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

[MysteryGuest]

I keep going back to Jensens's comments about how "forgiving" the SPN fandom is, and how he hopes we won't have anything to forgive next season.  I think they all knew that those last few episodes were dogs.  It does seem strange that they would totally clean house as far as the writers are concerned, but I'm going to try to think positively, at least until the season starts.  New writers have something to prove, so maybe they'll surprise us.  Some of us have been hoping that the show would take a turn away from the angle/demon storyline, and either get back to the basics of fighting monsters, or come up with something new.  Well, with a staff of new writers, we may just get our wish.

Edited June 28, 2016 by MysteryGuest

[DittyDotDot]

I would suspect it's not so much cleaning house, but contracts being up and staffers choosing to move on to a new project rather than renew their contracts. This show is long in the tooth and despite Jim Michaels saying they haven't discussed it being the last season, I'm sure some of these folks are starting to think about their next job. Plus, I would imagine some of these folks wanting to try something new after 11 years.

Anyhoo, I can't decide if this is a good thing or not. Seems like it should be, but the universe does like to screw with me, so who knows. I do worry about Dabb pushing a more Bloodlines-type story. The MoL was supposedly his idea and with the way the finale was structured. But, I'm trying to stay positive for now. I'm going to wait to see what comes out of Comic Con before I set any expections...I think.

[catrox14]

1 hour ago, FlickChick said:

I'm hoping that some of what went on was because Carver basically bailed and left an unprepared Dabb in charge with little to no lead time.  So the question will be, when Dabb is fully running things, will he be able to be a better showrunner than what was seen at the end of last season. Regarding the episodes, I would imagine that those were in the works - aka Carver designated - before Dabb took the helm. Just my speculation, no inside knowledge here. 

My understanding is that Carver was already out the door about midway through the season. I don't think he left them hanging at the last minute.

41 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said:

I would suspect it's not so much cleaning house, but contracts being up and staffers choosing to move on to a new project rather than renew their contracts. This show is long in the tooth and despite Jim Michaels saying they haven't discussed it being the last season, I'm sure some of these folks are starting to think about their next job. Plus, I would imagine some of these folks wanting to try something new after 11 years.

Anyhoo, I can't decide if this is a good thing or not. Seems like it should be, but the universe does like to screw with me, so who knows. I do worry about Dabb pushing a more Bloodlines-type story. The MoL was supposedly his idea and with the way the finale was structured. But, I'm trying to stay positive for now. I'm going to wait to see what comes out of Comic Con before I set any expections...I think.

I thought the MoL was Adam Glass' baby since he wrote the episode that introduced it.

[DittyDotDot]

23 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

I thought the MoL was Adam Glass' baby since he wrote the episode that introduced it.

If I remember right, on the commentary, it was stated Dabb came in with the idea in the summer. I think Glass was just the writer on the dock when it came time to write it.

ETA: It sounds like a lot of their big mythology ideas actually have come from Dabb over the last couple years.

Edited June 28, 2016 by DittyDotDot

[catrox14]

10 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said:

If I remember right, on the commentary, it was stated Dabb came in with the idea in the summer. I think Glass was just the writer on the dock when it came time to write it.

ETA: It sounds like a lot of their big mythology ideas actually have come from Dabb over the last couple years.

Ah...Thanks!

[7kstar]

Not sure how much this effected the ending but I believe the network told them they couldn't kill God/Chuck.  Some of the ideas of boodlines might have been interesting if they had been more connected.  Toni's introduction might the attempt to fix it.  I think there are some interesting stories they could do with MOL  but it needs to be carefully fleshed & planned out.

If the new writers are excited and watch the show before they start writing they may find ways to fix issues that the past writers haven't done a good job with.  I believe with staying on the positive until we see what they do.  Carver wasn't awful, he had some good parts and some really bad parts. 

As far as rushing the last 4 eps, that is a pattern that has being going on since season 1, so not really nothing new.

If Supernatural grows and changes it can breathe new life into it.  Looking at MASH that's what happened.  The series changed and grew over time.  Looking at Kripke, his first ideas for the show weren't the ones that would have allowed this show to last.  So Dabb needs a little bit of time to figure it out too.  The fact that the fan base is forgiving doesn't mean they will allow it to be bad forever, but I think they will give him some time if he comes up with an interesting direction.  Hopefully they have learned that the brothers apart and with secrets has been done to death and needs to die. 

I honestly can say that every writer on the show has had some eps I liked and some not so much.  But if the show is to remain more than one more season, it needs something new.  Cas and Crowley need a real storyline.  So I hope that new with the old will create an interesting spin. 

Hopefully that makes sense...I've been dealing with being dizzy and my focus isn't as sharp right now.

[auntvi]

What's the worst thing you could imagine for next season? Yes, that bad.

 

http://www.thewinchesterfamilybusiness.com/articles/news-173/20017-production-schedule-for-supernatural-and-other-shows-posted

[catrox14]

Buck-Leming have been co-executive producers for awhile now. I'm not seeing how WFB is getting they will have more input. 

[auntvi]

Doh!! Nevermind.  

[catrox14]

26 minutes ago, auntvi said:

Doh!! Nevermind.  

I didn't mean that towards you but reading WFB article I don't see anything they put in there other than spec that BL will have more influence.

[catrox14]

Bringing this over from the Arrow thread. I didn't know if I should be this in Writing thread or Small Talk  because it's not from or about SPN (which is tragic because those boys are more tragic the Vampire Diaries..but whatever)

TV Writing: Heroes and Villains: Robert Hewitt Wolfe on what makes a TV lead character

He currently writes for Elementary but it really made me think about what our boys are in this framework. I'm gonna go with our boys started as Tragic Heroes that have morphed into Anti-heroes. 

https://storify.com/zsmith/tv-writing-heroes-and-villains

Edited July 6, 2016 by catrox14

[RulerofallIsurvey]

15 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

I'm gonna go with our boys started as Tragic Heroes that have morphed into Anti-heroes. 

I don't know.  Based on this definition of his:

Quote

Good people who do good (heroes), bad ones who do bad (villains), good ones who do bad (tragic heroes), bad people who do good (antiheroes).

I would say they are heroes who are many times tragic heroes. (Starting all those apocalypses, for example).  I just don't see them as bad people.  Also this:

Quote

Next: The antihero. The antihero may be a bad person, but they make the world better (by doing bad). So House, Dexter, Jack Bauer.

I couldn't stand House or Dexter.  And I definitely couldn't root for either one.  So if that is his idea of an anti-hero, I don't think the boys are.  Although in a more traditional definition of anti-hero, I'd agree they are that. That's also how I view Jack Bauer, because I don't think he is a bad person either - at least the early 24's he wasn't, but I only watched the first couple seasons.

This is what really caught my eye:

Quote

Rooting interest is the key to this. The audience has to WANT to see what happens to your protags next.

No kidding.  I wish more writers would remember this when they are busy so happily destroying their characters.  

[catrox14]

I'm actually going to change my definition of the Winchesters. IMO they are Tragic Anti-Heroes, Even removing the demon or Mark of Cain aspects from their journeys, they have been  outlaws from the beginning.  

From the pilot onward, they've committed credit card fraud, impersonated police officers, FBI and Homeland Security agents complete with fake badges and aliases. They are thieves that commit auto theft, and break and enter with lock picking kits. They probably don't have carry and conceal licenses and certainly not for the grenade launcher in the Impala. They have both been on the FBI's most wanted list. . They make alliances with villains in order to do good things. 

I think that qualifies as anti-heroes. And they got that way because of their tragic beginnings. Hence Tragic Anti-Heroes. YMMV. 

[DittyDotDot]

1 hour ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

I haven't really kept up much with these things.  I know the first five seasons were mainly Kripke, right?  Then Carver?  So was there a different showrunner starting with S11?  So far the eps, and the brotherly relationship just has a very different tone than the last few seasons.  I like it!  Don't get me wrong.  It's just SO different - and maybe even more noticeable after binge watching?

