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

[Reganne]

1 hour ago, CluelessDrifter said:

And for that I was grateful if I'm being totally honest.  I don't know why.  I just know that at the time, I felt it was satisfying for some reason.

 I also like for my characters to take responsibility for their mistakes, so a knee-jerk apology right after they happen doesn't necessarily work for me, because the sincerity rings hollow, and I don't think Sam took full responsibility for what happened in season 4 until the end of season 5.  SS was his redemption.  I thought in season 11, he took responsibility for trying to fix the Darkness being released almost straight away, which is probably why I enjoyed him so much in season 11.  I also think that as far as the Purgatory thing goes, he didn't really give a heartfelt apology for that until season 11 in Into the Mystic.  I think that was a belated apology the writers felt they had to give long after it didn't really matter anymore for some reason, but I suppose it worked for some people if they were clinging to that need for an apology, whereas I would have taken him looking for Dean between seasons 9 and 10 as more of an apology, because he actively looked for Dean, and I thought at the time that some small part of him might have been speared on by his guilt of not looking for Dean when Dean was in Purgatory.  (Although I thought him doing the trials was him trying to repeat what happened in SS by him getting redemption through self-sacrifice, but he didn't quite get there, and Dean dying and becoming a demon gave him a chance to do fix his mistake by not making it again, or that's the way I see it).

I did see Sam take responsibility for freeing Lucifer in the beginning of season 5.  He said more than once during earlier episodes of season 5 that it was his fault.  Of course, this was when the narrative of season 5 put all the blame of the apocalypse on Sam.  Ignoring the fact that Dean broke the first seal and that Cas let Sam out of the panic room fully knowing what him killing Lilith would do.  Sam tells the hunters he did it.  He tells Dean it was his fault and he tells the therapist guy in Sam interrupted that he started the apocalypse.

[catrox14]

3 hours ago, DittyDotDot said:

Depends on where you go and who you're talking to, but I'd say Fallen Idols is a strong contender. Or at least it was at TWoP, we've managed to navigate around that discussion around here, though.

I think Fallen Idols fell way down SPN Fandom Ladder of Debates since the advent of:

S8:

• Sam not looking for Dean or Kevin
• Dean having a secret vampire friend
• Dean believing Sam wanted to live at the end of Sacrifice

S9: 

• Dean accepting the offer of an lying angel to help heal his dying brother by angel possession because Prime Directive activated
• Sam's destructive speech in the Purge
• Dean taking on the Mark of Cain and being turned into a demon

[DeeDee79]

6 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

I think Fallen Idols fell way down SPN Fandom Ladder of Debates since the advent of:

S8:

• Sam not looking for Dean or Kevin
• Dean having a secret vampire friend
• Dean believing Sam wanted to live at the end of Sacrifice

S9: 

• Dean accepting the offer of an lying angel to help heal his dying brother by angel possession because Prime Directive activated
• Sam's destructive speech in the Purge
• Dean taking on the Mark of Cain and being turned into a demon

What was the big debate about Fallen Idols? I can't think of anything that would be considered fandom divisive.

[DittyDotDot]

3 minutes ago, DeeDee79 said:

What was the big debate about Fallen Idols? I can't think of anything that would be considered fandom divisive.

Well, depends if you think Sam owned up to his being led around by the nose or whether you think he shifted it all on Dean.

15 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

I think Fallen Idols fell way down SPN Fandom Ladder of Debates since the advent of:

S8:

• Sam not looking for Dean or Kevin
• Dean having a secret vampire friend
• Dean believing Sam wanted to live at the end of Sacrifice

S9: 

• Dean accepting the offer of an lying angel to help heal his dying brother by angel possession because Prime Directive activated
• Sam's destructive speech in the Purge
• Dean taking on the Mark of Cain and being turned into a demon

I think the divide still exists, just that people know it's a touchy subject and avoid it.

[Aeryn13]

Quote

What was the big debate about Fallen Idols? I can't think of anything that would be considered fandom divisive.

Did the episode/writers and/or Sam blame Dean for his actions in Season 4 basically. There are yes (me included) and no factions to that. 

I consider that episode dealing with the fall-out of Season 4 and blaming it firmly on Dean for being a "bully". If only he had been more supportive (and I guess more deferential and flunky-ish), Sam wouldn`t have gone with Ruby. That`s why Dean had to change his ways for the relationship to be better. The only thing Sam had to change was finally telling Dean what Dean did wrong. 

Since I thought Sam`s main flaw has always been hubris, that was the least effective redemption story ever for me. Compounded with how only he got the world-saving big hero in the end? No-go.

[ILoveReading]

2 hours ago, Reganne said:

Dean got an even flashier moment in all hell breaks loose part 2 with the colt.  The way the bullet releases and the camera also focusses on Dean's facial expression.  Probably one of the best visually appealing moments of the series.  And this was him finishing off the demon who killed his mother and father and cursed his brother.

A moment they recreated for Sam.  They created a Cain/Yellow Eyed demon hybrid just so Sam could kill him and then with Michael's spear no less.  Sam got the slow mo kill with  the colt when he took out the alpha vampire.

 

1 hour ago, Aeryn13 said:

ven if something good or exciting or interesting happens for the character, that is the trajectory I can look forward to. 

Yup.  No matter what they create for Dean its only a matter of time before the repeat it for Sam, but only with far more bells, whistles and focus.

[Reganne]

1 minute ago, ILoveReading said:

A moment they recreated for Sam.  They created a Cain/Yellow Eyed demon hybrid just so Sam could kill him and then with Michael's spear no less.  Sam got the slow mo kill with  the colt when he took out the alpha vampire.

 

Yup.  No matter what they create for Dean its only a matter of time before the repeat it for Sam, but only with far more bells, whistles and focus.

The effects and camera angles they used for Sam's kills were far less flashy and appealing.  Not to mention far less relevant to the main story of supernatural.  Ramiel was a random YED who we only heard of for one episode.  Azazel was a main villain for the first few seasons and the one who basically set up the entire plot for the boys by killing their mother and infecting Sam with Demon Blood.

[Reganne]

14 minutes ago, Aeryn13 said:

Did the episode/writers and/or Sam blame Dean for his actions in Season 4 basically. There are yes (me included) and no factions to that. 

I consider that episode dealing with the fall-out of Season 4 and blaming it firmly on Dean for being a "bully". If only he had been more supportive (and I guess more deferential and flunky-ish), Sam wouldn`t have gone with Ruby. That`s why Dean had to change his ways for the relationship to be better. The only thing Sam had to change was finally telling Dean what Dean did wrong. 

