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

[DittyDotDot]

16 minutes ago, Idahoforspn said:

I have to admit the longer Sam's speech went on, the more I giggled. Don't think that's what the writers intended but that was really, really over the top. Reached the point of a parody of all the great movie speeches for me. Sorry, I know a lot of folks loved the speech but I would have giggled if Dean had delivered that mess too. It went on and on and on and on. OK I will go to my room now.

Oh, that speech was all sorts of hokey! I thought they should've cut it right after Sam said "We take the fight to them." The rest was just unnecessary repetitiveness. Like I said in the episode thread, TOO MUCH TALKING!!

[ILoveReading]

1 minute ago, DittyDotDot said:

Oh, that speech was all sorts of hokey! I thought they should've cut it right after Sam said "We take the fight to them." The rest was just unnecessary repetitiveness. Like I said in the episode thread, TOO MUCH TALKING!!

Sam was also the only hunter in that room that bough into what the Men of Letter were selling.   I was unnecessary  because he was preaching to the choir. 

[Bergamot]

The swelling, inspirational music for that scene kind of made me roll my eyes. Because I agree, that speech was kind of insulting to the American hunters. They were not the ones who got fooled by the BMOL. Also I don't see why it should be assumed that any of them would need an inspiring speech to convince them to fight back against someone who was killing them off.  Or why they would need encouragement that it would be worth it even if they were killed -- they risk their lives every day they are doing their job. And not a single question permitted from any of them, just a few heads nodding? Come on. If I were them, I would be asking, "You've been working with them, why should we believe you?" and "By the way, where's your mother -- didn't she move in with them or something?"

[ILoveReading]

2 minutes ago, Bergamot said:

"You've been working with them, why should we believe you?" and "By the way, where's your mother -- didn't she move in with them or something?"

Since the show made it a point to bring Roy and Walt back, they should have been the first ones questioning Sam based on the events of s5.

[Macbeth]

Quote

 

11 hours ago, ahrtee said:

But even if everyone honestly believed that Sam had Dean's support, there was no way (for the hunters, anyway) of knowing *why.*  Was he supporting the plan itself or just his brother?

 

I brought this quote over from the Who We Are thread.

What makes the Winchesters legendary isn't just Dean.  I know this may be hard to believe but it's true.

Why wouldn't the hunters follow Sam?  He sacrificed himself to end the 1st apocalypse.  And he did so by retaking his body from the control of Lucifer.  Lucifer.  An archangel.  The biggest bad that ever lived.

After 13 years I don't think Sam really needs Dean say so that he can lead.

But given the way the writers have treated Sam over the years.  I guess qualifiers are necessary.  As once again Sam does the stupid thing, backing the BMOL, and he has to apologize.

[Macbeth]

35 minutes ago, ILoveReading said:

Since the show made it a point to bring Roy and Walt back, they should have been the first ones questioning Sam based on the events of s5.

And a lot shit has gone since early S5.  Rory and Walt killed them and they were resurrected.  I would be pretty much in awe at that fact alone.

But then Sam bests Lucifer and Dean kills Death.  Really from the hunters' point of view - taking out the BMOL should be any easy task for just one of the brothers to take on.

[Bergamot]

39 minutes ago, ILoveReading said:

Since the show made it a point to bring Roy and Walt back, they should have been the first ones questioning Sam based on the events of s5.

I loved that scene in "Dark Side of the Moon" with Walt and Roy! Roy hesitating to shoot Dean, and Walt saying, "He made us, and we just snuffed his brother, you idiot. You want to spend the rest of your life knowing Dean Winchester's on your ass? Cause I don't."

I especially liked the implication that other hunters knew Dean Winchester was a dangerous badass, someone you would not want as an enemy. This is the type of respect I prefer to see paid to the Winchesters, not having people fawning over them because they are so special, "the guys who saved the world" -- especially since very few hunters are going to know the real story anyway.

I just dislike Dabb's whole concept of the hunters as this little band of brothers, led by and in awe of the mythical General Winchester. I liked it when the show portrayed hunters as individualistic, ornery, suspicious and paranoid -- damaged people who would risk their lives for you, but only after you successfully drank from a bottle of beer that had holy water added to it.

[SueB]

2 minutes ago, Macbeth said:

And a lot shit has gone since early S5.  Rory and Walt killed them and they were resurrected.  I would be pretty much in awe at that fact alone.

But then Sam bests Lucifer and Dean kills Death.  Really from the hunters' point of view - taking out the BMOL should be any easy task for just one of the brothers to take on.

THIS.  Having Roy and Walt there was a reminder of that plus funny.  

[Aeryn13]

Quote

Why wouldn't the hunters follow Sam?  He sacrificed himself to end the 1st apocalypse.  And he did so by retaking his body from the control of Lucifer.  Lucifer.  An archangel.  The biggest bad that ever lived.

I thought the scene was bad enough as it  was, if it had played as "I`m the biggest Gary Stu on the show so follow me", it would have been even worse. 

[rue721]

3 minutes ago, Bergamot said:

I just dislike Dabb's whole concept of the hunters as this little band of brothers, led by and in awe of the mythical General Winchester. I liked it when the show portrayed hunters as individualistic, ornery, suspicious and paranoid -- damaged people who would risk their lives for you, but only after you successfully drank from a bottle of beer that had holy water added to it.

Agree 100%

[ILoveReading]

17 minutes ago, Macbeth said:

Why wouldn't the hunters follow Sam?  He sacrificed himself to end the 1st apocalypse.

He also played a very large part in starting that apocalypse because of his poor judgment in following Ruby.  So I would question why I would follow a guy who once again demonstrated poor judgment. 