First five years were Kripke. S6 and S7 were run by Sera Gamble who had been writing for the show from the beginning and was also an executive producer starting in S3. I didn't actually notice that big of change in the show under Gamble, just more scrambling to reset the show after Kripke tied up his basic story. But, the tone of the show was mostly the same for me.

S8 is when Jeremy Carver started as showrunner. He joined the show as a writer in S3 and then left the show at the end of S5 to go make the US version of Being Human with his wife. S8 was a huge change in tone, IMO, that's the beginning of the Era of the Petty Little Jerks, for me.

Technically, Carver was still running the show in S11, but he had one foot out the door for most of it and, it seemed, Andrew Dabb was actually doing the job. Dabb joined the show with his writing partner Daniel Lofflin (who has since left the show) back in S4. I credit the change in tone in S11 with Dabb even though he wasn't technically named showrunner until S12. 

[Demented Daisy]

I suspect that Dabb took over (unofficially) just after the mid-season finale of S11.  Mostly because Carver stopped doing the "producer sneak peeks".  And the tone of the show shifted noticeably starting with Into the Mystic, I think.

[RulerofallIsurvey]

I've already noticed a shift in tone - just in the first few eps on S11.  I think I said on another thread (so apologies if this is redundant) that I actually watched the S11 eps right after they first aired.  But at that time, I was still getting through the early seasons of SPN for the first time also.  I definitely hadn't made it to S8, I don't think.  I agree with DDD, that I don't think S6 and S7 were very much tonally different from 1-5.  Which makes sense, since I was still back there in my first time through while also watching these eps, I wouldn't have noticed the change in tone last fall.  However, after now having watched S8-S10 most recently, the change is really noticeable to me.  

And a most welcome change!

[DittyDotDot]

So, I'm listening to the commentary on The Hunter Games right now (Buckner, Lemming-Ross, Curtis Armstrong and John Badham) and they were talking about how the actors so many times come in with ideas on how to stage the scenes and stuff. Curtis Armstrong was saying how he's not a visual thinker and John Badham started talking about how Mark Sheppard had some really great insights and ideas on how to visually convey Crowley seeing his bones again...which got me thinking, I think I'd be pretty keen on Sheppard directing an episode.

Maybe we should start a petition?

[auntvi]

I went to a Second City show tonight and the program included a list of all the people who were part of Second City back to the early 60s.  Eugenie Ross-Leming was in the class of 1971, along with John Belushi. A very impressive background for a hack writer.

[catrox14]

4 hours ago, auntvi said:

I went to a Second City show tonight and the program included a list of all the people who were part of Second City back to the early 60s.  Eugenie Ross-Leming was in the class of 1971, along with John Belushi. A very impressive background for a hack writer.

Well, not everyone can be a John Belushi, Gilda Radner or Stephen Colbert.  I wish she would take her talents elsewhere. 

[DittyDotDot]

There's been much discussion lately about some of the new writers this season, but I'm not sure I've seen enough to form a concrete impression yet. But since they now all have two episodes under their belts, I thought I'd throw out some of my observations thus far:

Steve Yockey:

• 12.06 Celebrating the Life of Asa Fox
• 12.10 Lily Sunder Has Some Regrets

I found the beginning of Celebrating the Life of Asa Fox extremely strong because of the character beats, but it kinda fell into a hole about halfway through with the poor plotting and running around like chickens with their heads cut. Wasn't really wowed by Lily Sunder Has Some Regrets, but again had a couple nice character beats that kept my interest.

Meredith Glynn:

• 12.05 The One You've Been Waiting For
• 12.11 Regarding Dean

Regarding Dean was much better than The One You've Been Waiting For, IMO, but not overly-impressed with either episode. Both episodes felt like they were missing key scenes for the pay off to...well, pay off. They both were almost like she was trying to build higher than her foundation could support. 

Davy Perez:

• 12.04 American Nightmare
• 12.12 Stuck in the Middle (With You)

IMO, American Nightmare really showed lack of experience in plotting and characterization, but I felt Stuck in the Middle (With You) was a vast improvement. Since I don't know why Dean suddenly disappeared on American Nightmare--was there a deleted scene; a last-minute request for some time off; or did the writer just not think the plot through well-enough--I'm not willing to label him as a Dean-hater. I will say that was a major fail, but what exactly failed, I don't know.

 

So, my assessment of the new writers as of now: They show promise, but also show a lack of experience. Which makes sense since none of their TV writing resumes are very long. Glynn and Yockey both come to us from Scream with only have one other writing credit to their names. Perez has a few writing credits for American Crime.  It should be interesting to see if they can "grow" with a little care and feeding.

[Aeryn13]

For me Glynn had the strongest singular episode in "Regarding Dean" whereas Yockey had the most consistency with two solid episodes that I liked. Perez also has consistency with two stinkers.

I agree, though, that all are inexperienced. Problem is, who are they learning from? There isn`t a single writer on staff that can or should IMO mentor newcomers. Like the nepotism duo? Pass. Dabb? Holy crap no. Berens? He still stumbles too much himself and would IMO benefit from mentoring also.

They could really all benefit from a veteran writer. Problem is they have none.

[MysteryGuest]

The writing this season has definitely been hit and miss for me.  Many of the episodes have had major flow issues.  Too many filler scenes, musical interludes, etc. for my taste.  I think that time could have been better used by having a few extra scenes to flesh out some of the stories.  I think they've done ok with writing the main character dialogue, and keeping them consistent, but I'm not sure if that's a credit to the writers, or the fact that the cast could play their roles blindfolded by now.  Probably a bit of both.

I'm sure that Dabb, et al have been the ones to dictate where they want the story to go this season, so I can't blame the writers for the over-usage of Lucifer.  Now that we've been introduced to the Princes of Hell, I'd have much preferred for them to have had these new demons be the principal "big bads" for the season and move on from Lucifer.  Even though they seem to be playing fast and loose with the demon lore, I find the idea of these Princes to be infinitely more interesting.  

I can't really comment on which writers are Dean fans and which are Sam fans, because I personally think both brothers get an equal share of storyline.  That doesn't mean that I don't get annoyed when a character's history is blatantly overlooked, but that's been a complaint for years now, so it's not specific to these new writers.  

I'm hopeful that the writing will continue to improve as the season goes on.  If the last two episodes are any indication, we may get there.  While not perfect, I thought they were vast improvements over some of the earlier episodes.

Edited February 18, 2017 by MysteryGuest

[Myrelle]

Quote

So they are left with Crowley and Cas who, given their roles and nature of their characters, should be used in small doses.  Instead, because there is no one else, they end up being the road trip buddies which completely misses the point of the nature of their characters.

Bringing this over the Lily Sunder episode thread.

IA with this somewhat-not so much that Crowley and Cas should be used in small doses. I think they're used fine in regards to amount of screen-time but I do agree that the nature of their characters is somewhat sullied when they're portrayed as road trip buddies and such. The problem is the Js need/desire for time off and I feel that this could be better handled if it wasn't a seeming writing requirement that the Js be on-screen together in almost every episode. And I truly feel that the quality of the show on a whole would improve if they were paired with the other recurring characters more. There is presently more than enough acting talent on this show to do this and it would make sense that as hunters, and particularly with all the irons in the fire that these writers usually have, the brothers would out of necessity have to split up at times. I think that would be a more organic way within the storytelling for the two lead actors to have time off w/o losing either one of them(or both of them) for large chunks of entire episodes.

I'm not saying that they would always have to be separated, but just more than they presently are and if their relationship stays the way that it has been shown to be so far this season, separations would not seem as awful to the fandom or even to the characters themselves because the brothers relationship has taken a seemingly more mature turn this season and seems less strained than it's ever been before(again IMO).