Since I thought Sam`s main flaw has always been hubris, that was the least effective redemption story ever for me. Compounded with how only he got the world-saving big hero in the end? No-go.

I see things differently.  While Sam did say a reason why he went with Ruby, he also said to Dean firmly afterwards that "No, It's my fault" (Sams) ultimately taking the blame himself after Dean says "What you think this is my fault?" (Dean not taking the blame/in disbelief when he thinks Sam might be blaming him) However, earlier in the episode you hear Dean on the phone with Bobby talking about the apocalypse and saying "Well, we all know who's fault that is" .... obviously blaming Sam for it all when Dean was the one who broke the first seal.  In this episode, I see it as Dean blaming Sam and forgetting about the first seal and Sam taking responsibility for starting the apocalypse... saying it was his fault.

[DeeDee79]

3 hours ago, DittyDotDot said:

3 hours ago, Aeryn13 said:

I consider that episode dealing with the fall-out of Season 4 and blaming it firmly on Dean for being a "bully". If only he had been more supportive (and I guess more deferential and flunky-ish), Sam wouldn`t have gone with Ruby. That`s why Dean had to change his ways for the relationship to be better. The only thing Sam had to change was finally telling Dean what Dean did wrong. 

Well, depends if you think Sam owned up to his being led around by the nose or whether you think he shifted it all on Dean.

Oh, I see. Thanks for the reminder!

[ILoveReading]

7 minutes ago, Reganne said:

I see things differently.  While Sam did say a reason why he went with Ruby, he also said to Dean firmly afterwards that "No, It's my fault" (Sams) ultimately taking the blame himself after Dean says "What you think this is my fault?" (Dean not taking the blame/in disbelief when he thinks Sam might be blaming him) However, earlier in the episode you hear Dean on the phone with Bobby talking about the apocalypse and saying "Well, we all know who's fault that is" .... obviously blaming Sam for it all when Dean was the one who broke the first seal.  In this episode, I see it as Dean blaming Sam and forgetting about the first seal and Sam taking responsibility for starting the apocalypse... saying it was his fault.

What Sam said there, was the equivalent of "It's my fault because you made me do it in the first place."  That, IMO, isn't taking responsibility.  It's shifting blame.  Sam also tells Dean that its Dean that has to change his behavior if things are going to work.  No mention from Sam that he needs to change too. 

Then Dean proceeds to apolgize (one of 3 times, the others being PONR, and SS) for not trusting Sam or having faith in Sam.

Why is it when Sam spent and entire season lying and going behind Dean's back its Dean that has to prove his trust in Sam?

Edited June 25, 2017 by ILoveReading

[CluelessDrifter]

53 minutes ago, Reganne said:

I did see Sam take responsibility for freeing Lucifer in the beginning of season 5.  He said more than once during earlier episodes of season 5 that it was his fault.  Of course, this was when the narrative of season 5 put all the blame of the apocalypse on Sam.  Ignoring the fact that Dean broke the first seal and that Cas let Sam out of the panic room fully knowing what him killing Lilith would do.  Sam tells the hunters he did it.  He tells Dean it was his fault and he tells the therapist guy in Sam interrupted that he started the apocalypse.

Well, in fairness, Sam made the decision to do what he did on his own after Cas let him out of the panic room, and he wasn't under duress.  I actually don't have a problem with him breaking the seal, because he didn't know any better than Dean did (when Alistair broke him) where killing Lilith would lead, but it was all the stuff that came before that, the demeaning of Dean by repeatedly saying he was weak at various points in season, the lying, the choosing Ruby, his arrogance, the choking of Dean, the draining of a nurse - those are the things that I have always had a problem with in Sam in season 4, and no, I don't think a knee-jerk 'it was my fault' is taking responsibility for all of that.   I actually don't think he could take responsibility for all of that until he went through his relapse in MBV and chose to get clean, thereby taking responsibility over his recovery, rather than having the God cure-all do it for him and making him a dry drunk (He didn't even start to really look at the underlying problem for the addiction until Sam Interrupted).  I think that's why he came out of it a bit stronger than he'd been going into it and it just happened to be the thing that pushed Dean to within inches of the edge.

Edited June 25, 2017 by CluelessDrifter

[AwesomO4000]

I apologize for the long post - new posts kept coming up as I was writing this, and so I included the comments - but it kind of got out of hand.

2 minutes ago, Aeryn13 said:

If any episode in the history of ever should have been an equal teamwork, then this one.

In my opinion, it's a lot about interpretation. For example, I think I could arguably look at things this way:

In reference to your teamwork observation: how about "Al Hell Breaks Loose, Pt 2?" That episode was the conclusion of the previous two seasons, yet Sam's connection to the YED was reduced to Sam being killed and serving as motivation for Dean making a deal which would be the focus of the next season. Dean and John killed the YED with much fanfare while Sam lied on the ground, useless and out of earshot. Sure, Sam killed Jake, but that was in reference to "ooh, did you make the wrong choice, Dean? Is Sam still Sam?" (Answers: No-ish and Yes). As with the season 1 finale, for all of Sam's supposed powers, those were once again shown to be useless and of little consequence to the main plot. Sam once again didn't kill the YED - something Sam was lambasted for previously in both the season 1 finale and again in the season 2 opener. After Dean and John finally kill the YED and do the thing that useless Sam failed to do, John is set free and Dean declares "That was for our Mom," arguably making the whole thing mostly about Dean and John and the loss of Mary. No mention of Sam's connection to the YED is made at all. Sam's "we've got work to do" line was even transferred over to Dean as the final line of the episode. That finale seemed to me to very much be an ending point for the series if needed in case it didn't get picked up for another season, and if that had been the case, the arc would have concluded with almost no input from Sam.

And any further references to Sam's powers and destiny as the "boy king" in season 3 were to point out how disappointing Sam was in that regard and how he'd failed to step up, and then Sam failed to save Dean, so...

So for me, that there wasn't complete "equal teamwork" between Sam and Dean in the season 5 finale was mostly a way of giving Sam his turn after he'd been pretty much shut out of the first conclusion in season 2. It also helped to let him partially atone for his mistakes in season 4 and not being able to save Dean in season 3.

1 hour ago, CluelessDrifter said:

Dean is the moral compass of the show, because he is our protagonist, the character through which we get our POV and through whom we are supposed to empathize with more than Sam, who is the focal character, the character the big story lines typically revolve around.  You can't have the moral compass swing too far one way or the other.

