of a few episodes and even went out of his way to make sure that Sam was unlikeable. Why I have no idea. Let's have one of your main characters not only not look for his brother and not appologize for it, but we'll have him not look for Kevin - who he knew Crowley had - either. What the hell, Carver? And then after that, drop it like a hot potato only to turn that entire thing around 180 degrees the next season. Since at the end of season 9 not only would Sam do anything to get Dean back, he'd do it even if Dean didn't want him to. And in both cases, Carver made it look bad. Just make up your damn mind and stick to it. Better yet, if he's not going to remember how he previously wrote Sam - as McColleague said "Myster Spot" anyone? (also "Point of No Return") - or bother to see how Sam developed while he was away from the show, let someone else develop Sam and leave the character alone. My opinion only, but I'm not going to forgive Carver for that character assassination unless he fixes it next season.

Misery for misery's sake and then going into WACKY AND FUNNY!!! just doesn't work well for me. The show has done that for far too long, but Gamble in particular seemed to do this as showrunner.

I don't really see this for Sera myself. I found much of the humor in season 6 and 7 to be pretty good - "Weekend at Bobby's", "The French Mistake", "Frontierland", "How to Win Friends...", "Slash Fiction" (awesome), and my other favorite "Plucky Pennywhistle..." - with only a few misses "Season 7, Time for a Wedding" (though that still had a few funny moments and a really nice brother moment for me) and "Party on Garth." "Clap Your Hands" wasn't perfect, but it had some great moments for me too. Only one or two of those really came after a set of downer episodes and Bobby's death in season 7 was handled with a clear indication of a time gap where there was believable grieving and passage of time shown via montage (several weeks) and it was still 3 episodes more before we got to "Plucky..." "Season 7, Time for a Wedding" was after "The Mentalists," but since that episode ended on an up note, I didn't think that it was that jarring. "Out With the Old" was sort of wacky and and did come before "The Bourne Again Identity" but "Out With" contained part of the serious things that lead to "...Identity" and continued from "Repo Man' (which was serious), so I didn't find it too jarring. It also encorporated some Leviathan stuff, so had some myth arc in it as well (so not just wacky alone).

I found the transition through "Hunter Heroici" to "Citizen Fang" and "Torn and Frayed" back into "Larp and the Real Girl" in season 8 a lot more jarring. Not to mention we got "Man's Best Friends With Benefits" which to me makes "Season 7, Time for..." and "Party on Garth" look like masterpieces in comparison.

June 23, 2014

PM or ping me if you guys want to change the title and I'll take care of it.

mertensia · June 23, 2014

The writers seem to forget that in order for misery to hit home it has to mean something. No one's surprised that miserable things happen in A Game of Thrones or any Thomas Hardy novel and so at least for me it makes it unenjoyable and I don't watch or read them. Misery done right - Dean trying to cope with Sam's death in the second season for example - packs a wallop.

DittyDotDot · June 23, 2014

Cas as big bad was somewhat interesting, but IIRC wasn't even planned from the beginning?

If it wasn't, I think it was one of the most skillful afterthoughts I've seen, because weirdly when I rewatch, it looks like it was planned. Castiel's objetcion to saving Sam's soul for example doesn't really make much sense unless there's a reason he'd be concerned what Sam from the cage might know or somehow the truth might come out. I was watching "You Can't Handle the Truth" and "Family Matters" recently and it almost seems like Castiel has some guilt or evasivenes concerning Dean asking him what's wrong with Sam or who might've had the mojo to get Sam out of the cage. It may just be me knowing the outcome that's coloring it, but after knowing what does happen, it seems to make sense. When Dean asks who would have the mojo to get Sam out, it almost like Castiel looks away and his answers are evasive.

I'm pretty sure that it was planned from the beginning. I can't remember right now which commentary it was on--maybe Clap Your Hands If You Believe--Ben Edlund makes a comment about how tough role Misha had to play throughout the season. I can't remember the exact phrasing, but it left me thinking that Cas as the baddie was the plan all along. Also, the way the season was structured like a noir piece--one mystery leads to another mystery, leads to another, but then there's this mystery right in front of your face--makes me think that was always their plan. I think the only thing they course corrected for was Soulless Sam. From what I understand they had planned that not to be resolved until the end of the season, but every one hated it so much they switched things up midstream. I actually liked Soulless Sam and thought he was not only amusing but also changed up the dynamics on the show, but still fit within the tone of the show sufficiently to create something different rather than more of the same. And I still wonder, if they hadn't bent to popular demand, if the season would have been more satisfying in the end. I never saw Dean as weak or pathetic compared to Soulless Sam, in fact I still maintain that is was some of Jensen's most layered and best work. I know it was difficult for him, but I think he's always best when forced outside of his comfort zone.

The reason I give Sera more slack than Carver is that Kripke tied up all the storylines at the end of S5 and didn't leave her with much to work with. It really was an ending. Did she overdo it trying to come up with new storylines in an attempt to do her job, possibly, but personally I didn't mind some of it--I don't forgive her for the Campbell Gang of Stupidity, though. With Carver, I think he was set up with some very interesting story and blew it, changed the entire tone of the show and made characters feel very unlike themselves. I may not have found the Leviathans all that interesting when it was all said and done, but most of the episodes throughout S7 are actually quite good, IMO. Admittedly though, I've never really been too caught up in the overall myth arcs of this show anyway and other than Dean actually being sent to Hell (which wasn't even the plan,) I can't think of one that actually has paid off satisfactorily, so, I'm more interested in the individual episodes anyway. At the end of the day, I think Sera did a better job of running the show--basically managing--than I think Carver's done. That's not saying that she was the greatest either, just a little bit better. But, as always, miles vary on all these things though.

ETA: While writing the above, I started thinking about the below--yes, my mind meanders all over the damn place! It's the first time Supernatural went to the Paley Festival back in 2006. The show was still airing it's first season and it was before the hype, the fan/network expectations and the bullshit. This is only the first part, which is mostly introductions, but I recommend all eight parts. There's some very interesting bits and I think it's one of the better panels done over the course of the series. Jared and Jensen are really charming and funny; Kripke talks about how he lucked into this show and Kim Manners is always nice to hear from (forget fangirling Jared and Jensen, I always go for the Manners! Hee!). Anyway, enjoy!

Edited June 23, 2014 by DittyDotDot

catrox14 · June 23, 2014

I want DemonDean to be one scary son of a bitch.