Some in the fandom would undoubtedly balk at this(they always will), but I think it would be a worthwhile experiment to undertake and might actually make the overall quality of the show better again. I mean the present core audience is going to watch this show, no matter what, IMO. So I wish they'd give that a shot just to see what happens, maybe next season-and especially if they plan on going on longer than that.

Edited February 19, 2017 by Myrelle

[Wayward Son]

1 hour ago, Myrelle said:

And I truly feel that the quality of the show on a whole would improve if they were paired with the other recurring characters more. There is presently more than enough acting talent on this show to do this and it would make sense that as hunters, and particularly with all the irons in the fire that these writers usually have, the brothers would out of necessity have to split up at times. I think that would be a more organic way within the storytelling for the two lead actors to have time off w/o losing either one of them(or both of them) for large chunks of entire episodes.

I'm not saying that they would always have to be separated, but just more than they presently are and if their relationship stays the way that it has been shown to be so far this season, separations would not seem as awful to the fandom or even to the characters themselves because the brothers relationship has taken a seemingly more mature turn this season and seems less strained than it's ever been before(again IMO).

Some in the fandom would undoubtedly balk at this(they always will), but I think it would be a worthwhile experiment to undertake and might actually make the overall quality of the show better again. I mean the present core audience is going to watch this show, no matter what, IMO. So I wish they'd give that a shot just to see what happens, maybe next season-and especially if they plan on going on longer than that.

I agree and have long held a similar viewpoint. Allowing the brothers to have more scenes with others would further enrich the characters as we'd get to see more of them outside of one or two dynamics. However, sadly, as you said, there are certain people who will always balk at the very idea of Sam or Dean actually interacting with other people. Heaven forbid they aren't each other's all and everything. The writers will always pander to this crowd lest they risk upsetting the shows ratings. 

I also think Mary is a victim of that this year. Since the very idea of allowing someone else to feature in every episode of a season (or near enough) is unimaginable they can't go with the realistic option. Instead of Mary moving into the bunker, or even a near by town, they come up with contrived reasons why she doesn't want to associate with the brothers and thus won't appear all the time. 

Edited February 19, 2017 by Wayward Son

[Macbeth]

On 6/29/2016 at 2:39 PM, 7kstar said:

Not sure how much this effected the ending but I believe the network told them they couldn't kill God/Chuck. 

 

God bless their little, homicidal, hearts - of course they wanted to kill off God/Chuck.  That's why, unlike every other season, the finale was an eh??  There was no omg moment.  Killing God was supposed to be it.

Maybe S11 was supposed to be the last season - cause they have no ideas for this season.

[FlickChick]

10 minutes ago, Macbeth said:

Maybe S11 was supposed to be the last season - cause they have no ideas for this season.

Guck knows, this is very true. I see total disorganization. Between new writers and not finding a reasonable solution to the Js' time off (as mentioned above), the season has seemed like it has no direction. I've even thought these last two episodes' flashbacks seem to be used to take up air time and not have to film it. Jeez, have we come to that? They only film/show about 39 minutes now. :(

[SueB]

1 hour ago, FlickChick said:

Guck knows, this is very true. I see total disorganization. Between new writers and not finding a reasonable solution to the Js' time off (as mentioned above), the season has seemed like it has no direction. I've even thought these last two episodes' flashbacks seem to be used to take up air time and not have to film it. Jeez, have we come to that? They only film/show about 39 minutes now. :(

The flashback scenes had added dialog and added angles.  They were definitely re-filmed for each point of view.  You save on location set-up (to some extent) but there's a HUGE effort that goes into showing an ensemble group talking.  Filming the same scene over and over again from different angles is bad enough.  Now they have to film variations of the same scene over and over again.  I doubt much time was saved.

This was a very complex and ambitious shoot. Between the ensemble nature, the physical stunts, and the multiple POVs, I imagine they had very long days.

[DittyDotDot]

16 minutes ago, SueB said:

The flashback scenes had added dialog and added angles.  They were definitely re-filmed for each point of view.  You save on location set-up (to some extent) but there's a HUGE effort that goes into showing an ensemble group talking.  Filming the same scene over and over again from different angles is bad enough.  Now they have to film variations of the same scene over and over again.  I doubt much time was saved.

This was a very complex and ambitious shoot. Between the ensemble nature, the physical stunts, and the multiple POVs, I imagine they had very long days.

I agree. I didn't think it was especially creative in their approach, but I imagine it was very time consuming and quite costly. 

2 hours ago, Myrelle said:

The problem is the Js need/desire for time off and I feel that this could be better handled if it wasn't a seeming writing requirement that the Js be on-screen together in almost every episode. And I truly feel that the quality of the show on a whole would improve if they were paired with the other recurring characters more. There is presently more than enough acting talent on this show to do this and it would make sense that as hunters, and particularly with all the irons in the fire that these writers usually have, the brothers would out of necessity have to split up at times. I think that would be a more organic way within the storytelling for the two lead actors to have time off w/o losing either one of them(or both of them) for large chunks of entire episodes.

I've long thought they should separate Sam and Dean more to allow Jared and Jensen more time off. It doesn't have to be for episodes at a time either. IMO, they've done it well on a small scale in the past. Episodes like Long Distance Call, Time is on My Side and Heaven Can't Wait are episodes where they were separated physically, but working something together so you didn't miss out on the bro-dynamic.

I really think they could have their cake and eat it too on this and it could open the show up to more creativity as a result.

Edited February 19, 2017 by DittyDotDot

[Demented Daisy]

54 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said:

I've long thought they should separate Sam and Dean more to allow Jared and Jensen more time off. It doesn't have to be for episodes at a time either. IMO, they've done it well on a small scale in the past. Episodes like Long Distance Call, Time is on My Side and Heaven Can't Wait are episodes where they were separated physically, but working something together so you didn't miss out on the bro-dynamic.

Time After Time, as well.  Dean is in the past, Sam is in the present, worked great.

Edited February 20, 2017 by Demented Daisy
Future, present? I don't know.

[rue721]

5 hours ago, FlickChick said:

Guck knows, this is very true. I see total disorganization. Between new writers and not finding a reasonable solution to the Js' time off (as mentioned above), the season has seemed like it has no direction. I've even thought these last two episodes' flashbacks seem to be used to take up air time and not have to film it. Jeez, have we come to that? They only film/show about 39 minutes now. :(

I actually really like the lack of a real big bad or giant mytharc this year. It gives the episodes a little room to breathe. And gives some space for more character beats and more of a character-based focus too IMO.

Honestly, if the show were even more episodic and the season-long arc were even more character-drive  (as opposed to plot-driven), I would like that even more. I mean, if there were one storyline I could do with less of it would be the sole "mytharc" plot of the season, the Lucifer bullshit.

[Guest]

This topic is your new home for voicing opinions about TPTB Love/Hate Dean, TPTB Love/Hate Sam. Please remember our golden rule of ‘Be Civil’; there are no right or wrong opinions here, only different ones. Nobody has to justify their opinion or back it up with facts, if you disagree with a post, you may say so in a civil manner. But remember, trying to convince anyone online that they are wrong is not only foolhardy, but akin to beating one’s head against a brick wall – and as we are moderators, not medics, we aren’t able to deal with head trauma.

[ILoveReading]

Thanks for this topic.  Its good to have a place to express frustration. 

[AwesomO4000]

Brought over from the "Bitterness" thread, just in case:

14 hours ago, Aeryn13 said:

Well, it is an ongoing source of bitterness for me. And I`m beyond ready for my Super!Dean ep. Just one would be nice.

I think there have been a few - "Live Free or Twihard," "First Born," and "The Werther Box" for example, probably "King of the Damned" and the episode where Dean killed all of the Stynes, too, and maybe more in season 9 and 10 that I'm not thinking of. Maybe "Regarding Dean" from this season also applies? - but in general I agree that there are less entire episodes for Dean this way, but I think it's maybe because Dean already has so many regular episodes where he saves the day.