Except in seasons 9 and the first part of season 10 when Dean was sort of both. Season 11 also, I think, that Dean was often both. The show somewhat shifted the POV to Sam during some of season 10 - which I enjoyed - but somehow, despite that POV, Sam still ended up being in the wrong. That tendency - especially in the Carver years - seems almost weirdly fetishistic to me. Like almost no matter what the situation is, it's twisted so that Sam's position - even when it was almost the same as Dean's - somehow turned out to be the wrong one. Even predictably so. I find it peculiar.

1 hour ago, CluelessDrifter said:

And it's funny, because prior to your post, I was thinking that Dean is the character that is chastised the most on the show and that in the show, Sam's big mistakes are forgotten about or not brought up again more often.  

Heh, and I find this interesting since if I see a bias, I tend to see it the other way. Sam not only got the blame for starting the apocalypse (despite help from so many others in starting it), it was brought up numerous times after that in season 5 - I'd probably need two hands at least to count for that season alone - and then beyond with even a random what the hell? reference in season 9 from a hunter explaining how Sam starting the apocalypse caused her parents to be killed, just in case we might actually forget that Sam screwed up. Okay, Show: we get it - according to you, Sam started the apocalypse. Can we move on now please? Geesh.

And how many times did we have references to Sam abandoning Dean in purgatory - sometimes with variations of "And Sam hit a dog"as the punchline - from various characters? Nice, Show: have Sam do something that was maybe one of the worst things you could have one of the brothers do to the other and then point to it as a cruel joke, repeatedly.

1 hour ago, Aeryn13 said:

They had a chance to give Dean something in the Season 7 Finale but they lamified it too much to be a good counterweight.   

I thought Dean ending up in cool purgatory was pretty badass myself, but I guess miles vary. And Dean and Castiel had the focus for their kill. Sam and Kevin's contribution happened offscreen.

2 hours ago, Aeryn13 said:

Nothing about "I lied" took back the truly horrible things Sam said in the Purge.

No, but it showed that Sam was wrong to say them and that Sam was a hypocrite, because Dean was right and Sam would do the same thing.

Now if Sam had held on to his conviction and not called up Crowley, then I might agree with you, but the "I lied" and Sam calling Crowley proved Dean to be correct and Sam to be in the wrong (a theme in Carver's era). With that illustration, everything Sam said in "The Purge" is then cast into doubt - if Sam lied so badly about one thing, why should we believe the rest? (Answer: we shouldn't.) I thought the show's message was pretty clear on that: first the Dean sympathetic point of view and then the declaration and proof that Sam lied. None of that says to me, "but you should still believe Sam on the other stuff he said... just because?" Um, no... pretty unlikely. More like Sam was being crappy and a liar about the one thing, so no need to believe him on the rest either.

1 minute ago, DeeDee79 said:

What was the big debate about Fallen Idols? I can't think of anything that would be considered fandom divisive.

According to some, Sam supposedly in what he said blamed Dean for his taking up with Ruby, because Dean was too bossy. Usually "too bossy" is put in quotations, even though Sam never said it. So somehow this is then translated to the show blaming Dean for starting the apocalypse, even though every time the show brought it up after that, it's always Sam being blamed.

The interpretation comes from Sam telling Dean that he took up with Ruby to get away from Dean sometimes, because it made him (Sam) feel strong and not like a little brother. Somehow Sam saying this is argued to be blaming Dean even though I see the two things as unrelated. A little brother can still feel like he's in his big brother's shadow even if the big brother is the best one in the entire world.

3 minutes ago, Aeryn13 said:

If only he had been more supportive (and I guess more deferential and flunky-ish), Sam wouldn`t have gone with Ruby. That`s why Dean had to change his ways for the relationship to be better.

How? If Dean had "supported" Sam... Sam still would've taken up with Ruby, because she was supposedly providing a way to save Dean from hell when Sam first took up with Ruby. Season 4 was an entirely different ball of wax as the damage was already done.

5 minutes ago, Aeryn13 said:

Since I thought Sam`s main flaw has always been hubris, that was the least effective redemption story ever for me. Compounded with how only he got the world-saving big hero in the end? No-go.

I thought that the show made it fairly clear of what Sam's bad choices and hubris lead to and that Sam's world-saving was part of his fixing that "I let him out. I have to put him back in."

On the other hand, one of Dean's flaws is that he makes blanket decisions for Sam even when he knows Sam wouldn't want him to... and the show generally deflects (Sam started the apocalypse) or rewards (Gadreel is redeemed and was actually a "friend") Dean for that - and some of his other flaws - as well, often in my opinion even more so. Contrast this with when Sam or Castiel make blanket decisions that they know Dean, especially, wouldn't like - that usually ends in something awful - usually catastrophic even - happening. Almost every time.

At least the show has Sam become addicted and help start the apocalypse because of his flaw of hubris and Sam was called out on it by multiple characters. Dean? He was proved to be right in lying to Sam about Gadreel all that time. He was proved to be justified in making the rash decision to take the mark of Cain (it was stupid Sam who screwed that up) and killing Death (nothing bad happened, and actually some good happened).

In my opinion, this isn't just a Sam thing for the writers - even if I did see the writers as "rewarding" Sam for his hubris - which I don't.

1 minute ago, ILoveReading said:

Why is it when Sam spent and entire season lying and going behind Dean's back its Dean that has to prove himself to Sam?

Because Sam spent the entire season 5 gaining Dean's trust back?

Why is it when Dean spends an entire half of a season lying to Sam in season 9, Dean is proven to have been right to do so? Maybe the writers don't necessarily play fair.

3 minutes ago, ILoveReading said:

Sam also tells Dean that its Dean that has to change his behavior if things are going to work.  No mention from Sam that he needs to change too. 

The behavior change had to do with working cases, not anything else. Sam tole Dean he could be as mad at Sam as he wanted, but the working relationship had to change. Dean was trying to be dictator in their working relationship and that was endangering people. And Sam was already working at a disadvantage - in my opinion - because Dean wasn't entirely truthful about why he returned.

[Wayward Son]

3 hours ago, Aeryn13 said:

Nothing about "I lied" took back the truly horrible things Sam said in the Purge.

So he lied about not saving Dean? Puh-leaze, that was the ONLY thing in that stupid speech I didn`t have a problem with in the slightest.   

That's exactly the point I was trying to make! 

If the writers were trying to glorify Sam and make Dean look bad then they would not have later negated the one aspect of Sam's speech most would consider reasonable. By removing the legitimacy of Sam's anger towards Dean they transformed the whole scene into simply being one where Sam is a liar who lies and said a bunch of horrible things to Dean for the sake of it. 

 

As I said earlier that scene was all about glorifying Dean and his pain. Sam was there to look bad by being overly harsh towards poor delicate little Deaan hence the whole scene ending with mean old Sam walking off and a zoom in on precious Gary Stu Deans devastated expression. 