On one hand, I agree. On the other hand given how fantastic Jensen is, I am afraid of just how scary demon!Dean might be because I don't want to hate Dean even a little bit. EEP!

I wish for Dean to save himself this time around.

Edited June 23, 2014 by catrox14

DittyDotDot · June 23, 2014

I just wish for a few good, tightly-plotted and fun stories and I would like to smile once in a while when I watch. Is that really too much to ask for? Is producing a smile--only once in a while, mind you--so egregious?

Pete Martell · June 23, 2014

I don't really see this for Sera myself. I found much of the humor in season 6 and 7 to be pretty good - "Weekend at Bobby's", "The French Mistake", "Frontierland", "How to Win Friends...", "Slash Fiction" (awesome), and my other favorite "Plucky Pennywhistle..." - with only a few misses "Season 7, Time for a Wedding" (though that still had a few funny moments and a really nice brother moment for me) and "Party on Garth." "Clap Your Hands" wasn't perfect, but it had some great moments for me too. Only one or two of those really came after a set of downer episodes and Bobby's death in season 7 was handled with a clear indication of a time gap where there was believable grieving and passage of time shown via montage (several weeks) and it was still 3 episodes more before we got to "Plucky..." "Season 7, Time for a Wedding" was after "The Mentalists," but since that episode ended on an up note, I didn't think that it was that jarring. "Out With the Old" was sort of wacky and and did come before "The Bourne Again Identity" but "Out With" contained part of the serious things that lead to "...Identity" and continued from "Repo Man' (which was serious), so I didn't find it too jarring. It also encorporated some Leviathan stuff, so had some myth arc in it as well (so not just wacky alone).

I was thinking of material like "Clap Your Hands If You Believe," where we had gone from, presumably, being concerned that Soulless Sam had allowed Dean to become a vampire, was broken inside, had been beaten black and blue by Dean, to laughing it up that he scored some tail and once again left Dean to die while Dean was being sexually assaulted by faeries (because it's so hilarious and subversive if we have macho men say the word "fairy" a lot). I had no idea why I was supposed to take Sam's future seriously if the show didn't.

(not to mention that I still don't understand why Sera Gamble was so concerned about Sam having nonconsensual sex with Ruby's vessel when she was more than happy to glorify Soulless Sam doing things that Souled Sam would never have done, like sleep with prostitutes)

I'm pretty sure that it was planned from the beginning. I can't remember right now which commentary it was on--maybe Clap Your Hands If You Believe--Ben Edlund makes a comment about how tough role Misha had to play throughout the season. I can't remember the exact phrasing, but it left me thinking that Cas as the baddie was the plan all along. Also, the way the season was structured like a noir piece--one mystery leads to another mystery, leads to another, but then there's this mystery right in front of your face--makes me think that was always their plan. I think the only thing they course corrected for was Soulless Sam. From what I understand they had planned that not to be resolved until the end of the season, but every one hated it so much they switched things up midstream. I actually liked Soulless Sam and thought he was not only amusing but also changed up the dynamics on the show, but still fit within the tone of the show sufficiently to create something different rather than more of the same. And I still wonder, if they hadn't bent to popular demand, if the season would have been more satisfying in the end. I never saw Dean as weak or pathetic compared to Soulless Sam, in fact I still maintain that is was some of Jensen's most layered and best work. I know it was difficult for him, but I think he's always best when forced outside of his comfort zone.

I'm pretty sure the plan came out of left field. Misha and Ben had to go hat in hand and ask TPTB to do an episode that would explain Cas' POV ("The Man Who Would Be King"), as it had come out of nowhere. Misha also played Cas as genuinely shocked that Sam had been brought back without a soul, which I believe he said he wouldn't have done (I'm not sure) if he'd known.

They wanted Misha out and wanted to salvage the story after their main ideas had been unpopular with viewers and/or the cast, so this was the best way to do it.

DittyDotDot · June 23, 2014

I'm not saying that Misha knew he was the big bad, but that it seems that TPTB did, based on interviews and commentaries. Rarely do Jared and Jensen even know where their characters are heading more than a couple of episodes out, so it doesn't strike me as odd that they didn't fill Misha in. I never got the impression they wanted Cas gone at all. I always thought they were trying to hard to find a role for Castiel on the show after they stopped the apocalypse. Just my impression, but it seems to me they all loved the idea of Castiel, but didn't really have a place for him, so they forced one.

Edited June 23, 2014 by DittyDotDot

Pete Martell · June 23, 2014

I thought the second half of season 6 and season 7 allowed Sam to grow quite a bit. When he and Dean had conflicts in that season and a half, Sam was able to see where he had been wrong, apologize, and accept his mistakes. He showed concern for Dean and appreciated him, thanking him for saving him (more than once) and admitting to Dean that he did need him. Except for the one bad episode in that regard - "Defending Your Life" - which didn't really make sense compared to the entire rest of the season or what we saw in the second half of season 6, I thought that Sera did a good job of believably and not instantaneously (i.e. letting it take some time) redeeming Sam. For me that was one of the strengths of season 7. The other was some great individual episodes.

I would say that period of time was better than Sam than season 4, 8, or 9, because the character was not being trashed, but he also barely seemed to be there. Things happened to him, and Dean had to help save him. We saw a lot of focus on his trying to help Dean, yet this was laden with forced conflict (Amy Pond) and angst that further sapped the believable bond Sam and Dean had once had. The show was and is so terrified of just writing them as being cool with each other.

I don't think Carver intended to damage Sam so much...I can understand the idea of what he was doing with Amelia and with not looking for Kevin and Dean. I suppose the conflict with Benny was to show the unhealthiness of the brotherly bond. Unfortunately it was all horribly, horribly executed.

That Jared also has a lot of concerns about this material (understandably) just muddies the water even more, as he seemed to feel that Sam was lying about not wanting to save Dean (the comments Sam made in The Purge). So it's all just a mess.

It's mostly about characterization. Kripke, Gamble, and Carver all project(ed) things onto Sam, instead of writing for him. Some did it better than others, but I think it's had about the same result. It has destroyed the character.

I'm not sure I've ever seen another show where you have two leads, and one has rock-solid characterization that survives pretty much anything, and the other is dragged along like various Weekend at Bernie's sequels, rather than put in the work to make him what he could be..