It could be worse, maybe? At least it's not a show trope that Dean gets kidnapped - and sometimes tied to little chairs - all the time like Sam does. That's actually kind of a funny and/or charming thing for me now, it happens so often. If Sam hadn't gotten Samnapped in "Fan Fiction" for example, I think I would've been disappointed. I'm pretty sure Sam must have permanent brain damage, too, from how many times he's been knocked unconscious from a blow to the head (though sometimes I wonder how some of these people even reach his head with objects, considering his height.)

[Aeryn13]

Can you think of any where he wasn`t "enhanced", just human? I think Live Free comes closests because it portrayed his actions in a positive light but he wasn`t quite human. I enjoy his badassery in First Born and King of the Damned very much but he wasn`t Super!Saviour of people in those.

I don`t think there are really that many episodes where Dean saves the day. Last Season the standalones were pretty awful in that regard and this Season is not really that much better. I`m feeling like the start of Season 6 right now where "rusty" Dean had to be saved for like 10 episodes in a row.

Quote

It could be worse, maybe? At least it's not a show trope that Dean gets kidnapped - and sometimes tied to little chairs

He gets taken out rather easily and captured plenty IMO. 

And of course there is the apology trope. And the Cassandra trope where even if he turns out right later on, a) noone will listen and b) the narrative will later shift the blame onto him. Either through creating false paralells or retconning or whatnot. In the end other character`s bad actions will be kinda his fault. Their successes will still be their own of course.

Dean`s successes will either be forgotten, minimized, recreated later with other characters or attributed to the other characters too. Suddenly it was a joint victory. Now Dean`s flaws and bad decisions - noone but him shares in the blame. 

I think the writers, for the most part, see the character as "just a killer". Basically like Ketch. And they truly do think Sam is the "smart, sweet, intelligent one" whereas Dean is the "uncouth, dumb and violent one". Oh, and of course a drama queen about his feelings and in constant need to learn lessons. That`s the yarn that is spun on the show and in interviews and heck, by other actors even. I`d like to hear the writers like Dabb or Singer say even ONE good thing about Dean that is unrelated to Sam. I doubt they could think of one.

[Reganne]

3 hours ago, Aeryn13 said:

 

And of course there is the apology trope. And the Cassandra trope where even if he turns out right later on, a) noone will listen and b) the narrative will later shift the blame onto him. Either through creating false paralells or retconning or whatnot. In the end other character`s bad actions will be kinda his fault. Their successes will still be their own of course.

Dean`s successes will either be forgotten, minimized, recreated later with other characters or attributed to the other characters too. Suddenly it was a joint victory. Now Dean`s flaws and bad decisions - noone but him shares in the blame. 

 

It's interesting to see everyone's different takes on things, because I don't see this at all.  Take the apocalypse for example.  Dean was right about Sam's involvement with Ruby and him using his powers.  Sam ended up starting the apocalypse instead of stopping it.  Come season 5, it was quite clear to me that most people blamed Sam for the apocalypse..... not Dean even though Dean did break the first seal.  That plot point was practically forgotten.  The other hunters came for Sam.  Not Dean.  I don't remember anything that would point to Dean being blamed for the apocalypse in season 5.  

Edited March 4, 2017 by Reganne

[mertensia]

Frankly I hate either one getting blamed: both were manipulated into breaking seals.

[Reganne]

3 minutes ago, mertensia said:

Frankly I hate either one getting blamed: both were manipulated into breaking seals.

Oh I totally agree.  They were completely unaware that their actions were leading to the very thing they wanted to avoid.  I was just glad that when 'Bobby' said those things to Sam, that it wasn't actually him.  Only a Demon that was possessing him because when I watched it the first time, I was thinking... weren't they all trying to figure out how to kill Lilith and stop her from breaking the seals?

[Aeryn13]

Quote

 Come season 5, it was quite clear to me that most people blamed Sam for the apocalypse..... not Dean even though Dean did break the first seal. 

I see doing something under torture as vastly different than doing something because your demon dealer told you what you wanted to hear.

For making the demon deal in the first place that got him into hell, yes, it`s fair to blame Dean. That`s a different story. And incidentally the only time I truly hated the character. End of Season 2, I thought: yup, you made your bed, now lie in it, re: hell.  

Quote

 I don't remember anything that would point to Dean being blamed for the apocalypse in season 5.  

To me the narrative did because it shifted the responsibility from Sam making choices to "he only did that because Dean was mean and bossy". Sam didn`t really need to change his stance. He was the big hero he thought he would be in Season 4. Only Dean had to change and be more supportive.

They did it again in Season 11 "we released the darkness". Oh, so Dean gets to share in the blame. Yet the resolution according to Crowley was "God`s powers and kinda them". Well, Dean, you get the blame but none of the credit. Super.      

Edited March 4, 2017 by Aeryn13

[Reganne]

3 minutes ago, Aeryn13 said:

I see doing something under torture as vastly different than doing something because your demon dealer told you what you wanted to hear.

For making the demon deal in the first place that got him into hell, yes, it`s fair to blame Dean. That`s a different story. And incidentally the only time I truly hated the character. End of Season 2, I thought: yup, you made your bed, now lie in it, re: hell.  

To me the narrative did because it shifted the responsibility from Sam making choices to "he only did that because Dean was mean and bossy". Sam didn`t really need to change his stance. He was the big hero he thought he would be in Season 4. Only Dean had to change and be more supportive.

They did it again in Season 11 "we released the darkness". Oh, so Dean gets to share in the blame. Yet the resolution according to Crowley was "God`s powers and kinda them". Well, Dean, you get the blame but none of the credit. Super.      

Yes, it was the demon deal that eventually led to Dean breaking the first seal.  I didn't see that narrative shift with Dean in season 5 personally.  Dean only started to try and be supportive/work with Sam again once he realized where 'the end' could lead to.  He decided to be team free will of his own accord.  I didn't see it as admitting he was wrong or taking the blame of the apocalypse for being bossy.  I saw Sam as asking him to treat him like an equal partner as a completely separate issue.  I don't remember the blame of the apocalypse being brought up in that conversation but I could be forgetting it.  Personally, I didn't think that was the reason why Sam drank the blood and bonded with Ruby in the first place.  He sincerely thought his powers could stop Lilith. 

[ILoveReading]

I have to admit I'm really concerned about Deans' role going forward.  Because unless the writers are planning to split Sam and Dean up (and we know they're not), unless Sam keeps his work secret how do you actually go about writing their different points of view?

The writers have established that even if the Brits suck at everything they do, they're methods seem to be working as neither Sam nor Dean can find a case.  So how do you have Dean maintain his POV without looking like petulant child.

If Sam comes clean and has access to toys and for example they're trying to take out a werewolf pack what plausible excuse could Dean give for not taking the safer route instead of the old fashioned way and risking their lives. ( I can see a future ep of Dean getting a hunter killed by insisting they stick to the old methods. ).

If Dean has a reasonable objection is the show just going to fall back on the tired bossy/treats Sam like a child/meen!Dean trope the writers like to use.  They just did it in this last ep.  Dean's points to Mary were legitimate. The only thing the writers focuses on was the "mom" line and acted like Dean's major issues was that Mary didn't bring him a bowl of soup or sing hey Jude, even though.  I don't think the writers meant for that apology to be taken at anything but face value.   They also did it in Dean's scene with Chuck.  He brings up good points and all he's told in the end is he's mixing God up with his father.

So how long is it before Sam pulls the "stop treating me like a child, let me make my own decisions" card, which he tends to do when Dean disagrees with him.

I'm not convinced there is some kind of con going on.  The writers tend to go surface (see Dean's apology) and I really think Dabb believes that these brits are are everything and more.  I think Sam and Mary joining is really because they believe what they're being told.  On this show I find what you see is what you get. 