[CluelessDrifter]

Just now, AwesomO4000 said:

Except in seasons 9 and the first part of season 10 when Dean was sort of both. Season 11 also, I think, that Dean was often both. The show somewhat shifted the POV to Sam during some of season 10 - which I enjoyed - but somehow, despite that POV, Sam still ended up being in the wrong. That tendency - especially in the Carver years - seems almost weirdly fetishistic to me. Like almost no matter what the situation is, it's twisted so that Sam's position - even when it was almost the same as Dean's - somehow turned out to be the wrong one. Even predictably so. I find it peculiar.

Yeah, I typically say with the exception of season 10 and part of 9 and do say that Dean did seem to fill the part of both, but I was in a hurry and didn't feel like writing it all down.  Should've known to just do it, because I'm doing it now, and now I've actually written way more than I would have.

[Aeryn13]

Quote

What Sam said there, was the equivalent of "It's my fault because you made me do it in the first place."

Yes, it was hilariously like the Season 8 Finale. 

"What are you gonna do the next time you decide I can`t be trusted again? Turn to another angel/vampire?"  Those words put the onus on Dean. He "decides" when Sam can`t be trusted again. Like all on his own and solely for willy-nilly reasons. And then he will have a wrong response to it. Again. Like turning to someone other than Sam. Nothing about that is about Sam doing something wrong. It is about him being hurt by Dean reacting wrongly. And even IF Sam did something wrong, the problem apparently is still Dean`s wrong reaction to it. If Dean had been fine with Sam`s attitude of "you`re back? I had such a good life, drats", then no problem. 

Sam and Cas freaked out all over the place on how Dean was losing it with the MOC on accounts of him slamming someone down on a bar and stuff like that. Which both ironically did in other episodes in the same Season. Was that a sign of them losing it as well? That wasn`t portrayed as them being bullies and wrong and unsupportive.

Dean isn`t able to kill Amara - which even God later can`t do - but hey, with Dean, it MUST be a sign that he didn`t really want to. What the hell?   

[DeeDee79]

3 hours ago, Wayward Son said:

Sam was there to look bad by being overly harsh towards poor delicate little Deaan hence the whole scene ending with mean old Sam walking off and a zoom in on precious Gary Stu Deans devastated expression. 

Soo...I'm guessing you're not a fan of Dean or just Dean throughout that particular season? Not trying to be an ass; I'm legitimately curious.

[Reganne]

11 minutes ago, ILoveReading said:

What Sam said there, was the equivalent of "It's my fault because you made me do it in the first place."  That, IMO, isn't taking responsibility.  It's shifting blame.  Sam also tells Dean that its Dean that has to change his behavior if things are going to work.  No mention from Sam that he needs to change too. 

Then Dean proceeds to apolgize (one of 3 times, the others being PONR, and SS) for not trusting Sam or having faith in Sam.

Why is it when Sam spent and entire season lying and going behind Dean's back its Dean that has to prove his trust in Sam?

I don't think it was the equivalent of that because if it were, he would have ended his sentence with a but or if or something else after Dean asked him if he thought it was his fault.  Sam firmly said "NO, it's MY fault".  No if's or buts.  It's not shifting blame.  If Sam were shifting blame to Dean entirely, he wouldn't have said "No (as in it's not your fault) It's mine."  He would have just said "Yes, it's your fault".  Ultimately it was both of their faults as each of them broke a seal.  In this episode, it is Dean who forgets his part in breaking a seal and shifts all blame of the apocalypse on Sam via his conversation with Bobby and his disbelief that he thought Sam may have thought Dean had something to do with it.  Does Dean ever say in season 5 that he helped bring about the apocalypse?

[Reganne]

12 minutes ago, CluelessDrifter said:

Well, in fairness, Sam made the decision to do what he did on his own after Cas let him out of the panic room, and he wasn't under duress.  I actually don't have a problem with him breaking the seal, because he didn't know any better than Dean did (when Alistair broke him) where killing Lilith would lead, but it was all the stuff that came before that, the demeaning of Dean by repeatedly saying he was weak at various points in season, the lying, the choosing Ruby, his arrogance, the choking of Dean, the draining of a nurse - those are the things that I have always had a problem with in Sam in season 4, and no, I don't think a knee-jerk 'it was my fault' is taking responsibility for all of that.   I actually don't think he could take responsibility for all of that until he went through his relapse in MBV and chose to get clean, thereby taking responsibility over his recovery, rather than having the God cure-all do it for him and making him a dry drunk (He didn't even start to really look at the underlying problem for the addiction until Sam Interrupted).  I think that's why he came out of it a bit stronger than he'd been going into it and it just happened to be the thing that pushed Dean to within inches of the edge.

See, this is what I would compare to Dean's actions with the MOC. The difference here is, that Dean didn't have to apologize or take responsibility for anything that happened with the MOC really.  Beating up Cas, killing innocent people, saying Sam should be dead instead of Charlie.  After the mark was gone, the darkness was out and it was all "Look what Sam did!".  Getting rid of the darkness was never about getting redemption from his actions with the mark.  In fact, everything he did was pretty much forgotten once the darkness appeared.

[AwesomO4000]

22 minutes ago, CluelessDrifter said:

Yeah, I typically say with the exception of season 10 and part of 9 and do say that Dean did seem to fill the part of both, but I was in a hurry and didn't feel like writing it all down.  Should've known to just do it, because I'm doing it now, and now I've actually written way more than I would have.

Hee sorry about that!

I guess my main point should have been that, with Sam at least, POV doesn't necessarily equal the sympathetic or right position, because even when Sam got the POV in season 10 and Dean got the action plot, Sam was still proven "wrong" in the end, because Sam was the one who started the apocalypse - again.

17 minutes ago, Reganne said:

Does Dean ever say in season 5 that he helped bring about the apocalypse?

Once in an early episode, but it's contradicted by "Fallen Idols."

Edited to add: Actually Dean does mention it in "Fallen Idols" later on, but I'm not sure how sincere he is about it considering his statement to Bobby.

Edited June 25, 2017 by AwesomO4000

[ILoveReading]

3 minutes ago, Reganne said:

Sam firmly said "NO, it's MY fault".  No if's or buts.  It's not shifting blame.  If Sam were shifting blame to Dean entirely, he wouldn't have said "No (as in it's not your fault) It's mine."  He would have just said "Yes, it's your fault".