I'm not saying that Misha knew he was the big bad, but that it seems that TPTB did, based on interviews and commentaries. Rarely do Jared and Jensen even know where their characters are heading more than a couple of episodes out, so it doesn't strike me as odd that they didn't fill Misha in. I never got the impression they wanted Cas gone at all. I always thought they were trying to hard to find a role for Castiel on the show after they stopped the apocalypse. Just my impression, but it seems to me they all loved the idea of Castiel, but didn't really have a place for him, so they forced one.

I don't think it would have been all that difficult to find a role for Cas after the apocalypse. They could have done a dozen things. I think they just didn't want to deal with a third character, as they've never really wanted to do this.

They had this idea of going back to basics, because of the eternal nostalgia for the era where it was just two boys in a cool car. They also got pretty heavy pushback against Cas from certain fans, as they always have.

I'm not sure how much TPTB planned in advance, but the whole Cas story always felt very flimsy to me in seasons 5 and 6, mostly coming up with reasons he wouldn't be around very often, unless his powers were needed. His season 6 "angel war" story was able to work into what happened at the end of the season, but all the things like, "ooh, Cas is so bad because he's torturing and that's not cool" really felt out of left field for me.

I think there are some people at the show who love Cas and Misha. I think others...do not. And we get this push and pull every season as a result.

Edited June 23, 2014 by Pete Martell

DittyDotDot · June 23, 2014

I don't think any of the writers dislike Misha or Castiel, but the character creates story issues that they don't like to have to deal with. It's laziness if you ask me. Castiel was only originally intended to be in three or four episodes in S4 and then he was supposed to be dead. The fact that they brought him back in S5 is a testament to how much they like Castiel and Misha too.

When I said that they forced story for him, I'm not saying that I didn't see other potential there, just that I think they forced him into the story because they liked him so much rather than looking at his character and finding an organic place for him. I always thought that they could have found a better fit for Castiel, but then I also think it might have been better to have seen what they originally intended. I mean, if they had, instead of just filling his episode requirements each season by giving him something random to do, and instead found an actual storyline for him or even waited until they had the right storyline for him--you know, saved him for something special--I probably would find Castiel more beloved than I do at this point. It's kinda the Bobby and Crowley factor for me--I love Mark Sheppard and Jim Beaver, but I've grown tired of both Crowley and Bobby. I would be sad to lose Misha, but at this point I don't think I would actually miss Castie--I would have back in S6 though.

shang yiet · June 23, 2014

I hope Sam tells Dean off too for his godawful decisions this season. He got himself into a fine mess and has only himself to blame for it.

AwesomO4000 · June 23, 2014

We saw a lot of focus on his trying to help Dean, yet this was laden with forced conflict (Amy Pond) and angst that further sapped the believable bond Sam and Dean had once had. The show was and is so terrified of just writing them as being cool with each other.

The Amy Pond incident might have been a little forced, but the season was not leaden with it, in my opinion. It took one episode to set up, Dean spent 2 or 3 episodes with guilt, with the truth coming out at the end of that third episode, and then the incident was concluded at the end of the next episode with actual resolution and a strengthening of the relationship. I didn't see it as sapping the bond at all. The brothers talked and the dynamic of the relationship changed for the better. Sam admitted that Dean was right, that he (Sam) was being unreasonable, and he explained why Dean's lying had hurt him while at the same time understanding why Dean did it, because Dean actually explained why he did it so that Sam could understand. They were actually honest with each other. Sam was actually allowed to be reasonable and forgiving in this episode - growth for his character. (Too bad that growth was thrown out the window in season 8, in my opinion). I thought at the end of "The Mentalists" that the brothers were "cool with each other" and they had a better understanding of where the other brother was coming from. Dean learned that even though he was right and had a reason to be annoyed, that Sam also had a legitimate reason to be angry - Sam already had issues with knowing what was true and what was his mentally challenged brain, so Dean lying to him was not very sympatheic even if Dean did have a legitimate reason for it. And surprisingly all of that was conveyed in a relatively short amount of dialogue. (That episode is under-appreciated in my opinion. I think it's one of Ben & Ben's best.)

So I found that handled well myself. There was some conflict (admittedly a little forced), it was short-lived (introduced and resolved in 5 episodes), and there was honest dialogue about the conflict, actual resolution of the conflict, and growth for both characters after it was done. Compared to the conflict this past season which took 10 episodes of Dean's guilt before Sam found out and then the entire rest of the season with the brothers angsting about it, not talking it out truthfully, and ending up with almost nothing changed from it - and even worse no reason for the actual conflict in the first place, because apparently in reality both brothers agree on the F'ed up situation and both went backwards in character development (reenforcing their unhealthy dependency) rather than forward. So for me, Sera looks like a master of conflict resolution compared to that F'ed up mess of last season "conflict" that Carver gave us.

The reason I give Sera more slack than Carver is that Kripke tied up all the storylines at the end of S5 and didn't leave her with much to work with. It really was an ending. Did she overdo it trying to come up with new storylines in an attempt to do her job, possibly, but personally I didn't mind some of it--I don't forgive her for the Campbell Gang of Stupidity, though. With Carver, I think he was set up with some very interesting story and blew it, changed the entire tone of the show and made characters feel very unlike themselves. I may not have found the Leviathans all that interesting when it was all said and done, but most of the episodes throughout S7 are actually quite good, IMO.

I completely agree, DittyDotDot. I would also add that not only were the episodes mostly good in season 7, for me, I also thought that Dean and Sam were written as characters I recognized and their behavior and character growth was believable (i.e. it wasn't instantaneous but took some time to get there). There was even redemption written for Castiel, and his character - despite some perhaps questionable comedic aspects - was also allowed to grow.

I was thinking of material like "Clap Your Hands If You Believe," where we had gone from, presumably, being concerned that Soulless Sam had allowed Dean to become a vampire, was broken inside, had been beaten black and blue by Dean, to laughing it up that he scored some tail and once again left Dean to die while Dean was being sexually assaulted by faeries (because it's so hilarious and subversive if we have macho men say the word "fairy" a lot). I had no idea why I was supposed to take Sam's future seriously if the show didn't.

But there were two episodes in between "You Can't Handle the Truth" (where Dean learned something was wrong with Sam and beat him) and "Clap Your Hands..." and in those episodes in between, Sam decided that he was going to be truthful and no longer pretend to feel things that he didn't - he described the pretending as "exhausting" in "Clap Your Hands..." and that's where the attitude of that episode came in. Sam wasn't pretending anymore. And I likely have the humor of a 12-year old sometimes, because I coincidentally watched this episode today and found it very amusing - especially Soulless Sam and his trying to understand how he should be acting.