So unless the plan is for Dean to jump on board and relatively quickly, how exactly is this going to work.

Once again they've set a scenario that can't unless they're willing to buck the status quo.  The storyline could actually work if they were willing too.  I don't mind conflict if its organic.  The Brits mission statement is something that they've long established that Sam can get on board with.  He's never been into hunting the way Dean is.  Its been established that if something seems to good to be true it really is.   It would be totally in character for Dean to object on those grounds and not throw in with right away. 

Dean hunting with Ketch, while Sam works jobs with Mary, and Mick.  Would make sense since we've seen that Ketch seems to be frustrated with being a lap dog.  Dean/Ketch vs Sam/BMOL.

Not all conflict has to be bad because both sides are not operating for nefarious purposes. They both want to rid the world of monsters and then each side could come to a realization that each method has something to offer and then both eventually merging.  Neither side is right or wrong.

But since the brothers can't be sperated for longer than 30 seconds, how exactly do you tell this story without bad conflict (secrets and lies) or once again sending the message that its only Dean that has to change?

[Aeryn13]

For me it was Fallen Idols. Which I hated. Then again at the end of Point of No Return? when Dean said something about having to accept Sam`s choices. Then Bobby in a later episode told Dean what a hero Sam has always been - making it sound like Dean was a nobody and had never been "running into burning buildings since he was a kid" - and how hard they were on him. I remember thinking: when? Then Death comes and tells Dean that it is all about Sam and Dean needs to step aside. And this is what he does in the Finale, he accepts his place as the nobody next to the hero. 

To me it was like saying that when in Season 4 in the Siren episode Sam said he was smarter, stronger, better, he was right. And Dean needed to learn the lesson to accept that. I hated this message in Season 5. Because accepting your are apparently inferior is such a great character arc. Especially for someone who has severe self worth issues. What they should learn is that yup, they truly are worth less than others. Urgh. 

Also to come back to the Bobby thing a bit, I think if Dean had been in Sam`s place in the Season 5 Opener, then this diatribe wouldn`t have been demon-possession but pure Bobby himself. And people would have cheered it. Conversely, if that had been Sam instead of Dean in the Season 4 Finale, Bobby would have never broken out the "boohoo, princess" speech. Such things are reserved for Dean since apparently he deserves those and "responds" to them. Sam is to be treated with more respect and care. 

That`s when the Bobby character died for me. Hence, his death in Season 7 didn`t make me feel anything.

Quote

I have to admit I'm really concerned about Deans' role going forward.  Because unless the writers are planning to split Sam and Dean up (and we know they're not), unless Sam keeps his work secret how do you actually go about writing their different points of view?

Yup, I fear Dean will be in the wrong again for doing or not doing whatever. 

Edited March 4, 2017 by Aeryn13

[Myrelle]

2 hours ago, Aeryn13 said:

Yup, I fear Dean will be in the wrong again for doing or not doing whatever. 

IA. The writing is on the wall. Again. Even if Sam keeps secrets from him, it will be because he's too stubborn to listen, so it's Dean's fault that people have to keep things from him, instead of anything that Sam could have possibly done wrong. The Mary debacle has shown me that.

And I love the whole Dean is always "shown" to be right in the end thing. Big deal when his word is only doubted again the next time, and blame is shifted and guilt applied again and the next time, so that he has to join in, in spite of how he really feels and in spite of any convictions and/or any misgivings that he might have, again and the next time, and then the topper-made to apologize for being wrong again and the next time-right before he's supposedly "shown" to be right in the end-which I don't think these writers even realize that they do-because why then, aren't his instincts and/or penchant for being right in the end(according to some) ever respected or considered the next time around? AND not only that, but he continues to be the one named "stubborn" by the writers and even other actors in their interviews on the show while Sam is named kind and understanding and empathetic but rarely, if ever stubborn. "He means well" is the toughest the writers on this show ever get on him and still some in this fandom complain about that. I can't think of one time that Sam has been labelled as stubborn, but if he's usually shown to be "wrong" and Dean is usually shown to be "right"(again as some in this fandom think) doesn't that make a good case for Sam being stubborn too? And yet WHEN has Sam ever been called stubborn by anyone connected with this show via any means.

I hated that interview with Samantha Smith with every fiber of my being for reinforcing the stereotypes and because it greatly reinforced my feeling that the writing is on the wall for Dean to be painted with the he's just being stubborn/childish/won't admit others are adults, too brush again. Well, we got the apology from him for being the latter two in this last episode. I bet their saving the "stubborn apology" for him to reiterate to Sam(because he did that earlier in this season, didn't he?). Ugh. The more things change, the more they stay the same with the so-called writers on this show. The personnel might change, but the blueprint never does. Man, what I wouldn't give for them to just separate the brothers amicably for a period of time and base it more on differing ideologies than on some kind of contrived bad blood/angst between any of the family members and while still keeping the family unit a unit in spite of any physical separation. The time is here and ripe for it with this storyline right now, and for character growth for everyone too. But it's not going to happen and I know that because these writers are not bold enough. They are too fearful to even try to break that mold or tear up the blueprint in that way. Dean being given a supernaturally-connected myth arc role that was followed through on and not presented as just another tease or red herring is as bold and non-conformist as any of them have ever gone, IMO; and hey, look at that, the fandom didn't desert them; in fact some came back, only to disappear when it was apparent that they were going back to the blueprint. But hey, it only took them 9 seasons to make that happen, so maybe we can expect something truly different and bold from them again in S18, right?

Although, honestly and IMO, Dabb could still make the BMoL work boldly and fearlessly in this way, but I don't think that he has the balls. AND he'd have to write both co-leads AS co-leads at the same time instead of taking turns at relegating one of them to strictly the supportive family member role. Maybe it's just that they're simply not talented enough to do that, though. I mean, before this episode it seemed to me as if we were getting Mother Mary leading everyone around while Dean AND Sam were both put into the somewhat supportive family member role. But now that Dean has been firmly put back into his original, usual, narrow and all too confining role with mom, it's time for him to be relegated back to that role with Sam, too. Oh joy. So much for this Deanfan to look forward to. Not.

Edited March 4, 2017 by Myrelle

[Reganne]

1 hour ago, Aeryn13 said:

For me it was Fallen Idols. Which I hated. Then again at the end of Point of No Return? when Dean said something about having to accept Sam`s choices. Then Bobby in a later episode told Dean what a hero Sam has always been - making it sound like Dean was a nobody and had never been "running into burning buildings since he was a kid" - and how hard they were on him. I remember thinking: when? Then Death comes and tells Dean that it is all about Sam and Dean needs to step aside. And this is what he does in the Finale, he accepts his place as the nobody next to the hero. 

To me it was like saying that when in Season 4 in the Siren episode Sam said he was smarter, stronger, better, he was right. And Dean needed to learn the lesson to accept that. I hated this message in Season 5. Because accepting your are apparently inferior is such a great character arc. Especially for someone who has severe self worth issues. What they should learn is that yup, they truly are worth less than others. Urgh. 

Also to come back to the Bobby thing a bit, I think if Dean had been in Sam`s place in the Season 5 Opener, then this diatribe wouldn`t have been demon-possession but pure Bobby himself. And people would have cheered it. Conversely, if that had been Sam instead of Dean in the Season 4 Finale, Bobby would have never broken out the "boohoo, princess" speech. Such things are reserved for Dean since apparently he deserves those and "responds" to them. Sam is to be treated with more respect and care. 

That`s when the Bobby character died for me. Hence, his death in Season 7 didn`t make me feel anything.

Yup, I fear Dean will be in the wrong again for doing or not doing whatever. 