I disagree because Sam saying "No its my fault" doesn't change the reason save gave for going to Ruby, which was to away from Dean because Dean was bossy.  Sam put the reason for his actions on Dean.  That's not accepting blame, its putting it on Dean's shoulders, hence why I feel like Sam was saying "You made me do it, so that's the only reason its my fault.

[Wayward Son]

5 minutes ago, DeeDee79 said:

Soo...I'm guessing you're not a fan of Dean or just Dean throughout that particular season? Not trying to be an ass; I'm legitimately curious.

I'm not a fan of Dean in seasons 8-9. I used to love him from season 1-7, but those two seasons put me off. I have varied from finding him tolerable to actually liking him sometimes throughout seasons 10-12.

 

Ill probably never love the character again because seasons 8-9 opened my eyes to the fact that he gets a free pass where others such as Sam and Castiel would fail epically. Some examples being the stuff I, or others mentioned earlier, like how his questionable supernatural ally turns out to be the cuddliest little vampire ever whereas Sam's was outright evil and Cas was wrong to work with Crowley. Or even the MOC storyline! It begins with an action initiated by Dean (agreeing to take the mark) and YET it concludes with Sam being the one to start the apocalypse part II because heaven forbid Dean mess up for a change. 

[Aeryn13]

Quote

He would have just said "Yes, it's your fault". 

That`s not how Sam rolls. He (the writers) will phrase it differently. Like in Fallen Idols, like in the Season 8 Finale.

Sam is usually only candid under the influence or when he is really angry.   

If I think about it, Fallen Idols was actually my point of no return with Sam. Now I thought his hubris was out of control in Season and I certainly didn`t find it likeable but I thought that if things got that bad, it would be adressed in Season 5 and have a great redemption story where the character would overcome that flaw. 

And I was really, truly sympathetic to the character in that early Season 5 episode where he had a conversation with war. Was that episode 2? I think so. Like I connected with the character in a way I hadn`t in a long time. But that was the last scene in the show where that happened. Because then came Fallen Idols, episode 5? And especially the Season Finale of 5. That was a permanent off-ramp for me.  

There were patches of the show in the coming years I found inoffensive but nothing beyond that. 

Edited June 25, 2017 by Aeryn13

[DeeDee79]

3 hours ago, Wayward Son said:

I'm not a fan of Dean in seasons 8-9. I used to love him from season 1-7, but those two seasons put me off. I have varied from finding him tolerable to actually liking him sometimes throughout seasons 10-12.

 

Ill probably never love the character again because seasons 8-9 opened my eyes to the fact that he gets a free pass where others such as Sam and Castiel would fail epically. Some examples being the stuff I, or others mentioned earlier, like how his questionable supernatural ally turns out to be the cuddliest little vampire ever whereas Sam's was outright evil and Cas was wrong to work with Crowley. Or even the MOC storyline! It begins with an action initiated by Dean (agreeing to take the mark) and YET it concludes with Sam being the one to start the apocalypse part II because heaven forbid Dean mess up for a change. 

I see; being a Dean fan I disagree but again everyone is a little biased based on who their favorite happens to be. Personally I feel that Dean and Sam are both flawed and they've both had characters fawn over and ridicule them equally if we look back at the series as a whole. As I said upthread the only Mary Sue/Gary Stu that I've seen on this show would probably be Bobby as at this point Sam and Dean have practically sainted him. That being said thanks for replying.

Edited June 25, 2017 by DeeDee79

[CluelessDrifter]

7 minutes ago, Reganne said:

I don't think it was the equivalent of that because if it were, he would have ended his sentence with a but or if or something else after Dean asked him if he thought it was his fault.  Sam firmly said "NO, it's MY fault".  No if's or buts.  It's not shifting blame.  If Sam were shifting blame to Dean entirely, he wouldn't have said "No (as in it's not your fault) It's mine."  He would have just said "Yes, it's your fault".  Ultimately it was both of their faults as each of them broke a seal.  In this episode, it is Dean who forgets his part in breaking a seal and shifts all blame of the apocalypse on Sam via his conversation with Bobby and his disbelief that he thought Sam may have thought Dean had something to do with it.  Does Dean ever say in season 5 that he helped bring about the apocalypse?

I'm sorry, but the conversation you're talking about is about Sam's addiction, and all the things he did while he was with Ruby and high on power, so his disbelief isn't about Sam thinking that Dean had something to do with Lucifer.  As for Dean accepting responsibility for Lucifer, I think he accepted responsibility for the seals being broken once he found out they started breaking because he broke in Hell, and he does say, 'We made a mess.  We clean it up,' at least once, and that's just looking at the first episode.  

[Reganne]

15 minutes ago, ILoveReading said:

I disagree because Sam saying "No its my fault" doesn't change the reason save gave for going to Ruby, which was to away from Dean because Dean was bossy.  Sam put the reason for his actions on Dean.  That's not accepting blame, its putting it on Dean's shoulders, hence why I feel like Sam was saying "You made me do it, so that's the only reason its my fault.

No, he didn't.  He said going off with Ruby made him feel strong and not just Dean's kid brother.  He never even said anything about Dean being bossy.  

8 minutes ago, Aeryn13 said:

That`s not how Sam rolls. He (the writers) will phrase it differently. Like in Fallen Idols, like in the Season 8 Finale.

Sam is usually only candid under the influence or when he is really angry.   

I guess he should have just phrased it the way Dean did to Bobby.  "Well, we all know who's fault that is.  I'm sorry but it's true"  Personally I think some people are reading into it more than what was actually there.

4 minutes ago, CluelessDrifter said:

I'm sorry, but the conversation you're talking about is about Sam's addiction, and all the things he did while he was with Ruby and high on power, so his disbelief isn't about Sam thinking that Dean had something to do with Lucifer.  As for Dean accepting responsibility for Lucifer, I think he accepted responsibility for the seals being broken once he found out they started breaking because he broke in Hell, and he does say, 'We made a mess.  We clean it up,' at least once, and that's just looking at the first episode.  

What about Dean's conversation with Bobby on the phone in fallen idols? 

Edited June 25, 2017 by Reganne

[ahrtee]

I realize this might be an UO and slightly OT here, but I really feel the need to say this:

Do we think we can try not to be too demeaning of the characters?  I understand trying to make a point (even with sarcasm), and that there's no rule against being "mean" to characters or actors, but it seems to me that things like "poor delicate little Dean," "mean old Sam," (or, as I've seen at other times, "special snowflake Sam" and "Saint Dean") are unnecessarily snide and inflammatory and won't lead to anything but being ignored at best and at worst inciting someone to defend or attack back. I believe everyone here is pretty polite and all have very good points to make, but I think it's easier to read different opinions when we're respectful to everyone, including the characters.  (That's not to say you can't express anger at a storyline or dislike of characters (or writers!) but maybe just..a little less snidely.)  