Also Dean wasn't sexually assaulted by the fairies. He didn't even know they were fairies when he first came back - still completely clothed, still yelling, and still shooting his gun - both he and Sam thought that Dean had been abducted by aliens - who remained the suspects for a while during the episode. True, Sam didn't really have concern or empathy that Dean might be hurt by the abduction: he was more interested in Dean's abduction from an information/curiosity standpoint (which was in character for Soulless Sam) and was easily distracted by sex once he'd gone as far as he could at that point with his investigation, but Sam still did get the information needed, figured out the case, and ended up saving Dean.

As for taking Sam's future seriously, despite the lighter nature of the episode, the seeds were planted here for Sam being conflicted about getting his soul back ("So a soul equals... suffering."), and his starting to maybe look at it more logically (Sam's deciding that bargaining with the leprechaun wasn't worth the potential risk to get his soul back), and the questions raised by the Dean/Sam conversation at the end of the episode, I thought were, were taking the subject seriously. These things were added to by the next episode, "Caged Heat," where Sam learned that both Crowley and Catsiel thought that his soul would be extremely damaged and potentially leave him a drooling mess if he got it back, adding to the questions he'd started raising in "Clap Your Hands..." and by the end of "Caged Heat," it seemed pretty clear that if Sam wasn't outright lying to Dean about still wanting to get his soul back, he was at the least extremely unsure.

So because of this, I really didn't see too much of a tone disconnect. I found the tone shift from the entirely bleak and torture-filled "Torn and Frayed" to "Larp and the Real Girl" - which was the very next episode - a lot more jarring. Castiel killed Samadriel (after Samandriel was brutally tortured for the episode), but let's just forget that even happened for a fun larping romp with Charlie. Yay! Just my opinion, but that tonal shift bothered me much more.

Edited June 23, 2014 by AwesomO4000

Pete Martell · June 24, 2014

But there were two episodes in between "You Can't Handle the Truth" (where Dean learned something was wrong with Sam and beat him) and "Clap Your Hands..." and in those episodes in between, Sam decided that he was going to be truthful and no longer pretend to feel things that he didn't - he described the pretending as "exhausting" in "Clap Your Hands..." and that's where the attitude of that episode came in. Sam wasn't pretending anymore. And I likely have the humor of a 12-year old sometimes, because I coincidentally watched this episode today and found it very amusing - especially Soulless Sam and his trying to understand how he should be acting.

Also Dean wasn't sexually assaulted by the fairies. He didn't even know they were fairies when he first came back - still completely clothed, still yelling, and still shooting his gun - both he and Sam thought that Dean had been abducted by aliens - who remained the suspects for a while during the episode. True, Sam didn't really have concern or empathy that Dean might be hurt by the abduction: he was more interested in Dean's abduction from an information/curiosity standpoint (which was in character for Soulless Sam) and was easily distracted by sex once he'd gone as far as he could at that point with his investigation, but Sam still did get the information needed, figured out the case, and ended up saving Dean.

As for taking Sam's future seriously, despite the lighter nature of the episode, the seeds were planted here for Sam being conflicted about getting his soul back ("So a soul equals... suffering."), and his starting to maybe look at it more logically (Sam's deciding that bargaining with the leprechaun wasn't worth the potential risk to get his soul back), and the questions raised by the Dean/Sam conversation at the end of the episode, I thought were, were taking the subject seriously. These things were added to by the next episode, "Caged Heat," where Sam learned that both Crowley and Catsiel thought that his soul would be extremely damaged and potentially leave him a drooling mess if he got it back, adding to the questions he'd started raising in "Clap Your Hands..." and by the end of "Caged Heat," it seemed pretty clear that if Sam wasn't outright lying to Dean about still wanting to get his soul back, he was at the least extremely unsure.

So because of this, I really didn't see too much of a tone disconnect. I found the tone shift from the entirely bleak and torture-filled "Torn and Frayed" to "Larp and the Real Girl" - which was the very next episode - a lot more jarring. Castiel killed Samadriel (after Samandriel was brutally tortured for the episode), but let's just forget that even happened for a fun larping romp with Charlie. Yay! Just my opinion, but that tonal shift bothered me much more.

The tone disconnect for me isn't so much about Soulless Sam's reactions and more about how we were supposed to feel about them. I would like to think I should have been horrified that Sam was gone, that Dean was so full of rage and disgust that he beat the shell of his brother unconscious, and that this may be who he is forever. When I'm in that mindset, I can't really laugh because Soulless Sam jokes about whether or not Dean has been raped. (which is why I wasn't sure if the show was implying Dean had been sexually assaulted - I think they mentioned this 2 or 3 times throughout the episode in some "funny" manner).

It was the same with the comedy of Becky drugging Sam and possibly raping him if more time had passed, all in the middle of the depression we were supposed to feel about Dean's breakdown, Sam's hallucinations, etc.

I'm not trying to say you're juvenile for enjoying "Clap Your Hands." I'm sorry if I implied that.

I'm just saying for me (only for me), it was just a jarring way to plot out a story. I've always wondered if Sera wanted Soulless Sam to become a fan favorite and to have him become more prominent on the show, because I found the material written for him to be extremely disrespectful to Sam as a character (as there was no followup), and essentially turned Sam into some type of fanfic-type gimmick.

This is typical of SPN in general, this confusing tone, but it bothered me more with this storyline because am I supposed to both want Sam to get his soul back and cheer that he's getting laid? Oh that Soulless Sam is so sexy, prostitutes don't take his money?

The show has had jarring tonal changes in the last few seasons, I agree, but that's the main arc for me that was treated the most inconsistently.

The Amy Pond incident might have been a little forced, but the season was not leaden with it, in my opinion. It took one episode to set up, Dean spent 2 or 3 episodes with guilt, with the truth coming out at the end of that third episode, and then the incident was concluded at the end of the next episode with actual resolution and a strengthening of the relationship. I didn't see it as sapping the bond at all. The brothers talked and the dynamic of the relationship changed for the better. Sam admitted that Dean was right, that he (Sam) was being unreasonable, and he explained why Dean's lying had hurt him while at the same time understanding why Dean did it, because Dean actually explained why he did it so that Sam could understand. They were actually honest with each other. Sam was actually allowed to be reasonable and forgiving in this episode - growth for his character. (Too bad that growth was thrown out the window in season 8, in my opinion). I thought at the end of "The Mentalists" that the brothers were "cool with each other" and they had a better understanding of where the other brother was coming from. Dean learned that even though he was right and had a reason to be annoyed, that Sam also had a legitimate reason to be angry - Sam already had issues with knowing what was true and what was his mentally challenged brain, so Dean lying to him was not very sympatheic even if Dean did have a legitimate reason for it. And surprisingly all of that was conveyed in a relatively short amount of dialogue. (That episode is under-appreciated in my opinion. I think it's one of Ben & Ben's best.)