Technically, they both had to accept each other's choices through out the series at some point.  Sam had no other choice than to accept the fact that Dean made that deal with the demon to save him.  He didn't agree with it, but he moved on and decided he needed to help Dean as best he could.  Just because Bobby tells Dean what a hero Sam has been, doesn't mean he doesn't also think of Dean as a hero.  I took this to mean that Bobby has grown to see Sam as his own hero as well and not just an extension of the little brother of Dean.  He sees them as the potential to be equal hunters.  Dean has always been the leader of the two and has usually been the one to take charge.  Accepting someone else's choices doesn't really have anything to do with taking the blame for an incident.  You can love someone, disagree with what they're doing, be right about it, and still be able to move on from it and keep the relationship with that person.  Accept it for what it is.  I guess I just don't see how accepting someone else's choices means Dean is accepting all the blame for the apocalypse.

 

To me,  Sam was referring to his 'demon blood powers' when he was talking about being stronger and better than Dean in season 4.  From my point of view, these powers proved to be more harmful than good when he killed Lilith and brought about the apocalypse with these powers.  Kind of showing that Sam's 'gift' wasn't better than Dean in the end.  It didn't bring anything good to the table.  If he had of been successful in stopping the apocalypse with his powers, I could see the point.  In the end, it wasn't his actual powers that stopped anything.

I doubt the real Bobby would have said anything like that to Dean.  He has said that Dean is his favourite.  There is NO way he would cut him off.  Not to mention, Dean did have a hand in breaking one of the seals and Bobby didn't say anything.

[Aeryn13]

Quote

I doubt the real Bobby would have said anything like that to Dean.  He has said that Dean is his favourite. 

I have no doubt. And to me "Sam is a better hunter" was the far superior compliment than being Bobby`s so-called favourite. And since I believe Bobby was harsher with Dean than he ever would be with Sam, it`s not like the favouritism manifested in a positive way onscreen for me. 

Quote

I hated that interview with Samantha Smith with every fiber of my being for reinforcing the stereotypes and because it greatly reinforced my feeling that the writing is on the wall for Dean to be painted with the he's just being stubborn/childish/won't admit others are adults, too brush again.

Yup. When Dean lies, it is because he is horrible and doesn`t trust people enough. When others lie to him, it is because they know Dean won`t agree with what they have to say. And he is not allowed to do that. Hence, it`s his own damn fault. If he was a good little puppet and people could trust him to always roll over on the spot and validate everything they say and never have an opinion of his own, they could be free to always tell him the truth.   

[Reganne]

4 minutes ago, Aeryn13 said:

I have no doubt. And to me "Sam is a better hunter" was the far superior compliment than being Bobby`s so-called favourite. And since I believe Bobby was harsher with Dean than he ever would be with Sam, it`s not like the favouritism manifested in a positive way onscreen for me. 

 

At the time Bobby said that, Sam was souless and ruthless and Dean had been out of the game for a year.  He even said "better hunter at the moment", which means "at the moment" and not overall and always.

[Aeryn13]

Mary has been out of the game 30 years and she got plenty of plug as a super-hunter. Dean was out one year and got mocked for being rusty all over the place. Then when he got out of Purgatory, after non-stop combat. apparently he wasn`t anything special hunting-wise.

Such stuff just bugs me. No matter the situation, they will just find a way where another character can come out better than Dean. If that other character is Sam. Or Mary now. Or Charlie. Yes, I honestly do ask myself what the character or the actor has done to inspire so much hatred from the majority of the writers. Because that is what I get from their writing.

[ILoveReading]

1 hour ago, Myrelle said:

IA. The writing is on the wall. Again. Even if Sam keeps secrets from him, it will be because he's too stubborn to listen, so it's Dean's fault that people have to keep things from him, instead of anything that Sam could have possibly done wrong. The Mary debacle has shown me that.

And I love the whole Dean is always "shown" to be right in the end thing. Big deal when his word is only doubted again the next time, and blame is shifted and guilt applied again and the next time, so that he has to join in, in spite of how he really feels and in spite of any convictions and/or any misgivings that he might have, again and the next time, and then the topper-made to apologize for being wrong again and the next time-right before he's supposedly "shown" to be right in the end-which I don't think these writers even realize that they do-because why then, aren't his instincts and/or penchant for being right in the end(according to some) ever respected or considered the next time around? AND not only that, but he continues to be the one named "stubborn" by the writers and even other actors in their interviews on the show while Sam is named kind and understanding and empathetic but rarely, if ever stubborn. "He means well" is the toughest the writers on this show ever get on him and still some in this fandom complain about that. I can't think of one time that Sam has been labelled as stubborn, but if he's usually shown to be "wrong" and Dean is usually shown to be "right"(again as some in this fandom think) doesn't that make a good case for Sam being stubborn too? And yet WHEN has Sam ever been called stubborn by anyone connected with this show via any means.

I hated that interview with Samantha Smith with every fiber of my being for reinforcing the stereotypes and because it greatly reinforced my feeling that the writing is on the wall for Dean to be painted with the he's just being stubborn/childish/won't admit others are adults, too brush again. Well, we got the apology from him for being the latter two in this last episode. I bet their saving the "stubborn apology" for him to reiterate to Sam(because he did that earlier in this season, didn't he?). Ugh. The more things change, the more they stay the same with the so-called writers on this show. The personnel might change, but the blueprint never does. Man, what I wouldn't give for them to just separate the brothers amicably for a period of time and base it more on differing ideologies than on some kind of contrived bad blood/angst between any of the family members and while still keeping the family unit a unit in spite of any physical separation. The time is here and ripe for it with this storyline right now, and for character growth for everyone too. But it's not going to happen and I know that because these writers are not bold enough. They are too fearful to even try to break that mold or tear up the blueprint in that way. Dean being given a supernaturally-connected myth arc role that was followed through on and not presented as just another tease or red herring is as bold and non-conformist as any of them have ever gone, IMO; and hey, look at that, the fandom didn't desert them; in fact some came back, only to disappear when it was apparent that they were going back to the blueprint. But hey, it only took them 9 seasons to make that happen, so maybe we can expect something truly different and bold from them again in S18, right?

Although, honestly and IMO, Dabb could still make the BMoL work boldly and fearlessly in this way, but I don't think that he has the balls. AND he'd have to write both co-leads AS co-leads at the same time instead of taking turns at relegating one of them to strictly the supportive family member role. Maybe it's just that they're simply not talented enough to do that, though. I mean, before this episode it seemed to me as if we were getting Mother Mary leading everyone around while Dean AND Sam were both put into the somewhat supportive family member role. But now that Dean has been firmly put back into his original, usual, narrow and all too confining role with mom, it's time for him to be relegated back to that role with Sam, too. Oh joy. So much for this Deanfan to look forward to. Not.

I agree with all this.  Its why I don't think they'll go the secrets and lies route.  Its easier for the writers to have Sam state why he's working for the brits and pull out the "let me be an adult" when Dean doesn't agree forcing him to take shift his thinking to Sam's POV instead of allowing Dean to maintain his convictions. 

I really think the Mary issues isn't going to be brought up again because it usually isn't after Dean gets put in his place and apologizes.  The burden is always on Dean to change his behavior, its never on the other person. 

Mary working with the Brits in secret isn't wrong, Dean's wrong for not being okay with being lied too is how the narrative framed that ep.

I also can see them taking Dean's leadership role away and putting Sam in charge of the Men of Letters.  SuperSam seems to be the Dabb/Berens MO, and Im guessing it won't be long before Sam is the prize Winchester for the Brits and Dean Who? 

56 minutes ago, Reganne said:

Accepting someone else's choices doesn't really have anything to do with taking the blame for an incident.

  Except on this show it does.  Sam seems to get upset that Dean didn't trust him.  He never acknowledged that he had to change and work to earn back Dean's trust.  When Sam announced that he went to Ruby because Dean was bossy why was Dean not allowed a counter arguement her and to defend himself.  Why wasn't he given a speech where he pointed out all times he gave Ruby a chance.  In Heaven and Hell, getting the angels and demons together was Sam's idea and Dean went along with that and Ruby had a big part.  Dean even told Sam to keep his secrets just stop lying.   There were multiple times in s4 where Dean did accept Sam's choices.   By allowed Dean to voice none of that suggests you want to frame the narrative to have the audience accept that yup, it really was Dean being bossy and not Sam's flaws.