As always, JMO and none of my business.   

[CluelessDrifter]

10 minutes ago, Reganne said:

See, this is what I would compare to Dean's actions with the MOC. The difference here is, that Dean didn't have to apologize or take responsibility for anything that happened with the MOC really.  Beating up Cas, killing innocent people, saying Sam should be dead instead of Charlie.  After the mark was gone, the darkness was out and it was all "Look what Sam did!".  Getting rid of the darkness was never about getting redemption from his actions with the mark.  In fact, everything he did was pretty much forgotten once the darkness appeared.

In the show, we have Dean at the start of season 11 apologizing to Cas.  

What innocent people?  

Yeah, he probably should've said Sam should be dead instead of Charlie.

And starting in the very first episode and going all the way through until Chuck called Sam out on it, they made a pointed effort to have Dean claim accept equal responsibility for it with their 'We this,' and 'We that,' with regard to the Darkness being free, but like I said, I think Sam took more responsibility for his actions pretty much from the start, so I liked him a lot better in season 11.

[Aeryn13]

Quote

He said going off with Ruby made him feel strong and not just Dean's kid brother.  He never even said anything about Dean being bossy.  

He said he went with her at least partly to get away from Dean because she made him feel strong. The implication is clear that Dean made him feel weak.

How Dean managed to do that when at first he was in hell - and Sam went with Ruby - and later Sam told him a few times how weak and pathetic he was and how he couldn`t hack it in Season 4 is a mystery to me. Mr. Stronger, Smarter, Better Hunter actually felt weakened by the Boohoo guy? That is Sam/the writers and revisionist history at its finest.  

[Reganne]

7 minutes ago, CluelessDrifter said:

In the show, we have Dean at the start of season 11 apologizing to Cas.  

What innocent people?  

Yeah, he probably should've said Sam should be dead instead of Charlie.

And starting in the very first episode and going all the way through until Chuck called Sam out on it, they made a pointed effort to have Dean claim accept equal responsibility for it with their 'We this,' and 'We that,' with regard to the Darkness being free, but like I said, I think Sam took more responsibility for his actions pretty much from the start, so I liked him a lot better in season 11.

The kid with the Steins, some of the people he killed while 'rescuing' Claire, the innocent hunter he got killed.

The interesting thing with that is Dean always says "We" while taking the responsibility while Sam says "I".

Edited June 25, 2017 by Reganne

[DeeDee79]

3 hours ago, ahrtee said:

I realize this might be an UO and slightly OT here, but I really feel the need to say this:

Do we think we can try not to be too demeaning of the characters?  I understand trying to make a point (even with sarcasm), and that there's no rule against being "mean" to characters or actors, but it seems to me that things like "poor delicate little Dean," "mean old Sam," (or, as I've seen at other times, "special snowflake Sam" and "Saint Dean") are unnecessarily snide and inflammatory and won't lead to anything but being ignored at best and at worst inciting someone to defend or attack back. I believe everyone here is pretty polite and all have very good points to make, but I think it's easier to read different opinions when we're respectful to everyone, including the characters.  (That's not to say you can't express anger at a storyline or dislike of characters (or writers!) but maybe just..a little less snidely.)  

As always, JMO and none of my business.   

I agree 100%. That's pretty tasteless.

[Reganne]

1 minute ago, Aeryn13 said:

He said he went with her at least partly to get away from Dean because she made him feel strong. The implication is clear that Dean made him feel weak.

How Dean managed to do that when at first he was in hell - and Sam went with Ruby - and later Sam told him a few times how weak and pathetic he was and how he couldn`t hack it in Season 4 is a mystery to me. Mr. Stronger, Smarter, Better Hunter actually felt weakened by the Boohoo guy? That is Sam/the writers and revisionist history at its finest.  

A lot of younger siblings may feel weaker than their older siblings or when they're with them.  That doesn't mean it's the older siblings fault.  

[catrox14]

1 hour ago, DittyDotDot said:

I think the divide still exists, just that people know it's a touchy subject and avoid it.

I've never really seen it as being that divisive.

For me Fallen Idols was not controversial as much as it was a flat out shitty episode that was nothing but character assassination of Dean so the audience would have more sympathy for Sam and his attempts to redeem himself.

Not only was he apparently a liar who didn't really forgive Sam and still blamed him and only him for the apocalpyse, but was escalated to being an asshole who mocked  Sam's interest in Ghandhi whilst at the same time being too stupid to know who Ghandhi was which just no fucking way is that true. NOPE.

It was used so Sam could justify going off with Ruby because Dean was so controlling that Sam just had to go with someone who didn't control him(what a load of crap that was).  Then to top it off, hardee har har, Dean is nearly beaten to death by Paris Hilton.  Yes she was a god but come on it was Paris Hilton so it was funny that Dean got beaten up by a skinny reality queen.

IMO it would have made so much more sense for Fallen Idols to have aired before The End because it made no sense after The End given they had reconciled and Sam said he wanted to prove himself and that Dean had told Sam that he agreed they should part ways. I always thought the parting of the ways should have happened at the end of Fallen Idols.

One reason why s5 falls far down on my list of seasons is because of how often Dean was put into double binds in the narrative and he couldn't be right or good.  Sam was going to say yes to the Devil and by saying yes he was still saving the world. If Dean said yes to Michael, he was a suicidal asshole who didn't care about saving the world.

But for me Fallen Idols is in my 3 least favorite and most hated episodes of the show ever.

Edited June 25, 2017 by catrox14

[CluelessDrifter]

3 minutes ago, Reganne said:

What about Dean's conversation with Bobby on the phone in fallen idols? 

I was just addressing what you said here:

24 minutes ago, Reganne said:

In this episode, it is Dean who forgets his part in breaking a seal and shifts all blame of the apocalypse on Sam via ... his disbelief that he thought Sam may have thought Dean had something to do with it.  Does Dean ever say in season 5 that he helped bring about the apocalypse?

because I didn't agree with it.  He does talk to Bobby about it earlier in the episode, so I don't disagree with that - I probably should have just written that too in the interest of being fair, but I didn't again for time saving reasons.  When will I learn?

I just wanted to point out that Dean doesn't become indignant because he thinks Sam is blaming him for the Apocalypse, IMO.  It's Sam's transgressions under his addiction.

[Aeryn13]

Quote

A lot of younger siblings may feel weaker than their older siblings or when they're with them.  That doesn't mean it's the older siblings fault.  

In real life not so much, in the show I`d say it is.