So I found that handled well myself. There was some conflict (admittedly a little forced), it was short-lived (introduced and resolved in 5 episodes), and there was honest dialogue about the conflict, actual resolution of the conflict, and growth for both characters after it was done. Compared to the conflict this past season which took 10 episodes of Dean's guilt before Sam found out and then the entire rest of the season with the brothers angsting about it, not talking it out truthfully, and ending up with almost nothing changed from it - and even worse no reason for the actual conflict in the first place, because apparently in reality both brothers agree on the F'ed up situation and both went backwards in character development (reenforcing their unhealthy dependency) rather than forward. So for me, Sera looks like a master of conflict resolution compared to that F'ed up mess of last season "conflict" that Carver gave us.

The problem I had with the story was I had absolutely no idea why it existed. It was better handled, overall, than their conflict this season, but it felt to me like someone just said, "If they get along there's no show." So you had Amy, Amy's death, and then some brooding before a resolution. And this meant there was still some sort of taint afterward, because they continued the tit-for-tat of which brother made what mistake. For instance in "The Slice Girls," some fans felt that the show had Sam kill Emma to somehow say "gotcha" for Dean killing Amy. And that interpretation would not have been possible if not for the pointless Amy story. What the show likely envisioned as some type of example of brother love instead just became more fodder for the brother wars.

AwesomO4000 · June 24, 2014

I'm not trying to say you're juvenile for enjoying "Clap Your Hands." I'm sorry if I implied that.

No need to apologize. I like some more sophisticated humor too, but I entirely own my sometimes juvenile humor. All the "dick" jokes in season 7 - totally didn't bother me. (I thought most of them were quite amusing). Whereas "Yellow Fever": I didn't find that very funny at all. I'm maybe a paradox that way. I sometimes surprise myself at what I find funny or not. It could be that many of my friends are men, so more guy humor doesn't bother me and usually amuses me. It doesn't extend to the Three Stooges though. Nope. That's my limit I guess.

DittyDotDot · June 24, 2014

The tone disconnect for me isn't so much about Soulless Sam's reactions and more about how we were supposed to feel about them. I would like to think I should have been horrified that Sam was gone, that Dean was so full of rage and disgust that he beat the shell of his brother unconscious, and that this may be who he is forever.

It's likely that I'm just very tired, but @Pete Martell, are you saying that you didn't like the Soulless Sam storyline because you don't know how TPTB wanted you to feel? I'd hazard a guess and say that they wanted you to feel conflicted and feel all those things. But it's okay if you didn't feel any of them also.

For me, life rarely happens in a compartmentalized way and I find tragedy is usually accompanied by the bizarre and humorous, so...I rooted for Sam to get his soul back and laughed at the bizarreness of Soulless Sam and cried for Dean all at the same time.

I guess what I'm getting at is, I'm not sure what Gamble intended you to feel is really all that important once your standing there having feelings. I think you're supposed to feel how ever you feel.

Edited June 24, 2014 by DittyDotDot

Mcolleague · June 24, 2014

I hope TPTB figure out what to do with Cas. I'm about to lose interest in the character completely, and I never thought that would be possible. I saw someone on Tumblr describe it as "filing away all his edges", and I think that is a good description. I liked the edges. This dorky/awkward too-much-heart business is not the most exciting, and the generic-disposable-corporate-angels storyline is beyond annoying.

Pete Martell · June 24, 2014

It's likely that I'm just very tired, but @Pete Martell, are you saying that you didn't like the Soulless Sam storyline because you don't know how TPTB wanted you to feel? I'd hazard a guess and say that they wanted you to feel conflicted and feel all those things. But it's okay if you didn't feel any of them also.

For me, life rarely happens in a compartmentalized way and I find tragedy is usually accompanied by the bizarre and humorous, so...I rooted for Sam to get his soul back and laughed at the bizarreness of Soulless Sam and cried for Dean all at the same time.

I guess what I'm getting at is, I'm not sure what Gamble intended you to feel is really all that important once your standing there having feelings. I think you're supposed to feel how ever you feel.

I think there's a way to feel conflicted while still having a consistent story. In the case of Soulless Sam, I didn't feel conflicted about the character - I thought he was a cipher. I felt conflicted and confused by why I was supposed to care that he liked to have a lot of sex, or, later on, why there was no exploration of the fact that Sam had to deal with someone using his body like he was a porn star and going around beating up and killing innocent people. If you're going to do this to a character, then you should at least show the aftermath.

Edited June 24, 2014 by CuriousParker

AwesomO4000 · June 24, 2014

For me, life rarely happens in a compartmentalized way and I find tragedy is usually accompanied by the bizarre and humorous, so...I rooted for Sam to get his soul back and laughed at the bizarreness of Soulless Sam and cried for Dean all at the same time.

You said that much better than I could have.

If you're going to do this to a character, then you should at least show the aftermath.

For me, I thought they did show some of the aftermath. Sam did find out about some of what he'd one - he duped poor Castiel into telling him - and he felt bad about that. He blamed himself, and he wanted to find out more - that was what "Unforgiven" was about for me - but at the same time Sam learned there that his desire to know more had to be curbed, because poking at the wall would potentially break it (which he learned for certain that was the case in that episode) and Sam knew Dean would be crushed if that happened. Sam was grateful Dean brought him back - "Mannequin 3..." - and didn't want to hurt him by trying to find out any more. So finding out had to wait until Cas broke the wall. He also got to "kill" Soulless Sam in a way in that episode, so that likely had to be at least a little satisfying.

I felt conflicted and confused by why I was supposed to care that he liked to have a lot of sex

My interpretation was that Soulless Sam couldn't "feel" in the sense that he didn't have any in-depth feelings - he told Castiel as much so we, the audience, also knew that - no real connections to people, however sex physically felt good. So Sam went with physical sensations, because those were something he could feel. Curiosity was another thing he seemed to be able to "feel" and a brief satisfaction at solving something or completing a job. Killing monsters likely gave him a rush of something - power, satisfaction, etc, but since those things didn't last, he was driven to go for more.