Plus, Sam didn't save the world alone.  He got lucky Dean parked the car in just the right spot. 

[Idahoforspn]

21 minutes ago, ILoveReading said:

 

Plus, Sam didn't save the world alone.  He got lucky Dean parked the car in just the right spot. 

Ok. You guys are making my Saturday so fun and full of laughs! Love it!

[Aeryn13]

It would have been funny if they had planted the toy soldier on the table, pointed at him and told the other hunters "he stopped the apocalypse, follow him into battle". 

[Idahoforspn]

3 minutes ago, Aeryn13 said:

It would have been funny if they had planted the toy soldier on the table, pointed at him and told the other hunters "he stopped the apocalypse, follow him into battle". 

LOL. Keep it up. I don't want to go plant flowers.

[RulerofallIsurvey]

12 hours ago, Idahoforspn said:

Did NOT say the majority of viewers wouldn't watch if Sam was featured in the promo. Don't put words in my mouth. I don't even not watch because Sam is featured in the promo and I lean heavily Dean. Did say that Dean is very popular ( there is plenty of anecdotal evidence for that statement) and it seems like, IMO, the PR Dept does a lot of bait and switch aimed at Dean fans. 

I didn't say that you did. Please don't put words in my mouth.  Now go back and reread my comment. I said the implication from your previous comment was that the majority of viewers wouldn't watch just for Sam.  I stand by that opinion.  I also agreed that Dean is very popular.  And so is Sam.  That's all.  

[RulerofallIsurvey]

11 hours ago, rue721 said:

I feel like Sam really didn't do his due diligence when he was deciding whether to work with the BMOL, which was stupid. Except that I know that Sam isn't stupid. So what was wrong with him? And I can come up with reasons that make sense to me, but apparently the cannon explanation is now that Sam was just being lazy? Yeah, OK.

It's hard for me to even evaluate his speech to the American hunters afterward, because there is a 0% chance I would have been persuaded in their shoes. That is, if I were them, I might have been persuaded to attack the BMOL, but I would never have been persuaded to do it with Sam at the helm. For all they knew, Sam was a mole for the BMOL and leading them into an ambush. Or he was using them to carry out his own personal revenge for Mary's brainwashing. Or whatever. IMO he needed to bring them more valuable information than he did in order to prove what side he was on, and they needed to have a more thought-out strategy for going in than they did considering that the stakes were so high and the BMOL were supposedly so ~impressive.~ But apparently every character lost his or her critical thinking skills whenever they came into contact with the BMOL storyline, so...*shrug*

To me, the whole thing felt very forced. I mean everything from Sam joining up with the BMOL to him "leading" the American hunters to victory against them. YMMV. 

Agree with this 100%  I thought Sam normally did make decisions on facts - except in this case when he didn't.  

[catrox14]

All of the follows is MY OPINION about "Who We Are". 

Roy and Walt's presence in "Who We Are" might have been satisfying if Dean and Sam at least fucking punched them when they showed up, considering Roy and Walt murdered them. Walt especially deserved to have Dean kick his ass, if for nothing else than being a fucking chickenshit who wouldn't even kill Dean himself. That jerk kept trying to get Roy to shoot Dean even though Roy didn't think it was right. Fuck those guys sideways with a cactus especially Walt, who is both a coward and a dick. But nope, all that happens is 'Oh hey guys. You killed us. Meh bygones.' Um, no.   Whatever, Dabb. I hate that so much*

Dean and Sam do not have to forgive everyone for every thing and in turn they don't need have to be forgiven** for the American hunters to ally with them in what is basically a war between the BMOL and the American hunters. If the American hunters have half a brain they'll just pick the side that has always won and that is the Winchesters. Yes, they leave a wake but they win in the end. It was especially silly when it was shown in the Asa Fox episode, that the boys were already legends who were apparently mostly respected, at minimum kind of revered/feared as badass world-saving folk heroes. So why on earth would the American hunters need to even be speechified to in order to get them to save their own damn lives?

*By the end of the episode, I fully get why Roy and Walt were there, and it was just one more "nostalgia" moment that served the same purpose as all the other "nostalgia" this season: they are there to lowkey reset the series back to the S1 dynamic.

**Parallel with Dean forgiving Mary so Mary will fight for herself, which I HAVE SO MANY PROBLEMS with that I will address another time.

Anyway, Sam's speech came across TO ME, as totally contrived and inorganic, so I'm left to ask myself why does it even exist in 'Who We Are'.

IMO, it exists because Dabb/Berens have now declared that Sam is THE  leader of the Winchesters now. The torch was passed from Dean, himself, to Sam when Dean didn't go fight with him because of a hurt leg. It was further enforced when Dean's broken leg apparently affected his ability to speak or stand whilst Sam was rallying the troops, even though Dean did manage to climb out of the rubble from hole the grenade launcher blew in the bunker, and then drive to Jodi's house.

I know the speech seemed to take an hour but it was all of like 5 minutes tops and I think Dean could have handled standing up for another 5 minutes to show his solidarity and his status as an equal, but IMO, it was specifically written or directed to have Dean sitting down whilst his brother stands up to become the face of the Winchesters to the hunter world. I get that it's being hailed as "character growth" for Dean, because the narrative is framing it as 'Dean finally trusts Sam and is letting Sam grow and be a leader". But that's kind of bullshit, because this has happened repeatedly throughout the series, so I don't have any idea why this had to be so staged and contrived, but for me I can only intrepret it as the SHOW FORMALLY acknowledging that Sam Winchester is the leader now. 

IMO, even the end scene with Sam hugging Mary and Dean reinforced this. Yes, Jared is a tree and when he embraced Dean and Mary he was going to be taller, but the closing shot was Dean and Mary's back to the camera, nestled in his protective arms. It was lovely and sweet but it also put the bow on the package that was set up during the entire episode. The torch has been passed to Sam from Dean himself and in front of the other hunters who have always seen Dean as the Winchester to be  followed. 

IMO, the title of WHO WE ARE, is what the show is telling us it is now. Dean will be there to support and help Sam.

YMMV. That's how I see it.

[Wayward Son]

23 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

IMO, it exists because Dabb/Berens have now declared that Sam is THE  leader of the Winchesters now. The torch was passed from Dean, himself, to Sam when Dean didn't go fight with him because of a hurt leg.

I disagree that Dean's primary motivation for refusing to go was the broken leg. Not to disparage your view, but in my opinion his decision to stay was to do with the standard Dean Winchester "family first". IMO of the two brothers Dean has always been the one more likely to put the safety of his loved ones (in general and not just Sam) above the bigger picture! Think of how it is Dean's pleas that stop Sam from going over the edge and shooting possessed John in Devil's Trap, or even the end of the next episode where Sam runs inside to see what is happening with Jack, while Dean sinks on to his knees completely destroyed by the death of Cas and the sudden separation from Mary right after they reconciled. So with that in mind I think it was perfectly in character for Dean to put "saving mum" before "taking out the BMoL's" especially if he felt it was a task Sam and the others could handle without him. I definitely feel if Mary wasn't an issue Dean would have insisted on joining in on that fight. 

Edited May 20, 2017 by Wayward Son

[Aeryn13]

Quote

 I definitely feel if Mary wasn't an issue Dean would have insisted on joining in on that fight. 

He wouldn`t have had to insist, Sam expected him to come along. But, like I said, I think in the capacity as follower to leader!Sam. If Dean did or did not have another mission makes no difference to that. He was just lucky his general allowed him "shore leave" for the Mary thing.  

Edited May 20, 2017 by Aeryn13

[catrox14]

2 minutes ago, Wayward Son said:

I disagree that Dean's primary motivation for refusing to go was the broken leg. Not to disparage your view, but in my opinion his decision to stay was to do with the standard Dean Winchester "family first".

Dean is family first. That's never been in question (much to my chagrin many times) nor am I challenging that.

Dean's injured leg was a ridiculous and unnecessary plot contrivance to take Dean out of the fight. It was unnecessary to do it because IMO, an uninjured Dean would have still made the same choice to help Mary because it was a smart thing to do. He could have stood there next to Sam, shoulder to shoulder saying to the other hunters, 'I have a different fight right now.  I need to help save my Mom for her sake and all of ours. I back my brother's play here." Then he leaves with Mary and Sam makes his speech without Dean even needing to be there to make it.  IMO that would have showed that Sam was leading, Dean was trusting him and it doesn't require a contrivance to take Dean out of that fight.

So why bother with the injured leg at all? 

[Idahoforspn]

1 hour ago, catrox14 said:

All of the follows is MY OPINION about "Who We Are". 

Roy and Walt's presence in "Who We Are" might have been satisfying if Dean and Sam at least fucking punched them when they showed up, considering Roy and Walt murdered them. Walt especially deserved to have Dean kick his ass, if for nothing else than being a fucking chickenshit who wouldn't even kill Dean himself. That jerk kept trying to get Roy to shoot Dean even though Roy didn't think it was right. Fuck those guys sideways with a cactus especially Walt, who is both a coward and a dick. But nope, all that happens is 'Oh hey guys. You killed us. Meh bygones.' Um, no.   Whatever, Dabb. I hate that so much*

Dean and Sam do not have to forgive everyone for every thing and in turn they don't need have to be forgiven** for the American hunters to ally with them in what is basically a war between the BMOL and the American hunters. If the American hunters have half a brain they'll just pick the side that has always won and that is the Winchesters. Yes, they leave a wake but they win in the end. It was especially silly when it was shown in the Asa Fox episode, that the boys were already legends who were apparently mostly respected, at minimum kind of revered/feared as badass world-saving folk heroes. So why on earth would the American hunters need to even be speechified to in order to get them to save their own damn lives?

*By the end of the episode, I fully get why Roy and Walt were there, and it was just one more "nostalgia" moment that served the same purpose as all the other "nostalgia" this season: they are there to lowkey reset the series back to the S1 dynamic.

**Parallel with Dean forgiving Mary so Mary will fight for herself, which I HAVE SO MANY PROBLEMS with that I will address another time.

Anyway, Sam's speech came across TO ME, as totally contrived and inorganic, so I'm left to ask myself why does it even exist in 'Who We Are'.

IMO, it exists because Dabb/Berens have now declared that Sam is THE  leader of the Winchesters now. The torch was passed from Dean, himself, to Sam when Dean didn't go fight with him because of a hurt leg. It was further enforced when Dean's broken leg apparently affected his ability to speak or stand whilst Sam was rallying the troops, even though Dean did manage to climb out of the rubble from hole the grenade launcher blew in the bunker, and then drive to Jodi's house.

I know the speech seemed to take an hour but it was all of like 5 minutes tops and I think Dean could have handled standing up for another 5 minutes to show his solidarity and his status as an equal, but IMO, it was specifically written or directed to have Dean sitting down whilst his brother stands up to become the face of the Winchesters to the hunter world. I get that it's being hailed as "character growth" for Dean, because the narrative is framing it as 'Dean finally trusts Sam and is letting Sam grow and be a leader". But that's kind of bullshit, because this has happened repeatedly throughout the series, so I don't have any idea why this had to be so staged and contrived, but for me I can only intrepret it as the SHOW FORMALLY acknowledging that Sam Winchester is the leader now. 

IMO, even the end scene with Sam hugging Mary and Dean reinforced this. Yes, Jared is a tree and when he embraced Dean and Mary he was going to be taller, but the closing shot was Dean and Mary's back to the camera, nestled in his protective arms. It was lovely and sweet but it also put the bow on the package that was set up during the entire episode. The torch has been passed to Sam from Dean himself and in front of the other hunters who have always seen Dean as the Winchester to be  followed. 

IMO, the title of WHO WE ARE, is what the show is telling us it is now. Dean will be there to support and help Sam.

YMMV. That's how I see it.

I agree. I just posted this in another thread:

This is all IMO so be prepared.

When the show first began, Sam was THE lead. Dean was basically the sidekick. Dean ended up being very popular so Jensen was made co-lead beginning season two. With Gamble, Carver, and especially with Dabb, it seems they are trying to go back to the season one roles. They seem to think, IMO, that Sam is the main star and not a co-lead.  They just don't know how to execute this on screen so it works for the fans. For example, under Carver, the not looking for Dean was the mature thing and I think Carver really thought the Sam/Amelia story was going to be the popular storyline. They needed to get rid of Dean for a while to set it up so they sent him to purgatory. Big surprise for them was the not looking for Dean was detested, Amelia was a flop and Purgatory was a hit. We still lost purgatory way to soon but I think Carver learned a bit of a lesson and started to balance things more.  And now we have Dabb who doesn't seem to be learning. Dabb is stillbtrying to give us hero Sam can do it all moments and to move Dean back into more of the sidekick role.  But the execution, like we saw this week, fails. IMO, Dabb just doesnt understand the mindset of the fans and how the writing will be received. They THINK they are making Sam look good but it ends up being over the top IMO and turns some fans off. If you have to have Dean and multiple guest stars multiple times TELL us Sam is a hero and Sam is smart and Sam is whatever, there is something wrong with the writing. I personally think the writing for Sam, instead of making him the hero LIKE THEY INTEND, makes him not look so good. I am not happy about that by the way. I think the writing for Sam has been pretty bad, the speech being the latest. It is just in a different bad way than the writing for Dean.  IMO, if they would just SHOW us two brothers who are both heroes, most of the fans would be happy and there wouldn't be all this fan frustration. I know I don't want Sam's writing sacrificed for Dean and I REALLY don't want Deans writing sacrificed for Sam. Just want a nice balance for TWO heroes who are co-leads. So basically, IMO, the writers and showrunner have unintentionally screwed both Sam and Dean and don't seem to be figuring it out.

[RulerofallIsurvey]

1 hour ago, catrox14 said:

IMO, even the end scene with Sam hugging Mary and Dean reinforced this. Yes, Jared is a tree and when he embraced Dean and Mary he was going to be taller, but the closing shot was Dean and Mary's back to the camera, nestled in his protective arms. It was lovely and sweet but it also put the bow on the package that was set up during the entire episode.

On the other hand, if Sam's back had been to the camera, we wouldn't have been able to see either Dean or Mary, so there's that...

[Reganne]

10 minutes ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

On the other hand, if Sam's back had been to the camera, we wouldn't have been able to see either Dean or Mary, so there's that...

I agree.  The only reason the hug was positioned the way it was was bc of the height differences.  Mary especially would have been hidden from view if the camera were on the other side.

[catrox14]

5 minutes ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

On the other hand, if Sam's back had been to the camera, we wouldn't have been able to see either Dean or Mary, so there's that...

It's up to the viewer to interpret what that shot was intending to communicate. I'm sure it will be different for everyone as most things are in this show.

[Idahoforspn]

1 minute ago, Reganne said:

I agree.  The only reason the hug was positioned the way it was was bc of the height differences.  Mary especially would have been hidden from view if the camera were on the other side.

Solution is just have Sam hugging Mary. I kind of agree with catrox14 since Dean was included in the hug. 

[Reganne]

9 minutes ago, Idahoforspn said:

Solution is just have Sam hugging Mary. I kind of agree with catrox14 since Dean was included in the hug. 

I don't think having Dean join in on a group hug has anything to do with Sam being the official leader.  I doubt that is going to happen.  He may take on a little more of a leadership role in situations but ultimately Dean will still remain the main leader.  

Edited May 20, 2017 by Reganne

[catrox14]

Height has something to do with things but Dean and Mary's faces were already shown when they were embracing each other in the group hug prior to the long pan away. They could have just had all three of them step away from each other by an inch and still be arm and arm and all smiling at each other.  IMO, this is communicating that Sam himself has finally accepted his role as a leader and protector of Dean and Mary with a literal protective embrace.   YMMV

[Idahoforspn]

4 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

Height has something to do with things but Dean and Mary's faces were already shown when they were embracing each other in the group hug prior to the long pan away. They could have just had all three of them step away from each other by an inch and still be arm and arm and all smiling at each other.  IMO, this is communicating that Sam himself has finally accepted his role as a leader and protector of Dean and Mary with a literal protective embrace.   YMMV

The shot probably wasn't written to show that but it is a perfect visual for the future.

4 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

 

Edited May 20, 2017 by Idahoforspn

[Idahoforspn]

Just saw on Twitter that the solo Jensen panel at JIB8 turned into a J2. Life imitating art! I would be so ticked if I was there.

[Wayward Son]

4 minutes ago, Idahoforspn said:

Just saw on Twitter that the solo Jensen panel at JIB8 turned into a J2. Life imitating art! I would be so ticked if I was there.

 I think they've been playing pretty loose with the panels all day! For instance I think I read Misha crashed the last ten minutes of the J2 panel and then J2 stayed on for the first ten minutes of Misha's solo panel. 

[DittyDotDot]

10 minutes ago, Idahoforspn said:

Just saw on Twitter that the solo Jensen panel at JIB8 turned into a J2. Life imitating art! I would be so ticked if I was there.

Jus In Bello is a very loose con in general. It usually is a big party where everyone crashes each other's panels. I think the audience expects and welcomes that. Misha also crashed the end of Jensen and Jared's panel.

ETA: or what @Wayward Son said.

Edited May 20, 2017 by DittyDotDot

[Idahoforspn]

1 minute ago, Wayward Son said:

 I think they've been playing pretty loose with the panels all day! For instance I think I read Misha crashed the last ten minutes of the J2 panel and then J2 stayed on for the first ten minutes of Misha's solo panel. 

I saw that too. But I know from my Twitter feed precon, there were a number of Dean fans that were looking forward to hearing what Jensen had to say without it being cut off by Jared's interruptions. Like I said, I would be ticked. J2 panels seem to be (IMO)  1/3 Jensen and 2/3 (or more) Jared.

[catrox14]

8 minutes ago, Wayward Son said:

 I think they've been playing pretty loose with the panels all day! For instance I think I read Misha crashed the last ten minutes of the J2 panel and then J2 stayed on for the first ten minutes of Misha's solo panel. 

I think Misha crashed the J2 panel to save Jared from himself by saying anymore than he already did about s13. LOL

But yeah they seem to be much more malleable about panels at JIBcon in general.

[AwesomO4000]

23 hours ago, Aeryn13 said:

1) I never said those aren`t big wins of Dean, I don`t put 5.22 and any of those on the same level but among each other, they are comparable. However, YED, Phoenix, Eve and Dick Roman were not all within a span of 8 or so episodes, they spanned years.

2) My problem this Season (and last Season in terms of MOTW) was that Dean was too useless for way too long. One or two bad episodes in a row for the character are annoying but it happens but not freaking half a Season.      

3) That was the case with leadership in this last episode for me. It didn`t matter if Dean had ever shown any leadership in the previous 260+ episodes, that was erased because the one time the show specifically talks about it, it makes clear that Sam is the leader and Dean... sits around and gazed up at him in awe. So Dean is just as much of a flunky as the other American hunters were presented as.

1) Yes, they spanned years, but that was just the big wins I could think of off the top of my head. I even forgot Zachariah and The Whore of Babylon (both mytharc related kills), and the kazillion vampires, including the nest leader in season 6 (all Dean on his own). And that doesn't include all of Dean's purgatory kills and other kills in season 8 or all of his MoC kills in season 9 and 10.

2) It wasn't like Dean didn't kill anything for half of the season. True, he didn't kill the Prince of Hell in "Stuck in the Middle..." but he did kill a demon thereby saving Sam's life and he was part of the fight when the PoH was killed. Dean also killed the creepy ass witch and a vampire. Compare that to Sam in season 9 - who killed maybe 3 things all season long (one being a tame exorcism) - and wasn't even involved in the fights when Dean killed all the bad guys - as in he was literally elsewhere or knocked out. Almost every time.

But as I said, even that wouldn't have bothered me all that much if Sam hadn't also had to be wrong - again - and get turned into a hypocrite so he could learn a very important lesson on top of being nearly useless. Except for a werewolf kill and Calliope very early on, season 10 was more of the same. More Sam not being involved in the kills and more Sam being wrong.

So that was 2 lean seasons for Sam compared to a half a season for Dean... and Dean also got to be right every time.

So in season 11 Sam does get some good MotW episodes for the first time in a long time, but Dean has the mytharc and a couple of his own good MotW episodes ("Baby," "The Chitters," and a joint kill in "Safe House.") and he gets the win in the end, too.

Yes, season 12 was a little more in Sam's favor in parts - though I personally think Dean got the better deal in the penultimate episode - but in my opinion, it was past due for Sam to get a turn.

3) I disagree, because to me that's saying that no one on the show can ever change. Just because Sam changed his mind and decided he wanted to hunt and that was where he is happy now doesn't mean all of a sudden that he never wanted a normal life previously. I think that a person is a sum of all of his or her past experiences, not just the most recent one. Logically it makes no sense to me that 1 incident can somehow erase many many previous incidents, so we'll just have to agree to disagree, since our logic processes are obviously not the same.

21 hours ago, Aeryn13 said:

This show goes for "tell" over "show" any day of the week and twice on Sunday. IMO tell has always been what the writers intended. Show is sometimes different because of their limited capabilities in writing. But what they say is the thing that sticks with most viewers, casual especially.

That`s why one "tell" can easily erase and retcon years of "show".

I completely disagree. I have a decent memory, and if they "tell" me that the sky was blue and I can clearly remember that it was cloudy and grey, I'm not going to think the sky is blue. I'm going to think they are trying to con me.

20 hours ago, Aeryn13 said:

But character attributes are very much taken at face value. For instance Dean is seen as the "dumb" one because it has been repeated often enough. Sam could be shown doing insanely stupid things for 23 episodes in a row and it would not rattle the perception of him as a certified genius. Meanwhile Dean is, at best, seen as "street smart". In my country, this is actually an insult so admittedly I can never not see the negative connotations.

The same way Dean gets the "insensitive and uncouth" markers which are often used for jokes. I didn`t like it but as long as it was evened out by "badass" and "leadership", there was a balance there. To leave him with the negative ones but take away the positive attributes unbalances it.   

I entirely disagree. It only took me one episode, "The Raid," to make me wonder if Sam had turned into an idiot. It's actually been a long time - generally since the Carver era - that I've even considered Sam to be smart anymore. Carver through the current writers apparently haven't allowed Sam to keep that part of his personality, since many of his decisions starting in season 8 generally don't reflect that. Every once in a while, Sam is allowed to come up with something, but Dean is often just as likely to do so. (I watched "Baby" tonight and was reminded that Dean is shown to be almost as booksmart as Sam at times - he just hides it - plus then Dean gets to have instincts, too.)

I'm very confident that Dean will get his leadership back. I'm not as sure Sam will get his intelligence back.

 

I've also been considering lately: what are Sam's personality characters anymore? What from his original characterization has Sam been allowed to "keep" (besides the negative stuff?) Lately I've been wondering more and more if the writers are trying to make Sam more like Dean rather than how he used to be. Which is odd, since we have a Dean, and I like Dean as he is. And I like Sam as he is or was. But it's seeming like more than just a maturing and changing of Sam in that regard into almost changing who Sam is fundamentally. But then again, I might be being paranoid and seeing stuff that isn't there... so maybe someone can talk me off the ledge.

[Aeryn13]

Quote

Every once in a while, Sam is allowed to come up with something

This Season was a drinking game of "Sam comes up with the clue/plan/idea" and Dean just looked at him or asked him what they should do or if Sam could fix it. 

Quote

Yes, season 12 was a little more in Sam's favor in parts

I`d qualify it as 98 % to 2 % in Sam`s favour so to me it was more than a little.  

Quote

Logically it makes no sense to me that 1 incident can somehow erase many many previous incidents

Normally, it wouldn`t. But this being a TV show, the writers can kinda twists thing to their liking. And they can shine a spotlight on things. Meaning, in the previous episodes we never really had any discussion or acknowledgment of Dean`s leadership skills. He appeared to have them but it wasn`t in the text literally.

Now they have chosen an episode to literally talk about leadership - and gave that to Sam. Dean wasn`t discussed or acknowledged in that area once again.

It was kinda like that poker episodes but on a larger scale. Previous to that we saw Dean being good at poker - in side scenes. Then we get an entire episode that focuses on poker. And Dean... loses. Whereas Sam is shown to be the big winner.

You can do a hundred little side scenes that just go by unnoticed and that means nothing if the one time you truly focus on the matter in the script, give it specific dialogue and highlight it, you say something completely different or shift it to another character. The big specific one will stick vs. the vagueness of before.

In terms of leadership, it would be different if in the past Dean had been - in the text - gotten a specific acknowledgment of those skills. But that never happened. There was never an episode that pointed a bright neon sign at him like the last episode did for Sam the great leader with Dean looking like his adoring underling. To me that makes it pretty clear where the writers stand on the character, now and going forward. Dean has been erased from the leadership equation.    

When Dabb spouted that bullshit about the "Winchesters" being generals, I already found it iffy because I figured Dean would play largely second fiddle. The actual execution was worse, though, because Dean played no fiddle at all. So was Dabb just a lying ass in that interview? Did he not wanna say it was just Sam because he knew Dean-fans would be unhappy? Why? Once the episode aired, it would be clear he was a lying ass anyway.

Of course that means I will know what it means when he speaks of "the Winchesters" doing something positive or heroic in the future. He means just Sam.  

[Idahoforspn]

3 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:

 

 

Lately I've been wondering more and more if the writers are trying to make Sam more like Dean rather than how he used to be.

Umm. That's exactly what we have been complaining about. Sam is becoming Dean too while Dean is becoming a sidekick character.

[CluelessDrifter]

9 minutes ago, Aeryn13 said:

This Season was a drinking game of "Sam comes up with the clue/plan/idea" and Dean just looked at him or asked him what they should do or if Sam could fix it. 

I`d qualify it as 98 % to 2 % in Sam`s favour so to me it was more than a little.  

I tend to agree with this sentiment, but I still think that this was to highlight that Sam was more comfortable and successful in the 'follower' role than Dean, and that's why Dean wasn't successful, while Sam was.

12 minutes ago, Aeryn13 said:

In terms of leadership, it would be different if in the past Dean had been - in the text - gotten a specific acknowledgment of those skills. But that never happened. There was never an episode that pointed a bright neon sign at him like the last episode did for Sam the great leader with Dean looking like his adoring underling. To me that makes it pretty clear where the writers stand on the character, now and going forward. Dean has been erased from the leadership equation.    

I don't agree with this.  Because of the way Jensen played it, I knew Dean was staying before Sam ever finished his speech.  That's why I thought he let Sam give the speech.  And if Dean were truly a follower, he would've gone along, because it's clearly what Sam wanted, but instead, Dean was shown to go his own way.  I think he looked proud, because he had confidence that Sam was finally ready to lead a successful mission without him, which is pretty much what he said.  I also think it's important to point out that Sam started to wobble in his confidence after Dean said he wasn't going until Dean gave him his stamp of approval, so he still deferred to Dean as his leader.  In any group of people, there's a hierarchy of leadership.  I think Dean is the apex, and Sam is his second-in-command.    

[SueB]

@Idahoforspn stated:
 

Quote

When the show first began, Sam was THE lead. Dean was basically the sidekick. Dean ended up being very popular so Jensen was made co-lead beginning season two.

This is factually inaccurate.  The boys have told the story MULTIPLE times about how they first met.  It was the final audition and it was just the two of them.  They read the bridge scene for a large audience.  At the end, the head of the studio came up and said to both boys: Congratulations, you have a show!

They were ALWAYS co-leads.  There's no doubt that Jared was (and still is) #1 on the call sheet but it has always been a show about TWO brothers.  This idea that Jensen was made "co-lead" in Season 2 is flat out wrong.

Edited May 21, 2017 by SueB

[Aeryn13]

I guess that depends on definition. I think on "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" the core cast were all considered "lead actors". That doesn`t mean the show wasn`t about Buffy and everyone else was, to some degree, a sidekick. There are a multitude of shows for which I think this is true. 

Or the famously Kripke-touted inspiration of Star Wars. I wouldn`t dream of arguing that Harrison Ford wasn`t a lead in those movies but his character was also the sidekick in them. That`s not mutually exclusive. 

The show was IMO supposed to revolve even more around Sam than it ended up doing. With a weaker actor playing Dean, they might have killed off the character earlier/swapped him out for another character or at the very least sidelined him more.   

[sarthaz]

13 minutes ago, SueB said:

@Idahoforspn stated:
 

This is factually inaccurate.  The boys have told the story MULTIPLE times about how they first met.  It was the final audition and it was just the two of them.  They read the bridge scene for a large audience.  At the end, the head of the studio came up and said to both boys: Congratulations, you have a show!

They were ALWAYS co-leads.  There's no doubt that Jared was (and still is) #1 on the call sheet but it has always been a show about TWO brothers.  This idea that Jensen was made "co-lead" in Season 2 is flat out wrong.

I've always wondered about this on some level, curious exactly when they decided Dean was Sam's equal.  My guess is it was the day they met Jensen, long before shooting a single scene.  But it's reasonable to me that Kripke's original vision placed Sam higher.  In "On the Road", Sal is the narrator and surrogate for author Jack Kerouac.  Dean's a major character, but just a character in Sal's story.

That said, if that was ever the case, it never made it past the pilot.  By Wendigo, it's clear that Dean is the same co-star level as Sam.

[SueB]

They intended for the audience to see through Sam's POV as the 'normal' one brought back into the weird world. He was Luke to Dean's Han. But the POV shifted more towards Dean in S2.   Watch S1 va S2 again.  It's very much tied to the 'normal' POV and the more Supernatural Sam became, the less he was the one we could relate to.    You can also see in S1 that Sam had more secondary character interactions.  

But the show was NEVER 'Sam and his brother'. It was always 'two brothers' in every statement since Day 1.  They are paid the same and they are treated the same by the network/studio.  

[Aeryn13]

Quote

I've always wondered about this on some level, curious exactly when they decided Dean was Sam's equal.  My guess is it was the day they met Jensen

I think on some level, yes. I mean originally Jensen read for the actual lead role aka Sam and they seriously considered him for that role. So they thought/knew he was a strong actor. 

[ILoveReading]

19 minutes ago, sarthaz said:

I've always wondered about this on some level, curious exactly when they decided Dean was Sam's equal.  My guess is it was the day they met Jensen, long before shooting a single scene.  But it's reasonable to me that Kripke's original vision placed Sam higher.  In "On the Road", Sal is the narrator and surrogate for author Jack Kerouac.  Dean's a major character, but just a character in Sal's story.

That said, if that was ever the case, it never made it past the pilot.  By Wendigo, it's clear that Dean is the same co-star level as Sam.

In the special, they aired before the start of s10 Kripke talked a lot about Faith being the turning point and where he realized that the audience was responding to the chemistry between Jared and Jensen and Kripke said he had some good people around him who encouraged him to focus on that.  

Supernatural was never developed as being about two brothers and their realtionship.  Kripke wanted to write a show about urban legends.

Quote

Eric Kripke (Creator): For me, the core notion behind “Supernatural” was to make a series about urban legends

According the the article it went from A Scooby Gang, to a reporter, and according to Kripke when he was pitching the show, they didn't like the reporter idea and he literally said on the spot, two guys a car, urban legends and they're brothers.

Quote

So in this moment, when they were basically passing on my idea, as you often do in these kinds of rooms, you start tap dancing. And I said, “forget the reporter, we should do this show as ‘Route 66,’ two cool guys in a classic car cruising the country, chasing down these urban legends,” and literally right on the spot I said “and they’re brothers,” because it popped in my head. “And they’re dealing with their family stuff and they’re fighting evil.” You just start making it up as you go. They were like, “Brothers, wow, that’s a relationship we haven’t seen on TV before.” And from there, “Supernatural” was born… out of a piece of improvisation.

 

Kripke threw it out there as a last minute imporvisation to get his show picked up.  On the commentary for The Pilot, Kripke even says, when we first see Sam, There is our hero.  Sam was the one the show revolved around, which is why Sam's actor was listed first in the credits.  If they were meant to be equal right from the start then why not credit both equally. 

Quote

Padalecki: It was right around the episode “Faith” where the writers realized this show isn’t just about what kind of monsters we can kill but what the brothers can go through together. And I think luckily we stuck with that theme on through the end [of season one], where we reintroduced our father into the storyline. And we get some sense of what the father is willing to do for the sons and what the sons are willing to do for each other. And so it became this story about sacrifice and loyalty and family and friendship [within] this medium of the supernatural and ghosts and ghouls.

It sounds to me that what Kripke was originally planning is a show about Sam, with the brother tagging along. 

http://variety.com/2014/tv/spotlight/supernatural-oral-history-200-episodes-ackles-padalecki-kripke-1201352537/

Edited May 21, 2017 by ILoveReading

[auntvi]

4 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:

I entirely disagree. It only took me one episode, "The Raid," to make me wonder if Sam had turned into an idiot. It's actually been a long time - generally since the Carver era - that I've even considered Sam to be smart anymore.

I was going to say I could trace it back to season 9, but the more I think about it it goes to season 7. It seems Sam was "broken" inside for so long, he still hasn't recovered. If the leadership meme was an attempt to show him as smart and capable as Dean, it didn't really work. IMO 

[Idahoforspn]

20 minutes ago, ILoveReading said:

In the special, they aired before the start of s10 Kripke talked a lot about Faith being the turning point and where he realized that the audience was responding to the chemistry between Jared and Jensen and Kripke said he had some good people around him who encouraged him to focus on that.  

Supernatural was never developed as being about two brothers and their realtionship.  Kripke wanted to write a show about urban legends.

According the the article it went from A Scooby Gang, to a reporter, and according to Kripke when he was pitching the show, they didn't like the reporter idea and he literally said on the spot, two guys a car, urban legends and they're brothers.

Kripke threw it out there as a last minute imporvisation to get his show picked up.  On the commentary for The Pilot, Kripke even says, when we first see Sam, There is our hero.  Sam was the one the show revolved around, which is why Sam's actor was listed first in the credits.  If they were meant to be equal right from the start then why not credit both equally. 

It sounds to me that what Kripke was originally planning is a show about Sam, with the brother tagging along. 

http://variety.com/2014/tv/spotlight/supernatural-oral-history-200-episodes-ackles-padalecki-kripke-1201352537/

This is what I have always read too. Kripke intended Sam as the lead character. That's why he is #1 on the call sheet and has first billing. Jensen's acting, charisma and the fans reaction to him is what led to a more co-lead treatment in season 2. 

[Idahoforspn]

1 hour ago, SueB said:

@Idahoforspn stated:
 

This is factually inaccurate.  The boys have told the story MULTIPLE times about how they first met.  It was the final audition and it was just the two of them.  They read the bridge scene for a large audience.  At the end, the head of the studio came up and said to both boys: Congratulations, you have a show!

They were ALWAYS co-leads.  There's no doubt that Jared was (and still is) #1 on the call sheet but it has always been a show about TWO brothers.  This idea that Jensen was made "co-lead" in Season 2 is flat out wrong.

I didn't even have to answer that one. Thanks everybody!

[catrox14]

27 minutes ago, SueB said:

This is factually inaccurate.  The boys have told the story MULTIPLE times about how they first met.  It was the final audition and it was just the two of them.  They read the bridge scene for a large audience.  At the end, the head of the studio came up and said to both boys: Congratulations, you have a show!

They were ALWAYS co-leads.  There's no doubt that Jared was (and still is) #1 on the call sheet but it has always been a show about TWO brothers.  This idea that Jensen was made "co-lead" in Season 2 is flat out wrong.

I didn't read much in the way of interviews etc when I first started binging the show in 2013, but my impression of s1 was the show was about Sam, who has a brother named Dean.  I think it's accurate to say the story is about two brothers but one brother was always and continues to be the Main character/protagonist of the show and that is Sam.

If Jensen's comments from Variety's Oral History of Supernatural count (which they don't  need to be considered at all for one to interpret a work) as a marker of how Kripke, et al including Jensen himself saw/see the characters, then it seems to suggest that Sam was and is the protagonist, which I think makes Dean the deuteragonist ( the 2nd most important character vs sidekick) in this show about two brothers.

Quote

Ackles: If you look back at the majority of series, it really hinges on Sam’s character. That’s the way it was originally intended, that’s the way it serves the story best, but every now and again the spotlight got flipped and turned on Dean, and I think we’re seeing this again with Mark of Cain. That was part of the setup for just very dark and troubled Dean.

 

[Idahoforspn]

6 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

I didn't read much in the way of interviews etc when I first started binging the show in 2013, but my impression of s1 was the show was about Sam, who has a brother named Dean.  I think it's accurate to say the story is about two brothers but one brother was always and continues to be the Main character/protagonist of the show and that is Sam.

If Jensen's comments from Variety's Oral History of Supernatural count (which they don't  need to be considered at all for one to interpret a work) as a marker of how Kripke, et al including Jensen himself saw/see the characters, then it seems to suggest that Sam was and is the protagonist, which I think makes Dean the deuteragonist ( the 2nd most important character vs sidekick) in this show about two brothers.

So Jensen confirmed. Thanks

[CluelessDrifter]

7 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

I didn't read much in the way of interviews etc when I first started binging the show in 2013, but my impression of s1 was the show was about Sam, who has a brother named Dean.  I think it's accurate to say the story is about two brothers but one brother was always and continues to be the Main character/protagonist of the show and that is Sam.

If Jensen's comments from Variety's Oral History of Supernatural count (which they don't  need to be considered at all for one to interpret a work) as a marker of how Kripke, et al including Jensen himself saw/see the characters, then it seems to suggest that Sam was and is the protagonist, which I think makes Dean the deuteragonist ( the 2nd most important character vs sidekick) in this show about two brothers.

Dean hasn't been the deuteragonist since the end of season 1.  He became the protagonist and Sam became the focal character with the exception of season 3 and season 9.5/10.

Edited May 21, 2017 by CluelessDrifter

[companionenvy]

Shows change from their original conception all the time. When Aaron Sorkin conceived of the West Wing, the show was supposed to focus on the senior staff, with the president as a rarely-seen, relatively minor character. Rob Lowe was supposed to be the star. Then they got Martin Sheen to play Bartlet, and the rest is history - although Rob Lowe still kept stubbornly submitting himself for lead actor Emmys (which is why he was the only member of the core cast never to win an award for the show). 

What I am seeing on screen is a show in which Sam and Dean were fairly equally matched even in Season 1, and were clearly co-leads by season 2. Dean was NEVER one of the Scoobies to Sam's Buffy. 

In S1, did Jared get paid more than Jensen?