Same as it usually wouldn`t be an older child`s fault in the family if the younger child felt lonely or was left alone. If said older child really had no say in the matter and was brought along for an incredibly dangerous pastime. But hey, Richard Speight (and likely the writer of the Zanna episode) sure as hell disagrees with that as in his opinion Dean needed to accept his faults that way and feel really guilty about that. Hold the parent responsible? Pfft, perish the thought. It was that screw-up kid who didn`t provide enough and couldn`t clone himself to be in two places at once. 

[DeeDee79]

3 hours ago, Reganne said:

The kid with the Steins

I have a huge issue with Dean being blamed for his death. Mostly because we the viewers know that Cyrus is nothing like his family and he wants nothing more than to be free of them. Dean however has just walked into his home in which the Stynes have broken into and are in the process of setting the place on fire. After what he left behind in the compound and knowing that there are more of them out there he would absolutely see all of them as a threat including the youngest one.

3 hours ago, catrox14 said:

For me Fallen Idols was not controversial as much as it was a flat out shitty episode that was nothing but character assassination of Dean so the audience would have more sympathy for Sam and his attempts to redeem himself.

I agree.

[Bessie]

1 minute ago, DeeDee79 said:

3 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

For me Fallen Idols was not controversial as much as it was a flat out shitty episode that was nothing but character assassination of Dean so the audience would have more sympathy for Sam and his attempts to redeem himself.

 

For me, it's very similar to The Purge, but with a role reversal. 

[catrox14]

7 minutes ago, Bessie said:

For me, it's very similar to The Purge, but with a role reversal. 

I don't really see those as analogous myself.

I think the writers  thought the audience was going to be on Sam's side throughout and IMO it was Jensen's acting, that made him sympathetic. But I don't think Jensen's choices were to make Dean sympathetic but were just what he believed Dean would do, which is be stubborn, stand by his decision because Dean really didn't think he was in the wrong for saving Sam and wouldn't apologize for it, be shocked and hurt that Sam didn't see it his way.  But that's just me. 

I don't think the words of Sam's speech were intended to make Sam look bad. IMO, it was intended to be hard truths that Dean refused to see or hear or take inside for consideration. Sure the camera landed on Dean's broken hearted face but IMO that didn't change that I think the writers fully thought the audience would be right on board with Sam's words. And given Dean had just agreed to bear the Mark of Cain and was prowling around with Crowley, bringing Dean himself into question. 

[Reganne]

21 minutes ago, CluelessDrifter said:

 

because I didn't agree with it.  He does talk to Bobby about it earlier in the episode, so I don't disagree with that - I probably should have just written that too in the interest of being fair, but I didn't again for time saving reasons.  When will I learn?

I just wanted to point out that Dean doesn't become indignant because he thinks Sam is blaming him for the Apocalypse, IMO.  It's Sam's transgressions under his addiction.

For some reason I thought I had added that thing about the Bobby conversation to that quote but apparently I didn't.  So to be fair, I do see why you didn't respond to that part.

[CluelessDrifter]

3 minutes ago, Reganne said:

The kid with the Steins, some of the people he killed while 'rescuing' Claire, the innocent hunter he got killed.

The interesting thing with that is Dean always says "We" while taking the responsibility while Sam says "I".

I don't think that the people Dean killed when he rescued Claire were innocent, and I'm iffy on the situation with the Stein kid, like @DeeDee79 said, except that I would add that even under duress, he still did a pretty despicable thing earlier in the episode, not that it was right to kill him for that.  I actually think the thing that stands out to me the most about that whole back and forth isn't when he pulls the trigger, but what he says right before he does.  That's a discussion for another thread though.

And Dean says 'I' when he needs to say 'I," like when he's accepting responsibility for a mistake he's made.  He says 'we' when Sam makes a big mistake.  If you think he 'always' says 'We,' then . . . ; )

[Wayward Son]

15 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

I I don't think the words of Sam's speech were intended to make Sam look bad. IMO, it was intended to be hard truths that Dean refused to see or hear or take inside for consideration. Sure the camera landed on Dean's broken hearted face but IMO that didn't change that I think the writers fully thought the audience would be right on board with Sam's words. And given Dean had just agreed to bear the Mark of Cain and was prowling around with Crowley, bringing Dean himself into question. 

Except as you said the entire scene ends with Sam storming off and the focus lands on Dean and his pain. Then at the end of the season the arc is concluded with the revelation that Sam lied thus invalidating any legitimacy grievances he had and making the speech, when viewed with hindsight,  one where Sam just says a bunch of mean stuff to Dean. There is no point to the speech, there is no lesson for Dean to learn from it. 

I guess I'll have to agree to disagree with the hardcore Dean fans on this because IMO there is absolutely nothing on screen to suggest this scene was about proving Dean wrong, or giving him something to learn from it. In fact, the direction choices and the overall conclusion to the arc make it clear the opposite is the case. 

Edited June 25, 2017 by Wayward Son
A bit of name mix ups

[CluelessDrifter]

Alright, who asked what were the next most debated episodes after SS?

[Aeryn13]

Quote

I guess I'll have to agree to disagree with the hardcore Dean fans on this because IMO there is absolutely nothing on screen to suggest this scene was about proving Dean wrong, or giving him something to learn from it. 

Well, in all fairness, Sam makes ad hominem attacks so it`s hard to learn anything from it. He told Dean that Dean was a deluded selfish coward who never sacrificed when it hurt him and had basically never been anything else all his life. You can change behaviour but if someone tells you that you are a piece of crap in their eyes, well, there is nothing really you can change that.

And I still saw multitudes of "you go Sam" for exactly that message because apparently that was gods honest truth about Dean. And it wasn`t so much that he should learn anything from it but be slapped in the face with how much garbage he truly was.

The "haha, he is put in his place" works with the same basic principle and the writers just love to single Dean out for that. Because it is "comedic".

Granted, the Purge scene was supposed to be less comedic than gleeful IMO.     

[Bessie]

7 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

But I don't think Jensen's choices were to make Dean sympathetic but were just what he believed Dean would do, which is be stubborn, stand by his decision because Dean really didn't think he was in the wrong for saving Sam and wouldn't apologize for it, be shocked and hurt that Sam didn't see it his way.  But that's just me. 

That's something I've thought about. I find Ackles choices generally to fall on the side of portraying Dean sympathetically while Padalecki seems more open to Sam being viewed in a less than flattering light. This may just arise out of the basic premise of the story i.e. Sam was going dark one way or another.  

But there are times I wish Padalecki would add a little sympathy to his portrayal and times I wish Ackles would lay it all on the line and really go there. I know it's not completely up to them and this shouldn't be taken as a major criticism of either actor.