And in a way, if we look at Dean's earlier seasons, he sort of did a similar thing. Dean enjoyed sex, but he didn't really want the emotional attachment (or he didn't think he deserved it maybe since he had self-esteem issues), so he was maybe at least partially using one-night stand type sex to take the place of the emotional attachments and/or to avoid getting emotionally hurt. Different, but in the same vein (i.e. sex as a substitute and/or short term fix). So my guess is that that's what the writers were trying to show with Soulless Sam having meaningless sex and a lot of it. He was subconsciously perhaps trying to fill a void and trying to "feel" something in the few ways he could: through physical sensation and short term "highs" (adrenalin from killing things and feeling powerful). Since Souled Sam has emotional ties and feels things more deeply, he doesn't usually need all those short term substitutes - and usually when he does, there's something emotionally wrong with him, (as in "Sex and Violence") and he's trying to fill an emotional hole he can't. That's my interpretation anyway.

DittyDotDot · June 24, 2014

I think there's a way to feel conflicted while still having a consistent story. In the case of Soulless Sam, I didn't feel conflicted about the character - I thought he was a cipher. I felt conflicted and confused by why I was supposed to care that he liked to have a lot of sex, or, later on, why there was no exploration of the fact that Sam had to deal with someone using his body like he was a porn star and going around beating up and killing innocent people. If you're going to do this to a character, then you should at least show the aftermath.

I'm one of the very few that didn't find the SoullessSam story entirely inconsistent. Granted, the writer's keep coming up with other stupid things that SoullessSam could suddenly do--like untie himself from a chair and I'm still not sure how not having a soul helps you do that exactly--but I thought Jared did a decent job of finding a through line. Each episode they peeled back another layer and kept showing us how SoullessSam was not Sam. Sam having lots of sex was just a way for them to show us how different he was from original recipe Sam. And I did feel like they dealt with and showed the fallout in the following few episodes after he was re-souled, but largely in the spiderman episode (sorry the title escapes me.)

Anyway, my point was that I think you feeling conflicted about the story was probably exactly what they intended you to feel. I highly doubt they wanted you to root for SoullessSam to be having pointless sex. And I highly doubt they wanted you to find him likeable or charming. But at the same time I think they wanted you to see that this Sam also found more happiness in life--as Dean used to try and get him to do in earlier seasons--it's that whole double edged sword thing. So, I'm thinking you were feeling exactly how they wanted you to feel.

Aunty Sharon · June 24, 2014

I hope TPTB figure out what to do with Cas. I'm about to lose interest in the character completely, and I never thought that would be possible. I saw someone on Tumblr describe it as "filing away all his edges", and I think that is a good description. I liked the edges. This dorky/awkward too-much-heart business is not the most exciting, and the generic-disposable-corporate-angels storyline is beyond annoying.

All of this! I can't bear being bored with Cas, but he's just not fun anymore. And he was soooo much fun. And attractive.

(he's still attractive)

AwesomO4000 · June 24, 2014

But at the same time I think they wanted you to see that this Sam also found more happiness in life--as Dean used to try and get him to do in earlier seasons--it's that whole double edged sword thing.

This is a good point, too. Without the burdens of a soul and the conscience that went with it, Soulless Sam was more able to go after life's little pleasures without feeling guilty about it. Maybe I like that interpretation more than mine of Soulless Sam filling a void with the physical sensation... or maybe it was a combination of the two.

In any event, I agree with you. I'll join you in the not finding the Soulless Sam story entirely inconsistent.

Pete Martell · June 24, 2014

For me, I thought they did show some of the aftermath. Sam did find out about some of what he'd one - he duped poor Castiel into telling him - and he felt bad about that. He blamed himself, and he wanted to find out more - that was what "Unforgiven" was about for me - but at the same time Sam learned there that his desire to know more had to be curbed, because poking at the wall would potentially break it (which he learned for certain that was the case in that episode) and Sam knew Dean would be crushed if that happened. Sam was grateful Dean brought him back - "Mannequin 3..." - and didn't want to hurt him by trying to find out any more. So finding out had to wait until Cas broke the wall. He also got to "kill" Soulless Sam in a way in that episode, so that likely had to be at least a little satisfying.

My interpretation was that Soulless Sam couldn't "feel" in the sense that he didn't have any in-depth feelings - he told Castiel as much so we, the audience, also knew that - no real connections to people, however sex physically felt good. So Sam went with physical sensations, because those were something he could feel. Curiosity was another thing he seemed to be able to "feel" and a brief satisfaction at solving something or completing a job. Killing monsters likely gave him a rush of something - power, satisfaction, etc, but since those things didn't last, he was driven to go for more.

And in a way, if we look at Dean's earlier seasons, he sort of did a similar thing. Dean enjoyed sex, but he didn't really want the emotional attachment (or he didn't think he deserved it maybe since he had self-esteem issues), so he was maybe at least partially using one-night stand type sex to take the place of the emotional attachments and/or to avoid getting emotionally hurt. Different, but in the same vein (i.e. sex as a substitute and/or short term fix). So my guess is that that's what the writers were trying to show with Soulless Sam having meaningless sex and a lot of it. He was subconsciously perhaps trying to fill a void and trying to "feel" something in the few ways he could: through physical sensation and short term "highs" (adrenalin from killing things and feeling powerful). Since Souled Sam has emotional ties and feels things more deeply, he doesn't usually need all those short term substitutes - and usually when he does, there's something emotionally wrong with him, (as in "Sex and Violence") and he's trying to fill an emotional hole he can't. That's my interpretation anyway.

I guess my problem with the aftermath material was, yet again with this show, the way scenes were set up. For instance, the focus in the scene with Cas was in part some attempt at comedy (?) because he wouldn't hug Cas. So people instead talked about why didn't he hug Cas, what did Cas do wrong.

Sam got to "kill" Soulless Sam, but the other things that would have likely haunted him, like ugly treatment of the people he would want to save (down to killing a woman in cold blood because she got in his way), had no mention. The show instead made choices like a joke about Dean, Bobby, and Soulless Sam all sleeping with the same woman. They've never let Sam really deal with any of the fallout of his storylines. Even the whole "starting the apocalypse" story became muddied by brother love and brother angst in season 5.

I can see where Soulless Sam would have seen sex as a way to cope with not feeling, but when Gamble/Singer included scenes like a sex worker not taking Sam's money, I think they moved it away from being about his struggles and into being a straight guy's porno fantasy. To be honest I didn't think the show did a great job telling this story with Dean either, in season 3, but at least it wasn't presented as being about Dean being a stud.