Rarely, does the show actually say Sam messing up was due to his flaws, but usually due to others flaws.  Ruby- dean was bossy.  Trials- Dean doesn't think Sam is capable, and Dean hurt Sam by not putting him first.  

Sam's speech in Sacrifice even came across as the biggest reason Sam feels he let Dean down is because Dean didn't accept his choices.  "What happens when you decide I can't be trusted."  Puts the burden on trusting Sam on Dean. 

Edited March 4, 2017 by ILoveReading

[Myrelle]

I think that Dean has accepted Sam's choice to lie to him sometimes. Because he had to accept it. Because Sam does. Still. So what else can he do except consider the idea that Sam might be or could be lying to him sometimes. And yes, this isn't conducive to trust at all, but it still has to be considered if the lying/hiding things continues. Once he gets his emotions/passions under control, Dean then becomes completely pragmatic about any situation. He was taught to do this from childhood. It's pretty heady, complex, and fascinating stuff and it's why I love the character so much.

That Sacrifice speech was a joke if we were supposed to see it as any form of an apology from Sam, IMO. It was all blame-shifting again without acknowledging that he'd earned Dean's distrust concerning some things AND it tried to tell us that Dean was wrong for trusting others over Sam, the problem being that Dean wasn't wrong to trust those others. He wouldn't even have escaped Purgatory if he hadn't trusted Benny. And this was never, ever pointed out at any time To. Sam. by anyone, for that matter.

I, too, blame the writing. It doesn't seem like they are really that interested in giving us Dean's POV as regards defending himself and his thoughts and feelings and actions in these talks that the brothers have-and now with the mother, too. I don't know what their problem is with that.

Edited March 4, 2017 by Myrelle

[Reganne]

1 hour ago, ILoveReading said:

 

  Except on this show it does.  Sam seems to get upset that Dean didn't trust him.  He never acknowledged that he had to change and work to earn back Dean's trust.  When Sam announced that he went to Ruby because Dean was bossy why was Dean not allowed a counter arguement her and to defend himself.  Why wasn't he given a speech where he pointed out all times he gave Ruby a chance.  In Heaven and Hell, getting the angels and demons together was Sam's idea and Dean went along with that and Ruby had a big part.  Dean even told Sam to keep his secrets just stop lying.   There were multiple times in s4 where Dean did accept Sam's choices.   By allowed Dean to voice none of that suggests you want to frame the narrative to have the audience accept that yup, it really was Dean being bossy and not Sam's flaws.

Rarely, does the show actually say Sam messing up was due to his flaws, but usually due to others flaws.  Ruby- dean was bossy.  Trials- Dean doesn't think Sam is capable, and Dean hurt Sam by not putting him first.  

Sam's speech in Sacrifice even came across as the biggest reason Sam feels he let Dean down is because Dean didn't accept his choices.  "What happens when you decide I can't be trusted."  Puts the burden on trusting Sam on Dean. 

I don't recall Dean being blamed for the apocalypse and Sam's choices because Dean was bossy.  Sam blamed himself overall for his decisions.  If he didn't, he would have defended himself against those who were blaming him like demon bobby or the hunters and thrown Dean under the bus.  He wouldn't be saying "I started the apocalypse" to the therapist and the hunters like he did.  Notice, he didn't say Dean.  He didn't say 'we'.  He said 'I'.   Dean also never said he himself started the apocalypse.  Only Sam took the blame for starting the apocalypse.

Edited March 4, 2017 by Reganne
adding something

[AwesomO4000]

Since I can't seem to not be wordy - sorry - I'm bolding things for those who want to Too long:Didn't read this. But also please feel free to skip entirely if you wish. Hopefully this will get all of my usual points out of the way for this thread, and then in the future, I will refer to this post.

3 hours ago, Aeryn13 said:

I have no doubt. And to me "Sam is a better hunter" was the far superior compliment than being Bobby`s so-called favourite. And since I believe Bobby was harsher with Dean than he ever would be with Sam, it`s not like the favouritism manifested in a positive way onscreen for me. 

I agree with @Reganne here that what Bobby said was not a compliment to Sam. And all of the other things happening in season 6 with Bobby and Sam supported that. First, despite Dean almost immediately knowing that something was not right about Sam, Bobby couldn't tell - in any way - for an entire year. So Bobby couldn't tell the difference between Sam with a soul and Sam without a soul? How is that a compliment to Sam? Worse Bobby even told Dean when Dean expressed concern about Sam's obviously sketchy actions (paraphrase) "Well, maybe this is just Sam now" complete with shrug in his voice. Wow, so maybe Sam is just a ruthless, coldly practical killer who let Dean get turned into a vampire. I'm really not seeing how this is a compliment to Sam. Like at all. But obviously miles vary.

And then when Sam actually came back as Sam - when he got his soul back - then Bobby is somehow not trusting him anymore and avoiding Sam, because soulless Sam tried to kill him. Somewhat understandable, I guess, but neither Sam nor Dean acted that way after Bobby was possessed and the demon left. It was as if Bobby thought that Sam was enough like soulless Sam that he couldn't trust him anymore - yeah, that's a nice comment on Sam.

In addition, if that wasn't evidence enough that Bobby's statement wasn't true or complimentary, his supposed compliment wasn't even shown to be factual. "Unforgiven" showed pretty clearly that soulless Sam was not a good hunter, since on that case he actually left behind more monsters than the case started with. Arguably it's easier to appear to be a "better hunter" if 1) you don't have to sleep and 2) you don't care who you happen to kill while hunting. That doesn't actually mean that it's true. And it wasn't.

What Bobby's comment implied to me was that Bobby didn't really know Sam all that well compared to how he knew Dean, nor did he care to delve below the surface of what he thought Sam was since he couldn't even distinguish a difference between Sam and soulless Sam, but again, I suppose that miles vary.

1 hour ago, ILoveReading said:

When Sam announced that he went to Ruby because Dean was bossy why was Dean not allowed a counter arguement her and to defend himself. 

6 hours ago, Aeryn13 said:

To me the narrative did because it shifted the responsibility from Sam making choices to "he only did that because Dean was mean and bossy". Sam didn`t really need to change his stance. He was the big hero he thought he would be in Season 4. Only Dean had to change and be more supportive.

I have studied that dialogue from "Fallen Idols" a lot, and I've never quite understood where the assertion came from that Sam called Dean "bossy." Sam never did at any point in that conversation. Sam actually admitted some hard truths about himself in that speech. He told Dean that he went with Ruby, because Ruby made him feel strong, and not like the little brother. But we also know that Sam knows that his trusting Ruby was wrong, and his feeling of strength was an illusion, so I'm not getting as to how Sam is supposedly shifting blame here - or that the narrative is. I'm not sure how that is a reflection on Dean at all.

Dean could've been the most awesome brother in the entire world and a younger brother might still feel like the little brother, because that's the way family dynamics work. And who cares if Dean was bossy? So what? He was the older brother. It was his job to be bossy when they were younger to make sure Sam was safe. If Dean hadn't been bossy, he would've been a terrible older brother and surrogate parent (which John made him). Like parents who let kids do whatever they want, because they don't want to take the tough road of maybe their children not liking them by making rules for them. Again I see no supposed "blame" of Dean here. The onus was on Sam to not feel bossed around, and he chose a really bad way to do this, and that was what was acknowledged by Sam and the narrative. Especially since from then on in the show, the apocalypse is firmly blamed on Sam and his choices.

I actually think the show was letting Dean off the hook, because not only was it showing that Sam made "bad choices" by choosing Ruby - and reminding us of this over and over - but after that, Dean's "bad choices" in making the deal in the first place - and what I feel should have been Sam's legitimate reasons to be angry about this - were entirely ignored or twisted into something else like being about Sam's ego and hubris. Sam wasn't allowed to legitimately question Dean's decision, he was made to spout vague insults about how Dean was "weak" and how he Sam was going to be the one to do it instead... and of course then show that he, Sam, was wrong about this since it was his hubris in questioning Dean that lead to Lucifer rising, not that maybe Sam had a legitimate beef in that Dean's decision lead to the first seal being broken.

Quote

Why wasn't he given a speech where he pointed out all times he gave Ruby a chance.  In Heaven and Hell, getting the angels and demons together was Sam's idea and Dean went along with that and Ruby had a big part.  Dean even told Sam to keep his secrets just stop lying.   There were multiple times in s4 where Dean did accept Sam's choices.   By allowed Dean to voice none of that suggests you want to frame the narrative to have the audience accept that yup, it really was Dean being bossy and not Sam's flaws.

Because in this instance Dean was wrong, and Dean pointing out that he was right about those other things would've just muddied the entire point(s) of this episode. Which were 1) Yes, Sam made bad choices and he did so because he was trying to be independent and chose  the wrong way to do that 2) Sam understands this now 3) Even though Sam understands this and acknowledges his wrong-doing that doesn't give Dean the right to endanger people's lives when they are working on a job, so 4) Dean can be angry all he wants about what Sam did, but if they are going to work together, Dean has to let Sam "grow up" and quit it with the double-secret probation on the job.

Nowhere in all of that was anything about Dean "accepting Sam's choices." It was about Sam admitting that his choices were wrong but now they had to move on and part of that moving on was Dean not looking at Sam in the "little brother" role anymore, because that wasn't working for them anymore. As I've noted before, Sam's age now is bout the same time that Dean figured out that his relationship with John was no longer working for him either and that it had to change. And remember Sam didn't know the entire truth of why Dean came back, and being that he's generally rather forgiving, he doesn't know that Dean came back partially under duress. So Sam's already working with faulty facts when he comes into this discussion.

Now I'm not saying that the episode communicated all of those points perfectly or even well, but to me they were still there and made sense based on the rest of the season.

4 hours ago, Aeryn13 said:

For me it was Fallen Idols. Which I hated. Then again at the end of Point of No Return? when Dean said something about having to accept Sam`s choices. Then Bobby in a later episode told Dean what a hero Sam has always been - making it sound like Dean was a nobody and had never been "running into burning buildings since he was a kid" - and how hard they were on him. I remember thinking: when? Then Death comes and tells Dean that it is all about Sam and Dean needs to step aside. And this is what he does in the Finale, he accepts his place as the nobody next to the hero. 

At the end of "Point of No Return" Dean said that he had to have faith in Sam again. There was nothing at all about accepting Sam's choices. There was Dean saying that he needed to accept that Sam should make his own choices - that it wasn't Dean's job anymore to keep Sam "on the straight and narrow" - and have faith that Sam would make a good choice, but that's entirely different from accepting Sam's actual choices, to me anyway. I thought the dialogue was pretty great myself, because, Dean was even saying almost the opposite of being accepting of Sam's choices in my opinion. If you look closely at what Dean was actually saying, the message was pretty much:  "I'm acknowledging that you are old enough to make your own damn decisions. It's no longer my job to make sure you do the right thing. But I can have some faith in you that you'll make the right decisions again." In other words, Dean was putting the responsibility of Sam's choices on Sam and not on himself.

As for Bobby's observation, that was a little clunky, but considering that how badly Sam messed up, I'm guessing the writers thought we needed a reminder that Sam could do the right thing sometimes? Why would Bobby need to remind himself, Dean, or the audience that Dean could do the right thing? The entire history of the show has been showing us how Dean sacrifices for Sam and everybody else. That was my interpretation anyway. And they had been hard on Sam, in my opinion. Dean had even gotten onto the bandwagon that Sam had started the apocalypse - despite all the help that Sam had in doing that - and maybe hadn't been seeing that Sam was trying to make up for that. Not to mention all the past "you abandoned the family" crap that had recently come up again, still, some more that it was well past time to give it a rest on. My opinion only on that.

For me, the season 5 finale was about Sam making amends for what he did, and I didn't mind that Dean wasn't a huge part of that. According to the narrative, this was now Sam's mistake, so to me it was fair that mostly Sam fix it. Even then, Sam didn't "fix it" right off the bat - he lost his initial battle with Lucifer. And Dean didn't just step aside and just let Sam do it as Death said. He went there to help. Even if he did let Sam fall into the hole as Death said, he still was there. So he was letting Sam make his choice - even if Dean himself didn't like it - but that didn't mean that he wasn't going to be there to see it through with Sam and make it easier for Sam to go through with his choice.

2 hours ago, ILoveReading said:

Rarely, does the show actually say Sam messing up was due to his flaws, but usually due to others flaws. 

If that is so why did we hear throughout many seasons after Lucifer was raised the steady drumbeat of Sam's "bad choices" being the cause of the apocalypse? And it wasn't just one or two, but many many characters: angels, demons, hunters, friends, foe: it was all Sam's "bad choices." No mention of the angels' (including Castiel's) bad choices or their total manipulation. No mention that not only was Sam manipulated by Ruby, but Dean and Castiel were manipulated by the angels. Nope, it was Sam and his ego and his "bad choices." And to me, even bringing in the "bossy" thing isn't necessarily a valid point. 1) it was only "mentioned" - but not even really - one time, and 2) Being bossy isn't necessarily a flaw. Sometimes it's an asset. Many leaders by definition are bossy - they give commands and boss people around. And Dean's being bossy is validated, because Sam asks to be "bossed around" all the time through his actions when he asks Dean, "So, what's the plan?"

I really don't get that the show is showing Dean's being "bossy" as negative. I think the show is generally showing the exact opposite in fact. If only people did what Dean told them to do, everything would be fine. So miles really really vary here.

With the Darkness, again it was only Sam. Even God says that demon Dean wasn't really a problem... it was just Sam and his need to have Dean not die... which is really interesting, because when Dean did the same thing in reference to Sam - twice (the deal and Gadreel) - somehow everything that happened was still somehow Sam's fault or Sam would do the exact same thing.

I'm not seeing where in any of that, things aren't being blamed on Sam.

6 hours ago, Aeryn13 said:

They did it again in Season 11 "we released the darkness". Oh, so Dean gets to share in the blame. Yet the resolution according to Crowley was "God`s powers and kinda them". Well, Dean, you get the blame but none of the credit. Super.

Sam said that - except that's not exactly what he said. He said "we did this," the "this" being the situation they created where they try to save each other over anyone else, and Sam was right - and Dean started that whole thing, and even though Dean said they should stop, Dean started it up again with Gadreel. After complaining when Sam did stop. Of course that was all written terribly to make Sam's supposed "healthy" decision look awful, so that he too would make the same bad decision again to risk the world for Dean and because when Sam did it, it was wrong, he'd get blamed for everything again. And I hate to harp on this, but "they" blamed Sam. Sam said that the Darkness (specifically, not a general "this") was his fault. God said that it was Sam's fault, and Metatron said only that "they" were trying to fix it, so there was no argument by Metatron against it being only Sam's fault. So I completely disagree that it was blamed on Dean. The canon actually says that it wasn't Dean's fault (via the word of God, literally).

As for the resolution, Amara confirms that Dean gave her what she needed most - meaning he was the reason she stopped her quest to destroy the world. And considering that God put the care of that world in Dean's - *pause* and oh yeah, I guess also Sam's - hands, I'm pretty sure that Dean is getting quite a bit of the credit. If we're looking at God (and Amara) vs Crowley - of the two I'm taking God as the more reliable, or at the very least the more powerful and the one with more clout.