It's just on occasion (honestly, not often) there are certain moments in scenes when it flits across my mind that the scene would be better if they switched up what I believe are their basic inclinations toward their characters.  Your mention of Ackles heartbroken face at the end of the Purge reminded me of this. That was one of those moments, for me. 

[Reganne]

14 minutes ago, CluelessDrifter said:

I don't think that the people Dean killed when he rescued Claire were innocent, and I'm iffy on the situation with the Stein kid, like @DeeDee79 said, except that I would add that even under duress, he still did a pretty despicable thing earlier in the episode, not that it was right to kill him for that.  I actually think the thing that stands out to me the most about that whole back and forth isn't when he pulls the trigger, but what he says right before he does.  That's a discussion for another thread though.

And Dean says 'I' when he needs to say 'I," like when he's accepting responsibility for a mistake he's made.  He says 'we' when Sam makes a big mistake.  If you think he 'always' says 'We,' then . . . ; )

I meant for the apocalypses specifically in this case.  

As for the people he killed while saving Claire, I don't think they were all bad or deserved to be killed.  One was Claires mentor or something.  Yeah what he did wasn't a good thing, but did he deserve to die? 

[DeeDee79]

3 hours ago, CluelessDrifter said:

Alright, who asked what were the next most debated episodes after SS?

@Pondlass1! I guessed it was The Purge because I didn't realize what a hot button Fallen Idols apparently is.

 

3 hours ago, Wayward Son said:

hardcore Dean fans

Speaking for myself I adore Dean but I love Sam. I can see when they've both been wronged or when one of them is an asshole. "Hardcore" seems to imply tunnel vision in regards to one's fave and everyone seems to look at both POV's IMO.

[RulerofallIsurvey]

On 6/24/2017 at 2:26 PM, AwesomO4000 said:

In case I don't say it enough in the following explanation, the following is my own interpretation only...

This was a lovely interpretation/explanation.  Thank you, @AwesomO4000!

[catrox14]

Just now, Wayward Son said:

Except as you said the entire scene ends with Sam storming off and the focus lands on Dean and his pain. Then at the end of the season the arc is concluded with the revelation that Sam lied thus invalidating any legitimacy grievances he had and making the speech one where Dean just says a bunch of mean stuff to Sam. There is no point to the speech, there is no lesson for Dean to learn from it. 

I guess I'll have to agree to disagree with the hardcore Dean fans on this because IMO there is absolutely nothing on screen to suggest this scene was about proving Dean wrong, or giving him something to learn from it. In fact, the direction choices and the overall conclusion to the arc make it clear the opposite is the case. 

 

IMO, the camera was going to close on Dean's face regardless in that episode because it was to Dean about Dean and about Dean's actions. The camera showed Sam walking way after making his strongly worded take down of Dean and Dean is left to process the harshness. I don't think the camera stayed on Dean to engender sympathy for Dean but just to show his reaction. I've seen quite a lot of chatter elsewhere that Dean, despite the crushed look on his face, was still in the wrong.

IMO, the audience reaction to that speech comes down to whether they think Dean was completely wrong or not for making the choice he did and that doesn't have to be a function of being a Dean fan or a Sam fan but about that action in particular.

[Aeryn13]

Quote

As for the people he killed while saving Claire, I don't think they were all bad or deserved to be killed.  One was Claires mentor or something.  Yeah what he did wasn't a good thing, but did he deserve to die? 

They actually attacked Dean. As a group. Granted, they didn`t know they were playing with fire but they would have happily beaten him to death. So, I can`t really feel bad for them that they picked the wrong victim. Since they seemed to prefer gangraping teenagers, guess it`s not as much fun when someone fights back.   

Quote

IMO, the audience reaction to that speech comes down to whether they think Dean was completely wrong or not for making the choice he did and that doesn't have to be a function of being a Dean fan or a Sam fan but about that action in particular.

The problem with that entire speech though was that it wasn`t about that action. It was one blanket statement after another. 

I happen to think Dean`s choice at the start of Season 9 was wrong, full stop. But I very much disagree that it makes his entire life a waste and his entire personhood a piece of crap.  

Quote

while Padalecki seems more open to Sam being viewed in a less than flattering light

I think he just plays his lines more straight. Which is a problem with a lot of dialogue on the show. But if, from the lines on paper, you are convinced your character is right, you might play it straight. And if those were better lines, that might work. 

IMO Jensen is perfectly open (too much so IMO) to have Dean seen in a not flattering light but the truly atrocious lines on paper, he mostly knows how to soften. Which is necessary for this show. 

At cons when they have to answer or descriptions for their characters, Jensen is far less flattering to Dean than Jared is to Sam.  

Edited June 25, 2017 by Aeryn13

[DeeDee79]

3 hours ago, catrox14 said:

IMO, the audience reaction to that speech comes down to whether they think Dean was completely wrong or not for making the choice he did and that doesn't have to be a function of being a Dean fan or a Sam fan but about that action in particular.

Exactly!

[DittyDotDot]

6 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

I don't really see those as analogous myself.

I think the writers  thought the audience was going to be on Sam's side throughout and IMO it was Jensen's acting, that made him sympathetic. But I don't think Jensen's choices were to make Dean sympathetic but were just what he believed Dean would do, which is be stubborn, stand by his decision because Dean really didn't think he was in the wrong for saving Sam and wouldn't apologize for it, be shocked and hurt that Sam didn't see it his way.  But that's just me. 

I don't think the words of Sam's speech were intended to make Sam look bad. IMO, it was intended to be hard truths that Dean refused to see or hear or take inside for consideration. Sure the camera landed on Dean's broken hearted face but IMO that didn't change that I think the writers fully thought the audience would be right on board with Sam's words. And given Dean had just agreed to bear the Mark of Cain and was prowling around with Crowley, bringing Dean himself into question. 

TBH, I think that speech comes off exactly how it was written and intended to come off. Sam and Dean were in a holding pattern and they weren't going to let either of them out of it yet. I don't think Jensen is at all acting against the script, but acting the script exactly as it was intended. We were supposed to feel bad for Dean because he was in a no win situation that got out of hand, but we were also supposed to be angry at Dean because he's saying he'd do it all again even with the same results. And, I think we're supposed feel sympathy for Sam because he has a right to be angry, but we're also supposed to be pissed as Sam for lashing out when the reasonable thing to do would be try and see the position Dean was in. So, the conflict maintains instead of resolution, which, IMO, is exactly what they were intending.

IMO, S8 and S9 was all about equal opportunity pettiness. They both were sympathetic and both wrong at the same time, IMO.