Anyway, my point was that I think you feeling conflicted about the story was probably exactly what they intended you to feel. I highly doubt they wanted you to root for SoullessSam to be having pointless sex. And I highly doubt they wanted you to find him likeable or charming. But at the same time I think they wanted you to see that this Sam also found more happiness in life--as Dean used to try and get him to do in earlier seasons--it's that whole double edged sword thing. So, I'm thinking you were feeling exactly how they wanted you to feel.

I can see what you're saying. My view tends to mostly be that someone wanted to see Jared have a lot of sex/shirtless material and be the action man and not have to play Sam's usual vulnerabilities and hesitant moments, so I couldn't find the other interpretations. But if the story worked for you, I can understand that. We can agree to disagree.

amazinglybored · June 24, 2014

Sam got to "kill" Soulless Sam, but the other things that would have likely haunted him, like ugly treatment of the people he would want to save (down to killing a woman in cold blood because she got in his way), had no mention. The show instead made choices like a joke about Dean, Bobby, and Soulless Sam all sleeping with the same woman. They've never let Sam really deal with any of the fallout of his storylines. Even the whole "starting the apocalypse" story became muddied by brother love and brother angst in season 5.

I think they dealt with it in that god awful episode after he got his soul back and when he absolved himself of all guilt that was supposed to cover that. They've never been good with Sam dealing with the shit he does or what happens to him. I think they were more interested in Sam's suffering after he got his soul back and forgot (or just had no interest), tbh. There's always the next "Is he likable now?" storyline. They've needed Sam to face his shit for a long time and they've staunchly avoided it or tried to handle it in an episode or two, usually by blaming someone else. It hasn't worked and I don't think they can do it now, there's too much damage and not enough show left.

I can see where Soulless Sam would have seen sex as a way to cope with not feeling, but when Gamble/Singer included scenes like a sex worker not taking Sam's money, I think they moved it away from being about his struggles and into being a straight guy's porno fantasy. To be honest I didn't think the show did a great job telling this story with Dean either, in season 3, but at least it wasn't presented as being about Dean being a stud.

The tone with Soulless Sam was always weird, it was porno fantasy material and ridiculous when it came to sex. It made him look like an idiot when it happened. You know what will help with that animalistic urge without the risk of an STD or the woman being evil or someone being pissed, and save you money? Masturbation. This show is weird about sex in general, it can get pretty messed up. Season 3 Dean with sex, Dean in general with sex, was sad, to me.

Soulless Sam also did have emotions when it suited them, anger and fear, those are emotions. Lulz, consistency. Smug was also seen, as was being happy with himself. Him not understanding how to respond to things was also stupid, he had Sam's memories, ffs.

I can see what you're saying. My view tends to mostly be that someone wanted to see Jared have a lot of sex/shirtless material and be the action man and not have to play Sam's usual vulnerabilities and hesitant moments, so I couldn't find the other interpretations. But if the story worked for you, I can understand that. We can agree to disagree.

I think that was part of it. Wanting Sam to be the new Dean but not actually understanding Dean as a character, but doing really cliche things to make Sam super popular or something. It made for an inconsistent mess of an arc and a moronic looking character. They tried for sexy ultimate badass and ended up with a stupid douche with laughable thing happening to him with sex. I'll never forget JP's weird heavy breathing thing after Soulless Sam attacked the cop, it made me laugh.

I spent a lot of time wanting Soulless Sam to be shot in the face. Also, the whole Soulless, not sleeping and still living without his soul thing still bothers me, and it led to the stupidity of Sam dying from not sleeping for a few days and being given a gun when he was god damn well hallucinating. So stupid, I couldn't get over the lack of research with the dying from a lack of sleep thing.

mstaken · June 24, 2014

in both cases, Carver made it look bad. Just make up your damn mind and stick to it. Better yet, if he's not going to remember how he previously wrote Sam - as McColleague said "Myster Spot" anyone? (also "Point of No Return") - or bother to see how Sam developed while he was away from the show, let someone else develop Sam and leave the character alone.

Heh! I agree with the majority of what you guys are saying (and strongly prefer S7 to S8 or S9), but I can't shake the feeling that the writers' problems in depicting Sam were evident from very early on in the series, maybe even s1 and S2. I just don't think they ever bothered defining him well in the first place, which makes it next to impossible to develop him in consistent and natural ways. I certainly found Sam a lot more likable in S1-S3, but that's because his characterization was vague enough for me to fanwank as I wanted to (as opposed to him being unambiguously a joyless, arrogant annoyance---IMO) and because JP was allowed to occasionally smile and act as if he and Dean (gasp) sometimes liked each other.

Even then, though, Sam was pretty ill-defined IMO---he was mostly just presented as being what Dean (the far better defined and more vibrant brother IMO) isn't: allegedly more polished and 'book smart' while Dean was street savvy and experienced, more serious in contrast to Dean's more funloving, outgoing nature, more uptight to clash with Dean's lack of inhibitions, etc. His only clear positive traits were his alleged academic skills (often shown to be next to useless in their line of work anyway) and the fact that he was more 'sensitive' than amusingly tactless Dean (though even that sensitivity was often depicted as a deliberately manipulative technique by which to elicit information). Beyond that, he was kind of a cipher IMO, and the writers seemed particularly lost as to how to write for him once they killed off John, as a salient feature of Sam had been The One Who Doesn't Get Along with Their Father. They tried a weird, didn't-quite-stick 'he's psychic 'cause, like, he wanted to be normal and now he kind of isn't!' thing, and then they latched on to this 'pride and arrogance' thing that, sadly, became pretty much his only consistent character traits for much of the series. I can't help but feel that if the writers had defined Sam better from the outset, they wouldn't have made quite as big a mess of his characterization (and of the brothers' relationship) along the way.

Edited June 24, 2014 by mstaken

amazinglybored · June 24, 2014

Yeah, Sam has been a plot device for a long time. He started as Kripke's avatar and they never got away from that, the show never really did either. When there's always something wrong with a character or if the writers refuse to deal with the negatives there's a problem. It's like, Sam wants to be normal and there's something wrong with him, this makes him feel...? He will redeem himself by? They don't know what to do with the character, it's a directionless attempt to make him likable again and they can't or won't do what they need to with him. It's always a quick fix that inevitably fails.

He's undefined with only one real positive trait, he's book smart, the sympathetic angle looks manipulative and disingenuous and he can't find it in himself to be sympathetic to his own brother. Interestingly enough he has a lot of well defined negative traits, selfish, superiority complex, arrogant, manipulative, won't take blame, etc. Sam makes more sense as a villain, imo, he's written as one. They could have grown him into a better character, they could have resisted the urge to go dark, neither thing happened.

They got away with it in the beginning when they didn't have so much history with the Sam and when chemistry saved them. I don't think they have that luxury any more. I think at this point the issue is too deep to correct, it's the showrunners, the writers, the directors and JP all doing it. I think there's no one being like, "Maybe Sam should make a sympathetic face here, or Sam should smile warmly here."

Heh! I agree with the majority of what you guys are saying (and strongly prefer S7 to S8 or S9), but I can't shake the feeling that the writers'

Even then, though, Sam was pretty ill-defined IMO---he was mostly just presented as being what Dean (the far better defined and more vibrant brother IMO) isn't: allegedly more polished and 'book smart' while Dean was street savvy and experienced, more serious in contrast to Dean's more funloving, outgoing nature, more uptight to clash with Dean's lack of inhibitions, etc. His only clear positive traits were his alleged academic skills (often shown to be next to useless in their line of work anyway) and the fact that he was more 'sensitive' than amusingly tactless Dean (though even that sensitivity was often depicted as a deliberately manipulative technique by which to elicit information). Beyond that, he was kind of a cipher IMO, and the writers seemed particularly lost as to how to write for him once they killed off John, as a salient feature of Sam had been The One Who Doesn't Get Along with Their Father. They tried a weird, didn't-quite-stick 'he's psychic 'cause, like, he wanted to be normal and now he kind of isn't!' thing, and then they latched on to this 'pride and arrogance' thing that, sadly, became pretty much his only consistent character traits for much of the series. I can't help but feel that if the writers had defined Sam better from the outset, they wouldn't have made quite as big a mess of his characterization (and of the brothers' relationship) along the way.

I hadn't looked at it like that before, but you're right. I guess it could be that Dean is defined by what he isn't compared to Sam, but Dean was always the more defined character. I think if they'd given up on the original idea of Sam and his unlikeable sidekick things wouldn't have gotten as bad, the constant focus on Sam made things worse. The refusal to really embrace a character like they lucked into with Dean was a mistake, and a weird one to be honest. Dean was more an entity Kripke lost control of to JA and Kim Manners (and the competent writers probably picked up on that) back in the beginning, that didn't happen with Sam, imo. Kripke loved his avatar too much.

AwesomO4000 · June 24, 2014

I think if they'd given up on the original idea of Sam and his unlikeable sidekick things wouldn't have gotten as bad, the constant focus on Sam made things worse. The refusal to really embrace a character like they lucked into with Dean was a mistake, and a weird one to be honest. Dean was more an entity Kripke lost control of to JA and Kim Manners (and the competent writers probably picked up on that) back in the beginning, that didn't happen with Sam, imo. Kripke loved his avatar too much.

I'm not sure that I buy that Sam was more of Kripke's avatar myself. If he was, that seems to have been dropped fairly early on. Why would someone have generally mostly negative traits as the most well-defined for their avatar? It makes more sense to me if Dean is the avatar as has been discussed in the Unpopular Opinions thread. Dean is the one who drives the cool car, gets the women, is almost every characters' favorite (except for the evil or rotten characters. Then Sam is their favorite.), is witty, the leader, is completely loyal, etc. etc. His main negative trait really is that he doesn't get how great he truly is - which is not really much of a flaw.

I never saw them not embrace Dean as a character myself. He gets almost entire episodes devoted to his point of view only, starting from fairly early on ("In My Time of Dying" *, "What Is..." **, "The End", "In the Beginning," etc). He gets many of the big bad kills, often solo or with help that's not Sam *** (The YED, Zachariah, Eve, Dick Roman) and it's portrayed as a good thing. Sam's big kills are often portrayed negatively (Samhain, Alastair, Lilith, even Famine). Dean is just portrayed too heroically, in my opinion, for him not to be the one being "embraced." If he was perhaps some heroic but shallow character like, to use an example: Captain Hammer from Dr. Horrible, I could see it maybe, but he's not only heroic, but layered and complex and almost always is given the right opinion in the narrative. Dean is hardly ever wrong about almost anything, and even when he is, it usually ends up that somehow he was sort of right after all or the other characters are even more wrong somehow. To me that's an avatar. Not a character who screws up most of the time, is hardly ever the other characters' favorite, and has negative traits that other characters point out all the time (and "low self-esteem" doesn't count) unless they want someone else to deal with him instead in which case they spout general platitudes about him since they don't really know him anyway.

So yeah, I never bought that Sam was the writer's avatar. It doesn't really make sense to me.

* Kripke was one of the writers of the script

** Kripke directed the episode

*** Who is usually laying on the ground watching and/or elsewhere

mstaken · June 24, 2014

He's undefined with only one real positive trait, he's book smart, the sympathetic angle looks manipulative and disingenuous and he can't find it in himself to be sympathetic to his own brother. Interestingly enough he has a lot of well defined negative traits, selfish, superiority complex, arrogant, manipulative, won't take blame, etc. Sam makes more sense as a villain, imo, he's written as one. They could have grown him into a better character, they could have resisted the urge to go dark, neither thing happened.

Ugh, yes. THIS.

Why would someone have generally mostly negative traits as the most well-defined for their avatar? It makes more sense to me if Dean is the avatar as has been discussed in the Unpopular Opinions thread. Dean is the one who drives the cool car, gets the women, is almost every characters' favorite (except for the evil or rotten characters. Then Sam is their favorite.), is witty, the leader, is completely loyal, etc. etc. His main negative trait really is that he doesn't get how great he truly is - which is not really much of a flaw.

And THIS as well :)

shang yiet · June 24, 2014

Normally, I go for the quiet book smart introspective characters which is why I identified with Sam at once. Kripke started out with a vague Luke Skywalker college boy everyman template but Sam grew into more than that, thanks to Jared's charm and the good writing of the early seasons.

Those 'negative' traits are what ironically makes Sam more fleshed out as a proper human being like the ones you might meet in real life. Whereas Dean has what I call Sue flaws, like what Awesom pointed out.

Sign In

“Bitch” Vs. “Jerk”: Where We Discuss Who The Writers Screwed This Week/Season/Ever

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Aeryn13

BabySpinach

BabySpinach

Posted Images

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Guest

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment