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

[ILoveReading]

I've always found the opposite.  Teflon Sam is what turned me off the character.  To me it doesn't matter if Dean is right if the show never acknowledges it.  In fact, I find Sam is often rewarded in the narrative for being wrong while Dean gets to sit on the sidelines.

Dean's right about Ruby, but next season Dean is the character whose made to learn multiple lessons about having trust and faith in Sam and apologize 3 different times for not trusting Sam.  Sam had a ginormous ego in s4 that he was the special chosen one and Dean could best help by staying out of his way.  In s5 we find out that was true.  Sam gets to save the world all by himself basically validating S4 Sam.  Dean gets upstaged by a piece of plastic.

Dean's right about Sam's visions but its not like Sam listens to Dean.  Instead we get an episode dedicated to how great Sam is.  He went in the cage and got a very special episode allowing him to have a big confrontation with Lucifer.  I'd love an ep like for Dean.  I wouldn't even care if Dean screwed by to be in a situation where that happened. 

Dean being right about the Brits didn't matter.  Because he gave into Sam's wants and wishes with barely an argument and in the end Sam is now the apparently leader of Team Free Will.  He gets the big speech, and Dean gets to remind the audience how much Sam has been through with barely a mention of his own trauma. 

Sam doesn't look for Dean, but Dean gets the lecture from Garth about appreciating Sam.  Then gets the trials and Dean's relegated to guilty cheerleader and literally begging to take care of Sam and bathing and feeding him. 

I don't really see how being wrong in these things is a detriment to Sam's character when it leads to big storylines and other characters jumping on the Sam bandwagon.  What good is being right when no other character actually listen?  When Dean's right he get to learn a lesson about why he needs to trust Sam more.

As for killing death.  I don't think there were no consequences because Dean is teflon.  I think there were no consequences because the writers just couldn't be bothered writing any.  I can tell you the Dean fans I'm friendly with were beyond disappointed that nothing came of that.

How many times on this show has Dean brought up grievences only to have the narrative brush it off.  When Dean confronts God, its just Dean being upset at his dad.  When he's upset at their mom lying to them, he needs to apologize for expecting her to make sandwiches, when Sam lies and goes behind Deans' back, that's Dean's fault for not treating him like an equal.

Spoiler

Event his season, it sounds as if Dean's concerns about Jack are easily dismissed for another round of we'll do it your way Sam.  I'm fully expecting those concerns to be written off as Dean is jealous. 

 

IMO, it doesnt' matter who is right or wrong because so often the show validates Sam's POV.  So there are times I wish Dean was as "wrong" as Sam. 

[Aeryn13]

Quote

Sam just happened to be the vessel - literally - for that arc

For me that is a valid supernatural arc. I`m not looking for more from something like that than it happening and getting a few cool scenes from it. 

If Demon!Dean had gone on a bit longer and yielded a few more scenes with cool Knight of Hell powers, I would have been much happier with it. Even if they just went back to the MOC story with the demon interlude in and of itself not meaning much. 

However, I disagree it was a Gadreel arc. He was too much of a supporting player for me to count him as the central figure of his own arc.

Quote

Don't worry, they made up for it by giving Sam the "the BMoL are obviously idiots here, because this 'raid' was a total disaster, and a bunch of people died, but look at all the cool toys! And everyone knows I've always supported exterminating all monsters everywhere, so hell yeah, I'm joining up right now!" story 

Which wasn`t played as very wrong onscreen - that was actually Mary`s part with the BMOL - and culminated in the General Winchester, singular moment. Where Sam first came to the conclusion that his problem was not acting like the awesome leader he was and then pontitificating to his flunkies. To the first speech Dean remained mute and in the second he got to be one of the flunkies looking up to Sam. There was certainly no acknowledgment of "well, your first instincts about the BMOL were right" or "how do you feel about leadership or anything?"

That scene/arc was just used to take something more positive from Dean and give it to Sam, like Season 12 did as a whole. 

If that was Sam having the "idiot stick", I wish Dean would have gotten it. Because 

Quote

IMO, it doesnt' matter who is right or wrong because so often the show validates Sam's POV.  So there are times I wish Dean was as "wrong" as Sam. 

this times 10000000

Dean being "right" has zero positive repercussions for the character that I can see. 

Quote

Dean isn't right all the time at all, and in fact often gets his character regressed so that he can learn a Very Special Lesson about giving Mom space, or not automatically killing all monsters, or not being too impulsive/horny/etc. Even on a scene to scene level, he'll sometimes be stuck with a comic relief moment, as of late, in a cheap joke that isn't really true to his character at this point, if it ever was.

I agree. And I hate it. 

Quote

But I agree that on the big-picture issues, overall Dean winds up being right to an almost comical extent, and his actions don't have close to the consequences that comparable decision by Sam and Cas do. I think the most egregious example here is probably his killing of Death. By any sane calculus, that should have had catastrophic results. Instead, as far as we can tell, Billie seamlessly steps into Death's role. She is rightfully pissed that Dean killed her boss, but there are no cosmic consequences.

Because it`s Dean and it`s not important enough to write a big story about his actions. That is IMO the sole reason for this. The writers don`t care enough. I don`t see that as a boon to the character. 

If Sam had killed Death, it would have brought big consequences, yes, but because the writers approach that as "actions a lead character takes have to mean something". 

If for some reason only Dean was around, I bet he would suddenly be "wrong" in that way, too, and have his actions have world-damning consequences because they would be forced to write for him then and use him to propel the plot forward.   

Quote

I've always found the opposite.  Teflon Sam is what turned me off the character.  To me it doesn't matter if Dean is right if the show never acknowledges it.  In fact, I find Sam is often rewarded in the narrative for being wrong while Dean gets to sit on the sidelines.

Dean's right about Ruby, but next season Dean is the character whose made to learn multiple lessons about having trust and faith in Sam and apologize 3 different times for not trusting Sam.  Sam had a ginormous ego in s4 that he was the special chosen one and Dean could best help by staying out of his way.  In s5 we find out that was true.  Sam gets to save the world all by himself basically validating S4 Sam.  Dean gets upstaged by a piece of plastic.

Dean's right about Sam's visions but its not like Sam listens to Dean.  Instead we get an episode dedicated to how great Sam is.  He went in the cage and got a very special episode allowing him to have a big confrontation with Lucifer.  I'd love an ep like for Dean.  I wouldn't even care if Dean screwed by to be in a situation where that happened. 

Dean being right about the Brits didn't matter.  Because he gave into Sam's wants and wishes with barely an argument and in the end Sam is now the apparently leader of Team Free Will.  He gets the big speech, and Dean gets to remind the audience how much Sam has been through with barely a mention of his own trauma. 

Sam doesn't look for Dean, but Dean gets the lecture from Garth about appreciating Sam.  Then gets the trials and Dean's relegated to guilty cheerleader and literally begging to take care of Sam and bathing and feeding him. 

I don't really see how being wrong in these things is a detriment to Sam's character when it leads to big storylines and other characters jumping on the Sam bandwagon.  What good is being right when no other character actually listen?  When Dean's right he get to learn a lesson about why he needs to trust Sam more.

As for killing death.  I don't think there were no consequences because Dean is teflon.  I think there were no consequences because the writers just couldn't be bothered writing any.  I can tell you the Dean fans I'm friendly with were beyond disappointed that nothing came of that.

How many times on this show has Dean brought up grievences only to have the narrative brush it off.  When Dean confronts God, its just Dean being upset at his dad.  When he's upset at their mom lying to them, he needs to apologize for expecting her to make sandwiches, when Sam lies and goes behind Deans' back, that's Dean's fault for not treating him like an equal.

I agree 100 %. If this is supposed to be Teflon!Dean, then they are doing it wrong. 

[trxr4kids]

1 hour ago, Aeryn13 said:

Because it`s Dean and it`s not important enough to write a big story about his actions. That is IMO the sole reason for this. The writers don`t care enough. I don`t see that as a boon to the character. 

If Sam had killed Death, it would have brought big consequences, yes, but because the writers approach that as "actions a lead character takes have to mean something". 

Exactly! It's the apocalypse all over again, Dean breaks the first seal which is actually what starts the apocalypse but hey who cares cause it's really about Sam and that last seal, they're the true vessels, oops we really only meant Sam,Dean spends a year in purgatory and has ptsd, who cares Sam had to give up his one tru wuv or maybe 2nd tru wuv or 3 rd, I'm not sure, I could go on but the bottom line is the show has shown me time and time again that Dean is irrelevant.

[CluelessDrifter]

16 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:

Well, sort of. Part of the reason I like Sam is that I relate to his flaws and understand them better. Despite being an oldest sibling, for some reason I don't relate to Dean's flaws as well... and more recently, I find myself getting annoyed with Dean's apparent Teflon. That new development - when Dean started appearing to be right almost all the time and somehow seemingly coming out of what should have been apocalyptic mistakes relatively unscathed and causing few problems - that I started liking him a bit less.***

I'm curious.  How do you actually see Sam and Dean, because I think there's a lot that annoys you about Sam's story lines, but to me, those story lines happen because of the way Sam is.  Do you separate him from his story lines in some way?  Like, how can you relate to his flaws, but then think he gets shafted by the writing when it comes to said flaws?  What do you think his flaws are?  You can see the things he does sometimes are wrong . . . perhaps more wrong than even non-Sam fans might think, but it seems like what makes you annoyed is that Dean doesn't make those particular mistakes or comes out looking better in your opinion when he does make mistakes, and that's what lowers your opinion of Dean.  I almost imagine the way you see them as something like when one sibling gets in trouble and then says, but he did this or he did that about another sibling to shift the blame off of themselves and then gets upset when he or she is still in trouble?   I think it might help me to understand how you see the show and it's characters if I can see how you see the characters apart from their story lines.  

Edited August 30, 2017 by CluelessDrifter

[AwesomO4000]

6 hours ago, companionenvy said:

I don't like Dean less because of this, but it does get frustrating.

Yes, I guess like Dean less is not the right feeling. Maybe enjoy Dean less is more descriptive.

6 hours ago, ILoveReading said:

Dean's right about Ruby, but next season Dean is the character whose made to learn multiple lessons about having trust and faith in Sam and apologize 3 different times for not trusting Sam. 

Yes, Dean had to learn to trust Sam again, after Sam worked his ass off all season to gain Dean's trust back, yeah. And in my opinion, part of Dean's apologizing sometimes was because of what Zachariah showed him, so he needed Sam to be "on board" and stay with him. He didn't tell Sam the entire truth about that (in my opinion, because for me it was more than "we keep each other human"), so Dean's anger and distrust came out in passive aggressive digs at Sam throughout the season. I actually liked that. It was human and gave Dean depth, but I wouldn't exactly call the "apologies" entirely genuine. They also served a purpose - to keep Sam "happy" and thinking Dean trusted him more than he did, partially so Dean could keep an eye on Sam, and partially because Dean didn't want to deal with his feelings, so he'd rather just "apologize" and hold a grudge instead.

Besides, the narrative made sure multiple times to hit how Sam made the wrong call and "trusted" Ruby and so it was his fault Lucifer rose - even though Sam actually didn't entirely trust her (even if he believed her to an extent) and even said so in the season 4 finale. And yes Sam was wrong, but Dean trusted - to an extent - the angels, and they were just as bad as Ruby and the demons. But was Sam ever allowed to argue "yes, I listened to Ruby, and that was wrong, but you listened to Zachariah and Castiel, and they weren't exactly the good guys in this either." Nope. Dean siding with the angels even though they were just as wrong is never brought up by the narrative. It is always Sam and his bad choices.

6 hours ago, ILoveReading said:

Sam had a ginormous ego in s4 that he was the special chosen one and Dean could best help by staying out of his way.  In s5 we find out that was true.  Sam gets to save the world all by himself basically validating S4 Sam.  Dean gets upstaged by a piece of plastic.

I don't see that as much different from Dean having a ginormous ego that he was the special chosen one, and being proven mostly right about it in season 9 and later 10. And Sam not only learning he could best help by "staying out of the way," but being told pretty much (paraphrase) "this isn't a democracy. I've got the power, so do what I say or leave," and then Dean being pretty much shown to be right about that, since in the season 9 finale, Sam being upstaged by a piece of plastic*** would have been a step up from what happened, because at least that would mean that Sam was actually there for the action. Well, except that in Dean's arc, not only is Dean right about everything, Sam is also wrong about everything, too, again, even though Dean is the one this time with the ginormous ego and making the mistakes. Where was Dean's raising Lucifer consequences for taking on the mark of Cain and thinking he was right to do so? Oh yeah... that ended up being Sam's fault somehow - again. I don't count Dean turning into a demon, since that had almost no bad consequences - except again the ones mainly attributed to Sam. So I guess all of Dean's hubris was justified according to the narrative at least.

*** Even though I don't see that as what happened, myself.

6 hours ago, ILoveReading said:

Sam doesn't look for Dean, but Dean gets the lecture from Garth about appreciating Sam. 

And Sam got reprimanded by Bobby and his character endured multiple "And Sam hit a dog" jabs for seasons to come, later having to learn a very special lesson about how wrong he was and how his guilt was part of the reason he visited Lucifer and caused all sorts of problems. I'm pretty sure the show punished Sam plenty for what was basically a non-sensical plot arc that didn't even make sense for Sam's character to even do in the first place. The Amelia arc was so nonsensical to me, that until well into season 8, I was waiting for the episode that showed that Amelia was all a delusion and/or something else really happened, since to me that seemed way more likely than what actually happened.

6 hours ago, ILoveReading said:

I can tell you the Dean fans I'm friendly with were beyond disappointed that nothing came of that.

Well, actually something did come from Dean killing Death. It just happened to be a good thing rather than a bad consequence, in that Billie ended up helping Dean become the bomb to have leverage with Amara. So even when Dean makes questionable decisions that should have apocalyptic consequences, good things happen instead.

Edited August 30, 2017 by AwesomO4000

[Aeryn13]

Quote

I don't see that as much different from Dean having a ginormous ego that he was the special chosen one, and being proven mostly right about it in season 9 and later 10.

Season 9 and 10 were still Dean`s dark arc. And he didn`t end Season 9 as the special Chosen One, he failed against Metatron. Cas was the hero du jour. He didn`t end Season 10 as the special Chosen One either. 

And if we count mid-Season stuff like killing Abaddon, why is that different  Sam having mid-Season wins like killing Alistair or Samhain with his powers? Those were equally, if not more positively portrayed wins than Abaddon.  

Season 5 was after Sam`s dark arc and he got validated in a way that negated him having gone on a dark arc in the first place. Because hey, if he truly was always the Chosen One and the problem was everyone else, especially Dean, being unsupportive, it wasn`t Sam being wrong in Season 4, he was unfairly victimzed into his wrong choices by Dean (and maybe Bobby a bit) being mean.

The Season that came after Dean`s dark arc was Season 11 and that was pretty iffy. He had a connection with Amara that was IMO half-assed explored and he did get a much less fancy hero`s moment in the Finale. But other than nominally being connected via the Mark, it didn`t flow as a cohesive storyline. It wasn`t "release Lucifer and then be the big hero against Lucifer".

The dark MOC/demon arc had NO resolution. It had no redemption or anything flowing from it. It simply ended. Amara was kinda a largely unrelated story that came after. So I`m not seeing how Dean reaped the same storyline benefits as Sam here.

[Myrelle]

1 hour ago, trxr4kids said:

Exactly! It's the apocalypse all over again, Dean breaks the first seal which is actually what starts the apocalypse but hey who cares cause it's really about Sam and that last seal, they're the true vessels, oops we really only meant Sam,Dean spends a year in purgatory and has ptsd, who cares Sam had to give up his one tru wuv or maybe 2nd tru wuv or 3 rd, I'm not sure, I could go on but the bottom line is the show has shown me time and time again that Dean is irrelevant.

He(and JA) is relevant in that Dean(and JA) has to be written in to most of the storylines to either A)support a Sam/JP  present-time or up-coming storyline or B) to push a present-time or up-coming Sam/JP storyline forward.  IMO, Jensen/Dean has predominantly been written as a supporting character for JP/Sam, most of the time, throughout the run of this series. The only time that he wasn't written that way and the roles were truly reversed was with the DemonDean/MOC storylines, IMO. The Darkness storyline became more about Chuck and Amara than about Dean, again IMO; and even Dean's deal and his sojourn into his own hell experience were in service to Sam's Boy King of Hell/Vessel of Lucifer 5 season-long storyline.

If JA is supposed to be thought of as a lead actor on this show, and if Dean is supposed to be thought of as a main character on this show, someone forgot to tell the showrunners and the writers about it from the very beginning, IMO. Those thoughts are present and in place now, predominantly because JA's portrayal of Dean(pretty much from Day One) convinced the fandom(and eventually, the people who write out the actors' paychecks, I suppose), of that thought-and there's never been much more to it than that. Not from my viewpoint, anyway.

I think way back in S3 or 4(I can't remember which one) when Kripke announced that Jensen had earned a central role in the myth-arc was when the writers might have begun to realize that they were going to have do something more and give something more to both  actor and character than strictly the emo role. The problem then was(and still is, IMO) that the writers on this show simply do not and have never had the talent or skillset to write for and to two genuine protagonists, in any given storyline, at the same time.

It's either that or there is an edict in place for the writers that states that they aren't allowed to do that. That's all that I can come up with just going by the way that the two characters have been written(but not acted) since, again, Day One of the series. *shrugs*

Edited August 30, 2017 by Myrelle

[Aeryn13]

Quote

The problem then was(and still is, IMO) that the writers on this show simply do not and have never had the talent or skillset to write for and to two genuine protagonists, in any given storyline, at the same time.

I shudder to think what a show like Game of Thrones with a million characters would look like in their hands. But I totally agree.  

Quote

I think way back in S3 or 4(I can't remember which one) when Kripke announced that Jensen had earned a central role in the myth-arc

It was before Season 4 and I found it sad that it had taken this long. I mean 3 years? 

Of course the statement was dishonest either way because if not for the writer`s strike, Kripke never planned on giving Dean a role in the mythology in the first place. It was supposed to end with Sam saving him from the deal and have Ruby´s "it`s all about you" to Sam become pretty literal. Dean`s part would have been to fret about that old "save him or kill him" thing and in essence revolve around Sam some more. Place in the mythology, my ass.   

Quote

  He(and JA) is relevant in that Dean(and JA) has to be written in to most of the storylines to either A)support a Sam/JP a present-time or up-coming storyline or B) to push a present-time or up-coming Sam/JP storyline forward.  IMO, Jensen/Dean has been written as a supporting character for JP/Sam, most of the time, throughout the run of this series. 

I completely prefered Mulder to Scully on the X-Files but if it had been only ever about his arcs and stories and Scully only ever used to support those, even I would have gone "shut the fuck up about Mulder, show". Even from my favourite character, I don`t want stories to only ever be about them or else they aren`t my favourite for long.  

Edited August 30, 2017 by Aeryn13

[Myrelle]

18 minutes ago, Aeryn13 said:

It was before Season 4 and I found it sad that it had taken this long. I mean 3 years? 

Of course the statement was dishonest either way because if not for the writer`s strike, Kripke never planned on giving Dean a role in the mythology in the first place. It was supposed to end with Sam saving him from the deal and have Ruby´s "it`s all about you" to Sam become pretty literal. Dean`s part would have been to fret about that old "save him or kill him" thing and in essence revolve around Sam some more. Place in the mythology, my ass.

ITA with all of this. And I further think that he sent Dean to Hell only to appease the Dean fandom at that time. Sadly, the segment of the Dean fandom that hoped to see Dean written as a genuine protagonist was louder and much larger back then, IMO; some returned for the MOC storyline, but S11 drove them away again, and 12 made that seem like the right decision to me.

I'm shuddering already over what's likely to be coming in S13 for both character and actor. Comic Con seemed like simply and only a portent for more of the same that we got in these last two seasons. And if so-Blech and Yuck.

But who knows, maybe Jensen hasn't re-signed a new contract yet, and they might try to woo him into signing again by dangling something decent for his character and for his fandom that's still watching. I can honestly and truly say that I, personally, hope that he won't re-sign again this time, though. 

Edited August 30, 2017 by Myrelle

[CluelessDrifter]

The very first episode I ever saw of this show was Devil's Trap way back in 2006.  The first scene I saw was the Meg exorcism scene.  It captured me straight away, and from that scene and throughout the rest of the episode, I fully thought Dean was the main character.  He was the one in charge in that scene.  He seemed to be in charge when it came to finding their Dad and had enough foresight to bring the Colt.  Azazel seemed especially focused on Dean in the cabin, and we had Dean's POV throughout.  I picked up on Azazel wanting Sam to use some kind of powers to take the Colt off the table, and not knowing anything about the show at that point, I wondered why, but really all of the focus was on Dean (to me), and not having seen anything before that, I didn't realize there was a shift to that dynamic about halfway through season 1, but after it happened, I think it stuck.  

I still think that Season 2 was about Dean saving or killing Sam and solving the mystery of what it was about Sam that made Azazel want him.  Season 3 was about Dean's deal and him going to Hell.  In season 4, Dean came back from Hell and was the Righteous Man.  I could keep going until probably season 11, and definitely 12, when Dean lost his POV and quite a few of the characteristics I have always associated with Dean.  Until that happened, Dean was the protagonist, not Sam.  I feel like I've written this a million times, but Sam is the focal character.  He's the one who pushes the plot forward, because things are either happening to him, or he is the one doing things to push it forward, and Dean has to react/ do something about it/ give us the POV/ is the moral center/ and the character that the audience is supposed to sympathize with in the story (that's what a protagonist does when there is a split between the focal character and protagonist.  Usually, they are the same person, but in this case, it's been split between the brothers, not unheard of as far as stories go, but not as common).  

Edited August 30, 2017 by CluelessDrifter

[catrox14]

On 8/29/2017 at 10:29 AM, AwesomO4000 said:

In my opinion, it made sure that Dean would have no part in Sam's bad decision to go to the cage anyway. It put all of the blame for that bad decision on Sam.

Dean got blamed

1) not answering his phone BEFORE Amara zapped him away so Sam couldn't wait any longer.

2) was blamed by Sam, God, and Lucifer for really not wanting to kill Amara  when he had the chance, even though he really couldn't. But it didn't matter. No one corrected anyone that he couldn't and they even had Dean implicitly agree. 

[Aeryn13]

Quote

 Usually, they are the same person

Which is honestly the only way it works for me because I can never not see the focal character as the main character and protagonist. Reacting and POV to that will never fit my criteria for a main character. It`s always gonna be secondary for me.

As for Devil`s Trap, that is undoubtedly a Dean-centric ep. However, there are episodes of the show when watched for the first time I`m sure it will look as if either Sam is the only main character or Cas or even maybe Crowley or Charlie.   

[shang yiet]

Dean has had plenty of focus and attention, yes. Supernatural was never all about Sam despite what some claim.

[AwesomO4000]

6 hours ago, CluelessDrifter said:

I'm curious.  How do you actually see Sam and Dean, because I think there's a lot about Sam's story lines that annoys you, but to me, those story lines happen because of the way Sam is.  Do you separate him from his story lines in some way?  Like, how can you relate to his flaws, but then think he gets shafted by the writing when it comes to said flaws?  What do you think his flaws are?  You can see the things he does sometimes are wrong . . . perhaps more wrong than even non-Sam fans might think, but it seems like what makes you annoyed is that Dean doesn't make those particular mistakes or comes out looking better in your opinion when he does make mistakes, and that's what lowers your opinion of Dean.  I almost imagine the way you see them as something like when one sibling gets in trouble and then says, but he did this or he did that about another sibling to shift the blame off of themselves and then gets upset when he or she is still in trouble?   I think it might help me to understand how you see the show and it's characters if I can see how you see the characters apart from their story lines.  

The main thing I have to explain is that I have little problem with the show through season 7. I have little nitpicks, but basically I'm fine with how the characters were presented and how things went. My problems started in season 8, starting with the Amelia storyline, and my main objection there was that that storyline was not something I thought Sam would do - at all. So for me I disagreed that those storylines happened "because of the way Sam is." Sam not looking for Dean and abandoning Kevin - in my opinion - made little sense based on what I saw as Sam's character development through the previous seven seasons. And for me, neither did Sam's actions concerning Benny. I mean I could maybe see a little guilt - though again considering Sam not looking for Dean and Kevin made little sense to me, the reason that he had to be guilty was already manufactured - but I thought he was written way over the top in his jealousy and actions. The brothers were being written as a ridiculous soap opera then, in my opinion. I can only guess that the writers decided they were messing up somehow, too, because the narrative entirely shifted tone in the second half of the season. I am also one who thought Sam's return to "I want normal" was somewhat silly since Sam hadn't talked about that seriously since like season 2, so where the hell was that coming from? And all the "I have something I never had before" was also annoying, because I saw how he felt about Jessica... and he just mentioned her at the beginning of season 8, so the writers retconing that important part of Sam's life bugged.

What I see Sam's flaws as are: his hubris, his sometimes propensity to get Machiavellian, his need to prove he's not tainted, his sometimes seeing himself as superior / special, and his propensity to sometimes get tunnel vision about a goal.

What I see Dean's flaws as are: his inferiority complex, his passive-aggressive tendencies, and his singlemindedness in how he sees things sometimes (his way to see things is the right way)

As for what bugs me about the Dean storylines is not that Dean doesn't "make those particular mistakes" that Sam does, but that as you said, that he does make those mistakes (or at least similar ones), but the consequences are different, and even sometimes reversed. A good example is the season 10 finale. Sam and Dean both do extremely questionable, risky things to save one another. Sam's instance is set up as bad, bad, bad (Dean tells him multiple times not to do it, there are warnings, etc.) and it starts an apocalypse. Dean's instance isn't set up as such, but in my opinion, should still logically be a very bad idea. But with Dean's consequences... nothing bad happens, and actually in the end, somehow even something good comes from it. Sure Billie makes threats, but in the end, she helps them in the fight against Amara. So really if you look at it, not only does Sam cause an apocalypse when he saves Dean, Dean doing the same thing to save Sam not only doesn't cause an apocalypse, but his actions actually have a benefit of helping to stop the apocalypse that Sam created. For me, how is that not somehow lopsided? And to make sure we understand the difference - i.e. when Dean does something it's okay*, but when Sam does it, it isn't - God himself tells us so.

Now this might not bug so much if that wasn't the only example. But it isn't. There's the Sam dark arc vs the Dean dark arc. Sam's dark arc has apocalyptic consequences. Similar thing for Castiel - his dark arcs also have apocalyptic consequences.  In Dean's dark arc, the major consequences end up being Sam's fault.  There's Gadreel. Dean does questionable things again to save Sam. Gadreel ends up being helpful, and Sam is made to look like the bad guy because he got angry about what Gadreel did to him (at least until Sam "sees the light.")

And Sam can't seem to win no matter what he does. Sam doesn't save Dean from purgatory - he's an awful bother. And Dean complains "How could you just abandon me. What were you thinking, Sam?" So Sam next time does want to save Dean. "No you can't do that it's too risky. What were you thinking, Sam?" and of course it starts an apocalypse. Sam is punished if he doesn't and punished if he does.

That is the thing that bothers me - that things that Dean does are painted in a positive light and he's just taking care of his family like a good brother should, but then when Sam does almost the exact same thing, the narrative punishes him for it. I'm not sure what the message is supposed to be from this.

* Yes, God wasn't taking into account Dean killing Death here, he was talking about Dean's being a demon (Dean's dark arc), but considering Sam also had a dark arc and the consequences were apocalyptic, for me it's still a Sam does it vs a Dean does it, it's treated differently thing.

6 hours ago, Aeryn13 said:

Season 5 was after Sam`s dark arc and he got validated in a way that negated him having gone on a dark arc in the first place. Because hey, if he truly was always the Chosen One and the problem was everyone else, especially Dean, being unsupportive, it wasn`t Sam being wrong in Season 4, he was unfairly victimzed into his wrong choices by Dean (and maybe Bobby a bit) being mean.

For me this isn't much different than that Gadreel ended up being a helpful good guy and if only Sam had forgiven Dean for lying to him all that time and just followed Dean's orders since Dean had the mark, Sam would have seen sooner that Dean was right about it all and maybe they could've worked together and Dean not died. That would be if I bought the premise that if only Dean had supported Sam in season 4 all would have gone well... which might have a point except for that if Dean had supported Sam in killing Lilith, Lucifer still would have risen, so I don't get the logic myself, but okay. I mean I guess Sam would have been the "Chosen One," but he probably would've been the Chosen One in that he would've become a demon of some sort and been Lucifer's vessel. I really don't see any other outcome from Dean supporting Sam in season 4.

6 hours ago, Aeryn13 said:

The dark MOC/demon arc had NO resolution. It had no redemption or anything flowing from it. It simply ended. Amara was kinda a largely unrelated story that came after. So I`m not seeing how Dean reaped the same storyline benefits as Sam here.

I don't get this reasoning. Amara happened as a direct result of the mark of Cain. She was even connected to Dean because of the mark of Cain. How is that not related? To me that would be like saying the YED storyline had nothing to do with the Lucifer storyline, because it was concluded before and was only tangentially related to it. In which case, if that is the case, then basically the YED storyline was mainly Dean's, because he's the one that concluded it.

6 hours ago, Myrelle said:

I think way back in S3 or 4(I can't remember which one) when Kripke announced that Jensen had earned a central role in the myth-arc was when the writers might have begun to realize that they were going to have do something more and give something more to both  actor and character than strictly the emo role.

Which is interesting considering that up until that point, the only character who had killed a major antagonist was Dean. So it kind of follows to me that Dean very much had a "central role" in the show and the mytharc from almost the begining. Just because Dean didn't have supernatural powers doesn't mean that the mytharc - which involved Azazel killing Mary and changing the family destiny - was not just as much about Dean as it was Sam... just differently. Sam may have been affected supernaturally by the YED, but Dean had been affected fundamentally by the YED in that the YED's influence had shaped the course of Dean's entire life - just differently than Sam's. Sure one was supernaturally flavored, but both were entwined with the mytharc and how Azazel affected both Sam and Dean. In my opinion anyway.

8 hours ago, Aeryn13 said:

However, I disagree it was a Gadreel arc. He was too much of a supporting player for me to count him as the central figure of his own arc.

Gadreel had lots of his own scenes with characters that weren't even Sam or Dean. He had his own motivations - which were explained in pretty good detail - and his own redemption plotline. He was likely onscreen at least as much as Castiel was (actually I would guess even more). Other characters discussed him quite a bit even when he wasn't onscreen. He was associated with Dean, Metatron, Sam, Castiel, and even his own peripheral characters. In my opinion, Gadreel's story was one of the central ones of the season, spanned the entire season, and effected much of the plotline of the season. I very much think he was a central figure of his own arc. I actually can't think of very many other characters that appeared in only one season who had more screentime than Gadreel did myself.

4 hours ago, catrox14 said:

2) was blamed by Sam, God, and Lucifer for really not wanting to kill Amara  when he had the chance, even though he really couldn't. But it didn't matter. No one corrected anyone that he couldn't and they even had Dean implicitly agree. 

This doesn't have much to do with the cage incident, but even though I agree this can be looked at as not quite fair, it was contradicted by things Sam said assuring that it wasn't Dean's fault ... And it turned out that killing Amara wasn't the way to go anyway, so even if Dean even somehow subconsciously didn't want to kill Amara, that turned out to be the right tactic, so Dean would be right. In other words, even if Dean didn't want to kill Amara, who's to say it wasn't Dean's instinct in the back of his mind telling Dean that killing Amara wasn't the way to go? Dean, in my opinion, is very much a man who follows his gut, and if his gut sometimes hesitated at killing Amara, there was probably a very smart reason for it.

I guess that's mainly why I don't see this as that big a deal. Now if trying to kill Amara had been the way to go, sure, then suggesting Dean wasn't trying hard enough would be somewhat of an insult. However, it was shown explicitly that trying to kill Amara actually ended up being a terrible, terrible failure, so in my opinion, if Dean hesitated - even on gut reaction - well that just shows me that Dean is probably smarter than everyone else, because, well huge failure. So who cares what the other idiots think? Obviously Dean would have been justified in having mixed feelings and qualms about killing Amara, but would be confused as to why and so might not know how to defend himself.

Edited August 31, 2017 by AwesomO4000
Because the season 10 finale is not the same as seaosn 11's

[Aeryn13]

Quote

I don't get this reasoning. Amara happened as a direct result of the mark of Cain. She was even connected to Dean because of the mark of Cain. How is that not related? To me that would be like saying the YED storyline had nothing to do with the Lucifer storyline, because it was concluded before and was only tangentially related to it.

It kinda of was for me, the Lucifer thing being rather loosely related to the Azazel/Psykids arc. Yes, they tied those together but from the plotholes it was rather obvious it wasn`t an entire, well-thought-out storyline from the start. To me the MOC and Amara share an even thinner bond. 

At the very least I can not see the Amara arc as a redemption for the MOC/demon arc, not in the way Season 4 and 5 worked for Sam.

Quote

 Just because Dean didn't have supernatural powers doesn't mean that the mytharc - which involved Azazel killing Mary and changing the family destiny - was not just as much about Dean as it was Sam... just differently. Sam may have been affected supernaturally by the YED, but Dean had been affected fundamentally by the YED in that the YED's influence had shaped the course of Dean's entire life - just differently than Sam's. Sure one was supernaturally flavored, but both were entwined with the mytharc and how Azazel affected both Sam and Dean.

Dean was just the hanger-on, though. John`s life was also affected by Azazel. But neither John nor Dean were any of his special kids. Sam was and thus was much higher in the hierarchy of that mytharc. The powers alone place a character in a higher tier in a supernatural show. Most of the time the human characters by default just look boring and superflouus. For me the bread and butter of supernaturally-themed shows is with the supernaturally-themed arcs. If not for those, it could be any random real life drama series. Which a lot of them bore me for a reason.   

[catrox14]

7 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

This doesn't have much to do with the cage incident, but even though I agree this can be looked at as not quite fair, it was contradicted by things Sam said assuring that it wasn't Dean's fault ...

It does have to do with the Cage incident which is why I brought it up.

Dean was in the park with Amara and his phone rang I think twice BEFORE she zapped him anywhere.  He actually ended up ignoring the call, and I remember after the episode aired there was a bit of a division as to whether or not Dean was CHOOSING to ignore Sam's call because he was facing the grown up and boobalicous Amara for the first time, or she had some kind of hold over him. She zaps him way, they have their tet-a-tet wherein Amara kisses Dean, without his consent, but then he leans into her kiss, which implied Dean maybe Dean was into it. Either way, the narrative never once addressed why Dean didn't answer his phone, it just showed that he didn't, which forced Sam to make a decision without Dean there to help him, which had been the plan.

I've always wondered what would Dean have done if he had been successful at killing Amara. Would have have been stranded whereever they were forever? LOL

[catrox14]

25 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

And it turned out that killing Amara wasn't the way to go anyway, so even if Dean even somehow subconsciously didn't want to kill Amara, that turned out to be the right tactic, so Dean would be right. In other words, even if Dean didn't want to kill Amara, who's to say it wasn't Dean's instinct in the back of his mind telling Dean that killing Amara wasn't the way to go? Dean, in my opinion, is very much a man who follows his gut, and if his gut sometimes hesitated at killing Amara, there was probably a very smart reason for it.

Dean killing Amara would have still saved the world though. So whether that was the smart plan, or not, Dean was involved in that plan. It was only happenstance that Pigeon Lady planted the seed that  she still loved her brother.  It's not like he was saying "NO DON'T KILL HER !! It's a bad plan".  He was on board with them killing her the whole time, just that HE couldn't do it himself because of his connection to her in whatever way that was. I don't really get that Dean's instincts had anything to do with not killing her. Her need to survive directed HIS actions, IMO. 

If anything, if their connection mattered then it was just Dean confirming to her what she already figured out. Maybe he helped her overcome her pride or something but Dean didn't put the idea in her head. He just asked her what she wanted which she kind of already figured out after talking to Pigeon Lady.  IMO, that is.

Edited August 30, 2017 by catrox14

[CluelessDrifter]

39 minutes ago, Aeryn13 said:

Which is honestly the only way it works for me because I can never not see the focal character as the main character and protagonist. Reacting and POV to that will never fit my criteria for a main character. It`s always gonna be secondary for me.

Never?  What about To Kill a Mocking Bird, The Shawshank Redemption, The Great Gatsby, The Terminator, etc.?

Edited August 30, 2017 by CluelessDrifter

[Aeryn13]

You can nominally get away with some things in a movie that just do not work in a television show. But for example the Terminator, I see Sarah Connor as the protagonist and focal character of the first movie. She is at the center of the plot and she goes on the character journey. In the second movie the progatonist and focal character is John. Either case, I have no problem with any divide there so those stories work for me.

[AwesomO4000]

3 minutes ago, Aeryn13 said:

At the very least I can not see the Amara arc as a redemption for the MOC/demon arc, not in the way Season 4 and 5 worked for Sam.

Maybe not, but for me that's because Dean had less to be redeemed for. What did Dean do in season 9 or 10 that was really anywhere near as awful as raising Lucifer? Most of the things Dean did during his dark arc were either proven to be the right tactic, helped, or said not to be as much of a problem as what Sam did. So not only was Dean somewhat supported in his decisions - Gadreel being redeemed, his being a demon not really hurting anything, for examples - he got to fix the apocalypse that was blamed on Sam (by God no less).

So on top of that, Dean is also supposed to also get to somehow use flashy powers - which according to the narrative are generally bad when Sam uses them - and have a huge flashy save? I think that would have made me want to throw something at the screen and seen the narrative as having Dean crossing the line into total Mary Sue-dom. Because as I outlined above, I already see the narrative lately going into when Dean does it, it's okay, but when Sam does it, it isn't, but I wouldn't want to see a Dean saves the day from Sam's screw up by safely and responsibly using powers that Sam can't generally handle, but Dean is just so awesome in comparison, he can not only use them, but nothing bad happens and he entirely saves the day... cue twittering birdies. No thank you. When Dean gets tagged with staring an apocalypse or two that kills 1000s of people, and so needs that kind of redemption, okay, but until then - no.

I personally thought that Dean being smart enough to see that there was another way and using his brain to diffuse the situation was a suitable conclusion to his arc. It made sense to me. He tried the mark of Cain and those dark powers, and that wasn't the way to go. The powers partially controlled him rather than the other way around. So Dean found another way, on his own terms, and that way was just as good if not better. And he still was the main component in saving the world. For me, that was perfect. Your miles obviously vary.

[catrox14]

5 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

personally thought that Dean being smart enough to see that there was another way and using his brain to diffuse the situation was a suitable conclusion to his arc. It made sense to me. He tried the mark of Cain and those dark powers, and that wasn't the way to go. The powers partially controlled him rather than the other way around. So Dean found another way, on his own terms, and that way was just as good if not better. And he still was the main component in saving the world. For me, that was perfect. Your miles obviously vary.

I just don't see where Dean actually found another way. Dean just realized Amara was confused AFTER she talked to Pigeon Lady. He literally asked her what she wanted and pinged that maybe she just wanted her brother. IMO that was a guess on Dean's part.

My current headcanon is that Dean he figured out he really didn't want to blow himself up and took a chance that Amara didn't really want to die either. 

[AwesomO4000]

21 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

Dean killing Amara would have still saved the world though. So whether that was the smart plan, or not, Dean was involved in that plan. It was only happenstance that Pigeon Lady planted the seed that  she still loved her brother.  It's not like he was saying "NO DON'T KILL HER !! It's a bad plan".  He was on board with them killing her the whole time, just that HE couldn't do it himself because of his connection to her in whatever way that was. I don't really get that Dean's instincts had anything to do with not killing her. Her need to survive directed HIS actions, IMO. 

If anything, if their connection mattered then it was just Dean confirming to her what she already figured out. Maybe he helped her overcome her pride or something but Dean didn't put the idea in her head. He just asked her what she wanted which she kind of already figured out after talking to Pigeon Lady.  IMO, that is.

Well, yes, then, because God was dying... but if Dean had succeeded in killing Amara before God was dying, that would have been bad (because of the balance thing).

As for Dean not having any influence, I disagree. As Amara told Dean, Dean was her representation of God's creation. Almost everyone else she ignored, consumed, or destroyed... either making them a part of herself or ruining it. So Dean continued to show Amara the good and the bad of what Chuck created, so she could understand it. She could interact with him without worrying about hurting him and learn... and through Dean she realized that there was good in what Chuck created. I think it was part of the reason she did agree to reconcile with Chuck. If Amara hadn't learned about what God created - or worse found Dean to be useless, awful, boring, etc. - and hadn't been interested, I think she just would've gone for the destruction. Partially through Dean, Amara decided what Chuck created was worth keeping. And that was happening before she met Pigeon Lady.

I agree that Amara was calling the shots. My point was that if Dean had been questioning - even just as a subconscious gut instinct - whether he should be trying to kill Amara or not, why would that have been a bad thing or reflected poorly on Dean? Because obviously, in the end, it was the better option not to kill her. That's all that I was saying. Not even if Dean did or not - since I don't know - but just that if he did, to me, that would've just been smart rather than any failing within Dean. My opinion on that.

42 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

Dean was in the park with Amara and his phone rang I think twice BEFORE she zapped him anywhere.  He actually ended up ignoring the call, and I remember after the episode aired there was a bit of a division as to whether or not Dean was CHOOSING to ignore Sam's call because he was facing the grown up and boobalicous Amara for the first time, or she had some kind of hold over him.

Oh, eww, and no nothing like that even crossed my mind as a possibility. Just no. I never doubted that it was Amara's influence rather than a choice Dean made.

43 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

Either way, the narrative never once addressed why Dean didn't answer his phone, it just showed that he didn't, which forced Sam to make a decision without Dean there to help him, which had been the plan.

I didn't need it to be addressed myself, since for me it had already established the completely one-sided relationship Amara and Dean had. And in my opinion, no, Sam could have and should have waited. Making one or two phone calls and then saying "oh well, I tried," an then going off on his own is Sam making his own damn idiotic and tunnel-visioned choice.

[catrox14]

16 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

Oh, eww, and no nothing like that even crossed my mind as a possibility. Just no. I never doubted that it was Amara's influence rather than a choice Dean made.

I didn't need it to be addressed myself, since for me it had already established the completely one-sided relationship Amara and Dean had. And in my opinion, no, Sam could have and should have waited. Making one or two phone calls and then saying "oh well, I tried," an then going off on his own is Sam making his own damn idiotic and tunnel-visioned choice.

I'm not saying you were saying that, just more that there was was not consensus that Dean wasn't kind of maybe into Amara. IMO, once the show had God, Sam and Lucifer, who's opinion seemed to matter in s11, all tell Dean he didn't really want to kill her that whatever inaction he had towards her was really now to be questioned and that his encounter with her in the park when Sam was calling, left Sam with no choice but to go with Rowena. If that had never been brought up then I would be more inclined towards Sam being an idiot in that situation, but they kind of reframed Dean in that moment so it reframed other things, for me. 

[Reganne]

1 hour ago, AwesomO4000 said:

Maybe not, but for me that's because Dean had less to be redeemed for. What did Dean do in season 9 or 10 that was really anywhere near as awful as raising Lucifer? Most of the things Dean did during his dark arc were either proven to be the right tactic, helped, or said not to be as much of a problem as what Sam did. So not only was Dean somewhat supported in his decisions - Gadreel being redeemed, his being a demon not really hurting anything, for examples - he got to fix the apocalypse that was blamed on Sam (by God no less).

 

I agree with this.  There wasn't anything Dean really needed to atone for.  The MOC/Demon Dean didn't do any major damage.  Though the darkness was released as a result of the MOC, the fault for releasing the darkness fell on Sam.  Like you said.... even God himself said so.  

 

As far as myth arcs, Personally, I don't think Sam has had a real one since season 9 and that one wasn't even that great IMO.  Yeah, he had a little bit of visions of the cage in season 11, but I feel it was wrapped up fairly fast and turned into more of a Cas myth arc.  

As far as Dean's myth arc's, I actually thought he had one is season 3 as well and part of season 4.  The whole time limit on his life and selling his soul.  Them trying to find a way to save Dean.  Then of course him being saved from hell and meeting Castiel.  Then you have the episode In the Beginning where Sam only appears for maybe a minute at the beginning of the episode.  Has there ever been an episode that Dean was ever only present at one moment for only a brief minute?  Yes, I know why they did it and TBH though I would like to have had more Sam in it, I can deal with it.  It's still a good episode.  It's just one of the reasons why I will never believe that the writers are solely focused on Sam's character and couldn't give two craps about Dean.  

[Aeryn13]

Quote

Then you have the episode In the Beginning where Sam only appears for maybe a minute at the beginning of the episode.  Has there ever been an episode that Dean was ever only present at one moment for only a brief minute? 

He didn`t have an episode in the show - so far - where he appeared only for a cameo but he did have multiple ones where he was so superflouus the amount of screentime was a complete waste. 

In the Beginning explained Sam`s backstory in the largest sense. So while it was a good Dean-episode, it wasn`t worthless for the overall exploration of Sam, it did reveal something about how the deal came about. 

There are several episodes of Season 12 where Dean was onscreen much more than Sam "In the Beginning" but every single second of that screentime was pointless. It wasn`t about Dean as a character, it didn`t move the overall plot forward and it didn`t move even the episodic plot forward. He did nothing noteworthy for the case. So screentime for screentimes sake? No thanks. 

Don`t know if anyone remembers the TV show Fringe. Peter, played by Josh Jackson, was my favourite character on the show and I generally loved it when he had lots of screentime and especially was involved in the arcs. And yet one of my very favourite episodes doesn`t feature him at all, very briefly a child version but the ep super-heavily revolves around his father Walter. But the backstory is all.about.Peter. So that ep is gold IMO. Obviously, I wouldn`t have wanted all the episodes to do this but one was fantastic.   

Or, to get back to SPN, take something like First Born. It is a splendid episode for Dean in my eyes because he gets a mytharc. One I spent every single episode after terrified it would be taken away from him again but he gets one here. And he has a decent amount of screentime, sure. But overall the episode is rather evenly split between Dean/Crowley/Cain and Sam/Cas. Both stories get play here. So it`s not the episode with the most (or the least) Dean-screentime but when he IS onscreen, it is for something meaningful and exciting. 

On the other hand the Vessel gives him another time travel ep - though I think screentime here is also evenly approriated between Sam/Lustiel and Dean on the sub. But this time the screentime is a fucking waste. Dean does nothing of note on the sub, he just witnesses other people`s heroics and then comes back. Woohoo.

Just being onscreen to be onscreen, even if it is lots of screentime in sheer minutes, is not doing it for me. If the material isn`t there. Heck, if there was an entire episode about Dean where Dean somehow is not onscreen, sign me up. Again, I don`t not want to see Jensen but I want something good and exciting for Dean, if he is present or not. Conversely, I don`t care if he is present if I get nothing out of it. And nope, stupid comedy filler and dumb humour doesn`t count as something in my book. 

[Reganne]

2 hours ago, Aeryn13 said:

He didn`t have an episode in the show - so far - where he appeared only for a cameo but he did have multiple ones where he was so superflouus the amount of screentime was a complete waste. 

In the Beginning explained Sam`s backstory in the largest sense. So while it was a good Dean-episode, it wasn`t worthless for the overall exploration of Sam, it did reveal something about how the deal came about. 

There are several episodes of Season 12 where Dean was onscreen much more than Sam "In the Beginning" but every single second of that screentime was pointless. It wasn`t about Dean as a character, it didn`t move the overall plot forward and it didn`t move even the episodic plot forward. He did nothing noteworthy for the case. So screentime for screentimes sake? No thanks. 

Don`t know if anyone remembers the TV show Fringe. Peter, played by Josh Jackson, was my favourite character on the show and I generally loved it when he had lots of screentime and especially was involved in the arcs. And yet one of my very favourite episodes doesn`t feature him at all, very briefly a child version but the ep super-heavily revolves around his father Walter. But the backstory is all.about.Peter. So that ep is gold IMO. Obviously, I wouldn`t have wanted all the episodes to do this but one was fantastic.   

Or, to get back to SPN, take something like First Born. It is a splendid episode for Dean in my eyes because he gets a mytharc. One I spent every single episode after terrified it would be taken away from him again but he gets one here. And he has a decent amount of screentime, sure. But overall the episode is rather evenly split between Dean/Crowley/Cain and Sam/Cas. Both stories get play here. So it`s not the episode with the most (or the least) Dean-screentime but when he IS onscreen, it is for something meaningful and exciting. 

On the other hand the Vessel gives him another time travel ep - though I think screentime here is also evenly approriated between Sam/Lustiel and Dean on the sub. But this time the screentime is a fucking waste. Dean does nothing of note on the sub, he just witnesses other people`s heroics and then comes back. Woohoo.

Just being onscreen to be onscreen, even if it is lots of screentime in sheer minutes, is not doing it for me. If the material isn`t there. Heck, if there was an entire episode about Dean where Dean somehow is not onscreen, sign me up. Again, I don`t not want to see Jensen but I want something good and exciting for Dean, if he is present or not. Conversely, I don`t care if he is present if I get nothing out of it. And nope, stupid comedy filler and dumb humour doesn`t count as something in my book. 

I do know that In the begging does eventually move into Mary's deal with Azazel which reflects Sam's storyline, but that is only really towards the end.  The bulk of the episode dealt with Dean meeting his mom and dad in their youth as well as his grandparents.  If the episode was only there for Sam's story, they could have done it in 5 minutes ........and actually that particular part was done in about 5 minutes of screen time.   It could have been a much shorter flashback if they solely wanted the focus to be on Sam and his story.  Instead the narrative took the time for Dean to meet and spend time with his parents.  That doesn't sound like a group of writers that don't care about Dean as a character to me.

Edited August 31, 2017 by Reganne

[Reganne]

2 hours ago, Aeryn13 said:

 

Don`t know if anyone remembers the TV show Fringe. Peter, played by Josh Jackson, was my favourite character on the show and I generally loved it when he had lots of screentime and especially was involved in the arcs. And yet one of my very favourite episodes doesn`t feature him at all, very briefly a child version but the ep super-heavily revolves around his father Walter. But the backstory is all.about.Peter. So that ep is gold IMO. Obviously, I wouldn`t have wanted all the episodes to do this but one was fantastic.   

 

 

I think the episode Peter from fringe isn't as comparable to In the beginning in the same sense.  That episode is one of my favorites as well.  The entire arc of that story revolves around Peters character.  His sickness as a child and Walters desperation to save him.  He does appear.... though as a child.  ITB is different to me bc only the very end of the episode deals with Sam's story.  Only when Dean is talking to Azazel and when Mary makes the deal.  It might have been building to that for the episode, but the entire focus wasn't on that.  More focus was put on Dean's interactions with his parents and even his grandparents.  Really the episode deals more with Mary's character than Sam's.  Her wanting out of the life and making the deal.  Dean begging her not to get out of bed in 1983.  

[Aeryn13]

Quote

I think the episode Peter from fringe isn't as comparable to In the beginning in the same sense. 

It`s not a perfect fit, I`ll grant you because it was more the culmination of all the little hints they had dropped about the secret Walter kept about Peter. Whereas on SPN we knew the demon came into Sam`s nusery from the start and then little hints started about Mary`s involvement which "In the Beginning" clarified. Also yes, the episode "Peter" focused solely on giving the backstory of Walter`s decision about Peter. Meanwhile ITB revealed backstory about Mary. Dean`s interaction in the past gave him - and the audience - a window about learning that backstory for the first time.

My main point, however, was more that I loved the episode despite Josh Jackson`s Peter not being in a single frame of it. That didn`t make it impossible for me to cherish the ep. Now if he had been absent or mostly absent for an episode without that having a point or somehow dealing with the character, that would have made me much more cranky. The actor had minimal screentime in the beginning of Season 4 when Peter was literally erased from the story but that, too, had a valid story point so I didn`t mind terribly much.

In the same vein, I think Sam having very minimal screentime in ITB was somewhat softened by the story of the episode revealing something about his character and his cameo parts having to do with his own mytharc. And I`m not denying that ITB was a Dean-heavy and Dean-positive episode. But the lack of screentime for Sam alone doesn`t mean to me it was a Sam-horrible episode because it still had points for him. I can name you plenty of episodes where Dean is onscreen a sizeable amount of time and those are crappy episodes for the character where not being in it would have been preferable. 

Quote

Instead the narrative took the time for Dean to meet and spend time with his parents.  That doesn't sound like a group of writers that don't care about Dean as a character to me.

Well, it was also Season 4. Back when I was so happy because I thought the writers had finally embraced Dean as a main character. I sure learned my lesson.

Actually, I do think that Kripke cared about Dean as a character. Not as much and not in the same way as Sam who was his avatar but I think he did care. He just saw not much wrong with making Dean second banana to Sam. Since Sam was special and the Chosen One and everything, getting to revolve around him might have been seen as an honor by the writers. Not by me but if you work from a different premise, I can see  that.

I can`t even count how many times I`ve read it described as "Supernatural is Sam`s story through Dean`s eyes" and I can`t describe how much I hate that, how insulting and belittling I think that is towards Dean. For me that descriptor marks them as a hierarchy with Sam on top and Dean deemed only important or interesting enough to tell Sam`s story. Like a narrator. Urgh. It doesn`t work for me, it doesn`t make me feel good about Dean`s place in the story and especially not that he is treated fairly or equally or carefully. 

And now with Dabb, well, I don`t for a second believe he cares about Dean. If I would have to classify his feelings from the episodes he wrote and how the show has been under his leadership, I`d say it was total indifference to mild loathing. He has a tendency to portray the character as weak and pathetic, inferior Sam-stan and portray Sam as super. 

Now he appears to be more infatuated with Lucifer than either brother but among them, it is Sam and then a whole lot of nothing. Then Cas and a whole of nothing and somewhere buried deep down is Dean.  

Edited August 31, 2017 by Aeryn13

[catrox14]

I think In The Beginning is an  apt comparison with that episode of  Fringe. For me, even though the reveal wasn't until the end of the episode as to WHY Dean had been sent back in time, that reveal reframed the entire episode as to being ABOUT Sam as much as Dean especially with showing Sam going off with Ruby immediately followed up with an episode that showed that Dean likely wasn't going to be able to stop Sam no matter what.

[catrox14]

16 minutes ago, Aeryn13 said:

I can`t even count how many times I`ve read it described as "Supernatural is Sam`s story through Dean`s eyes" and I can`t describe how much I hate that, how insulting and belittling I think that is towards Dean.

I've never understood that description myself.   To me, both characters POV are present in alternating variants for better or worse. 

[Reganne]

3 hours ago, Aeryn13 said:

 

And now with Dabb, well, I don`t for a second believe he cares about Dean. If I would have to classify his feelings from the episodes he wrote and how the show has been under his leadership, I`d say it was total indifference to mild loathing. He has a tendency to portray the character as weak and pathetic, inferior Sam-stan and portray Sam as super. 

 

I don't see it that way.  I think if he were trying to raise Sam as this great character, he would give him better myth arcs which the character hasn't seen since season 9.... which was a rather weak storyline at that.

3 hours ago, catrox14 said:

I've never understood that description myself.   To me, both characters POV are present in alternating variants for better or worse. 

For me, I see mostly Dean's perspective.  For example... when Dean comes out of Hell. . We follow him.  When Sam comes out of Hell we are following Dean and waiting for Sam to come for him.  Same with Dean getting out of purgatory.  We follow his character.  We don't follow Sam's character through his addiction.  We see bits and pieces of flashbacks all disjointed.  

[catrox14]

12 minutes ago, Reganne said:

For me, I see mostly Dean's perspective.  For example... when Dean comes out of Hell. . We follow him.  When Sam comes out of Hell we are following Dean and waiting for Sam to come for him.  Same with Dean getting out of purgatory.  We follow his character.  We don't follow Sam's character through his addiction.  We see bits and pieces of flashbacks all disjointed.

I guess I should have been more clear. I was speaking of overall for the entire series that it's shifting POV throughout the series.

[SueB]

Warning: This seems like a non-sequitor as I started it yesterday at 8:30 am .... then life happened... but this was in response to all the "redemption" discussion.

 

Although I patently disagree with the notion that the writers favor one character at the expense of the other, I figure I better keep my response here because of the lens so many view the show through. I suspect discussion about fairness may ensue.

Personally, I think they've had dark arcs for both characters but the redemption element has been far different for each.

Sam's redemption arc, IMO, was straight forward.  Unwilling child of destiny, he tried to make lemonade out of the lemons and it went really bad on him.  His own sense of lack of control in his life caused him to cling to he power his "special" status gave him.  And he was legitimately "the smartest kid in the room" when it came to academics.  So he was perfectly primed, IMO, to have his fall from grace.  And his fall was not killing Lillith, it was the addiction to demon blood and his faith in his own reasoning.  He willfully ignored what Dean and Bobby said and trusted his own judgement.   And he was, again IMO, addicted to demon blood not only due to the physical effects* but because it finally gave him power that allowed him to be the one making the decisions versus being tossed about like a pawn.  And he was the classic tragic hero in those first five seasons.  His error in judgement was to think HE had to be the one to kill Lillith. Sam's redemption arc was not just the "jump into the pit" moment but it was him coming to terms with himself, his anger, and starting to trust not only others but himself again. At the start of S5 he was very gun shy about making any decisions. But as Dean started to fall into despair, Sam was able to trust his own judgement again and make some good calls.  Specifically, taking Dean with him to rescue Adam and then getting everyone's input on saying "yes" to Lucifer. I also love that moment in "Sam, Interrupted" when he realized he was angry, all the time.  Sam did a ton of self-introspection in S5 IMO. Many people see Sam's "redemption" as that moment of self-sacrifice at the end of Swan Song, but I see his calibration of his own judgement/motivation as more important. Star Wars Analogy: Anyone can throw Emperor Palpatine over the railing.  Vader's real redemption was rejecting the Dark Side and believing the Good Side of the Force could prevail.  For Sam; he didn't jump into the pit to get revenge on Lucifer for all the shit he'd put his family through, he jumped into the pit because it was the only option left he could see and even though he knew he was shaky on control, he figured he needed to give it a try.  

Dean's redemption, OTOH, was not, IMO, taking on the Mark of Cain.  In fact, that was making another REALLY bad decision.  Dean WANTED a quick redemption.  He wanted to get the special blade to kill a Big Bad and thus redeem himself from getting Kevin killed.  But that wasn't root cause for what he needed to have redemption for.  Kevin's death was the obvious and permanent damage for his disrespect for Sam's agency, his lack of trust in Cas/Sam/Kevin, and unwillingness to lose Sam. Root cause that needed redemption was Dean's abandonment and control issues that drove him stuff an Angel into Sam's body.  Like Sam, his issues sourced from his childhood trauma, but he never overcame it.  Kripke "wrapped" this character issue up by having Dean 'let' Sam jump into the pit.  Implying that his new family (Lisa and Ben) would eventually heal him.  Gamble, correctly IMO, made the year of Sam in the pit so miserable for Dean he doubled down on the panic of losing Sam again. And it simmered in the background through the dark days of S7 and into S8 when Dean thought he'd go out first, boots on, doing the trials.  But instead Sam did the trials and Dean was forced to watch his worst nightmare come true -- Sam negotiating with Death in his mind, BEGGING to not be brought back.  So he desperately helped stuff an Angel in Sam rather than lose him.  But his real fall from grace was not the snap decision on the Angel, it was keeping it a secret from Sam (as well as Cas). He trusted NO ONE.  [Note: IMO, Dean's rationalizing that Sam would reject Ezekiel (Gadreel) was more compelling and kind to Dean as a character than Sam's reasoning for drinking the demon blood.  Sam rationalized that Dean was not strong enough to do what needed to be done.  And you know, Dean had SAID he wasn't strong enough to Cas at the end of "On the Head of a Pin."  But Dean's rationalizing is more sympathetic because 1) we, the audience, don't want Sam to die, and 2) we, the audience, had more faith in Dean then EITHER Sam or Dean.]   But Dean willfully ignored what he knew to be true -- he KNEW Sam would be pissed at Dean making a choice for him and he did it anyway. He also rationalized that Sam committed to living (in the scene in Sacrifice) and that it wouldn't be fair for Sam to check out - AGAIN - on Dean.  Dig deeper and you find Dean's abandonment and control issues re what's driving him.  So when it all goes to hell and Kevin dies, Dean is wracked with guilt.  But unlike Sam, Dean remains unrepentant for his decision.  He doubles down on a bad decision by going for a quick fix with the Mark of Cain.  And THAT was a wholesale disaster for the character.  Dean's biggest fear, post-Hell, as that he really was a monster -- better at slitting throats than sitting at a family dinner table.  And Dean had to spend a year and a half fighting that issue before the Mark was finally removed.  He killed that kid in #Thinman. He was rejected by Sam (in that fugly argument in The Purge). Yes he killed Abbadon but that was a blip - he didn't get Metatron.  Instead, the doubling down turned him into a demon - his WORST nightmare.  So Dean had to spend a full year trying to control his inner monster-on-steroids.  And he learned a LOT through the process.  For one thing, he learned to lean on Sam.  He gave up control to Sam when he was freshly de-demonized.  He trusted Sam's judgement.  Yes, he struggle. Yes, he slaughtered Randy and the Rapists. He took out the Stynes. But his moment of redemption just STARTED when he accepted Sam's judgement that inside he was a force for good and he killed Death rather than Sam.  The real redemption took place in the painful months after the Darkness was released when he and Sam came to terms with respecting each other's decisions and Dean was left in a powerless position (he couldn't kill Amara).  Dean accepted, albeit briefly, that Cas could make his decision to let Lucifer ride him and that Sam could take on the Mark.  But by the end of S11, Dean is no longer keeping secrets from Sam and he's letting go of controlling other people's decisions.  Unlike Sam, who had a big flashy "jump into the pit" moment to finish his redemption arc.  Dean's redemption arc started with a violent rejection of "I am inherently evil" and end with a gradual letting go of control and trusting other people's judgments.  

So.. by the end of S11 - Sam and his anger issues are pretty much resolved and Dean and his self-loathing is gone.  And in S12, we see BOTH Sam and Dean honest about their weaknesses but openly saying "we save the world".  

Bottom Line for the TL: DR: So, IMO, both characters got MEATY redemption arcs but the approach was different.  Depending on your POV, you may favor one approach over the other.  Personally, I though both were well done.  I think Sam's was a little rushed (due to the Kripke 5 year plan) but ultimately both are currently in a REALLY good spot.  

[Pondlass1]

Some great reads, folks.  Thanks.

In a nutshell for me I think they (the network, the writers, The Powers That Be, etc) have gradually shifted what started out as a dark, gritty, tragic story into a more lightweight non-stressful trip thru the tulips featuring stereotypes and caricatures.  Being a hunter is nothing these days.  In fact, everyone wants to be one. (I even think there's an ap!)

Thank goodness for super talented actors who know their characters inside and out and a super loyal fan base.  It's certainly not the writing that's driving this success story.  Not any more.

[Jeddah]

37 minutes ago, Pondlass1 said:

Some great reads, folks.  Thanks.

In a nutshell for me I think they (the network, the writers, The Powers That Be, etc) have gradually shifted what started out as a dark, gritty, tragic story into a more lightweight non-stressful trip thru the tulips featuring stereotypes and caricatures.  Being a hunter is nothing these days.  In fact, everyone wants to be one. (I even think there's an ap!)

Thank goodness for super talented actors who know their characters inside and out and a super loyal fan base.  It's certainly not the writing that's driving this success story.  Not any more.

I feel the opposite. The show has always been gritty, but I thought there was a lot more levity in earlier seasons. The boys used to laugh a lot more. I don't understand the non-stressful complaint at all. The stakes were still incredibly high last season. I definitely got stressed out and worried about characters while watching, but that may just be me!

I don't have major complaints about the writing for recent seasons, and I think some seasons were a lot worse. Every season has some less than stellar episodes, but overall I wouldn't watch if I consistently hated the writing. I think there are always missed opportunities and scenes I wish had been written. For example, I wish the writers had included a reunion scene between Sam, Dean, and Mary right after Sam was rescued at the beginning of Season 12. But to me Dean's reunion scene with Mary and then the scene of Sam giving Mary John's journal were both great, emotional scenes. 

I think it's a fascinating show, and I give a lot of credit to the writers for that. Obviously, Jensen and Jared do deserve enormous credit! I just don't see the terrible writing that other people see. But this  Board would be really boring if we all agreed!

[Pondlass1]

We all see things differently. It's what makes the world go around after all.  And,yes, life would be pretty ho hum if we all agreed 

But I don't get that exciting tight stressed feeling in my chest anymore now. Maybe the show has been going too long? They'll  be resurrected and celestially healed. Amara went nowhere... the BMOL were just a Micky Mouse outfit, all mouth and trousers.

But there are many supernaturally themed series coming down the pipeline and they'll be pushing the envelope.  Still,  they don't have the iconic and forever fascinating Sam and Dean Winchester ( babysitting this season, but still badass....... I hope)

[ILoveReading]

For me what's missing is a real sense of danger.  I just don't feel it anymore.  None of the big bads are really developed enough to really feel like a real threat.  Amara really just wanted a hug, Lucifer has become a joke, demons are a dime a dozen.   Nothing feels personal anymore.  Its feels like the writers don't care about anything expect getting an episode on screen.   They care nothing about the shows history, and don't even seem to talk to each other. When Sam can suddenly walk off bullet wounds and can raise himself from the dead, it isn't Cas that kills the tension.

Hunting can be done with by anyone by downloading an app. I remember when Dean used to discourage people from hunting because it was a long, hard lonely life that most likely ends in death.  Now its like here's a gun go get 'em.   Hunting isn't dark and gritty anymore.  Anyone can do it. 

I will give them credit for coming up with some good ideas but the execution of those ideas are lacking.  It seems half the time they aren't interested in the ideas they come up with or don't know what do to them them or they're too interested in doing their own thing

I know that Jared and Jensen talk about trust (and Im sure there is a fair amount) but to me its coming across as laziness on part of the writers.  Souless Sam was all over the place.  One minute he wasn't supposed to have feelings or care about anything, and in the next does.  Why does Souless Sam suddenly want Dean back?  If he truly didn't care he would have walked away at the end of the first ep without a care in the world.  They had no clue what to do with Demon Dean.  They planned nothing.  I liked that they let Jensen interpret the character but what was the purpose?  No one at comic con could even agree how long Dean had been gone.  I heard everything from a week to month.  There was no story there, and no follow up.

I didn't like the trial storyline but there is a notable difference in that and the Mark.  Before the trial story line started we had multiple articles explaining Sam was going to take them on and how it would effect him.  Then in every episode Trialburculosis was referenced and we saw it building and it effecting Sam more and more.  The writers seemed to be on the same page.

With the Mark, when Dean took it on it was barely referenced for five episodes, and I'm still confused as to exactly what it was.  The mythology kept changing to suit a particular's writers whims.  They want Sam to have the mark, so suddenly being worth is just never having it before.   They want it to have corrupted Lucifer so suddenly the origin changed.  Despite, having to contently kill, I found Sam far more out of control then Dean at the end.  Dean went multiple episodes and I really didn't see it effect him all that much. 

Amara, again.  No one really knew what the connection meant.   The so-called bond became very one sided at the end.  Same with the Brits.  The set up at the end of s11 seems to be the Brits wanting Sam and Dean to answer for all the times they screwed up.  But then suddenly, they want Sam's cooperation.  Shooting and torturing someone seems to the best way to accomplish that.  Then despite, them screwing up majorly in front of Sam, he's like '"Yeah, you guys are awesome sign me up."  That made no sense.  Then Dean is written as a doormat for the rest of the season, who lost every skill he had. 

Ketch was an interesting character but again underdeveloped.  Imagine a cat and mouse game with him coming after Dean because Dean refused to play by his rules..  No, instead he barely knew the Winchesters names.  This is what I mean by lack of a personal connection to the bad guys. 

TL:DR version- basically the writers have gotten lazy, lack communication skills and don't know how to build tension or properly tell a story.  (al my opinion of course). 

Edited September 1, 2017 by ILoveReading

[Katy M]

4 minutes ago, ILoveReading said:

For me what's missing is a real sense of danger.

I find that the danger is missing because why wouldn't Cas bring any given person back to life.  Or some other angel. Or they'll go into the pits of hell to rescue them themselves. For me, anymore, you need an explanation as to why anyone stays dead.  It's just so arbitrary.   Like Charlie.  She couldn't have been that far from Cas.  Why on earth would the boys burn her body instead of rushing her to Cas?

[ILoveReading]

10 minutes ago, Katy M said:

I find that the danger is missing because why wouldn't Cas bring any given person back to life.  Or some other angel. Or they'll go into the pits of hell to rescue them themselves. For me, anymore, you need an explanation as to why anyone stays dead.  It's just so arbitrary.   Like Charlie.  She couldn't have been that far from Cas.  Why on earth would the boys burn her body instead of rushing her to Cas?

It's going to get worse this season, because

Spoiler

of Jack being there all the time.  Why wouldn't they ask him to at least attempt to save Cas

[DittyDotDot]

28 minutes ago, ILoveReading said:

None of the big bads are really developed enough to really feel like a real threat.  Amara really just wanted a hug, Lucifer has become a joke, demons are a dime a dozen.

I actually think the problem is the bads are over-developed these days which takes the edge off them and makes them less scary. Look at Yellow Eyes, most of what we know of him now, including his name, was learned after he died. What made him scary in S1 and S2 was that we didn't know anything about.

Amara, on the other hand, we watched her "grow up" and we've listened to her and Lucifer's monologues and said tales of woe over and over and over again; We know who they are, we know what they want and we know they are mostly hot air. The BMoL actually seemed formidable early in S12 because we didn't know anything about them or what they wanted, but the more they showed us of them, the more it was clear they really were pretty lame. Additionally, the thing about Lucifer is, they already defeated him one time previously, so it really doesn't seem like he's that big of a threat. Plus, we know they have God on their side even if he's absent at the moment.

TBH, I think they need to scale it all back and the less we see--or hear--of the bad guys, the better.

Edited September 1, 2017 by DittyDotDot

[Wayward Son]

24 minutes ago, Katy M said:

I find that the danger is missing because why wouldn't Cas bring any given person back to life.  Or some other angel. Or they'll go into the pits of hell to rescue them themselves. For me, anymore, you need an explanation as to why anyone stays dead.  It's just so arbitrary.   Like Charlie.  She couldn't have been that far from Cas.  Why on earth would the boys burn her body instead of rushing her to Cas?

This is what I liked about the empty as referenced by Billy. I liked the idea of it making death something to be taken seriously again on the show, as the brothers (and the audience) were living with the knowledge they were on their final life. That the next time they died they'd be placed In a realm there was no coming back from.

season 13 spoiler 

Spoiler

Sadly, that's about to be taken away again, since it sounds like Cas will be in the empty and conveniently raised from the dead. 

 

Dont get me wrong, I love Cas and am glad he's coming back. I just wish it wasn't from the supposedly impossible to escape Empty. 

[ILoveReading]

1 minute ago, Wayward Son said:

This is what I liked about the empty as referenced by Billy. I liked the idea of it making death something to be taken seriously again on the show, as the brothers (and the audience) were living with the knowledge they were on their final life. That the next time they died they'd be placed In a realm there was no coming back from.

season 13 spoiler 

  Hide contents

Sadly, that's about to be taken away again, since it sounds like Cas will be in the empty and conveniently raised from the dead. 

 

Dont get me wrong, I love Cas and am glad he's coming back. I just wish it wasn't from the supposedly impossible to escape Empty. 

How many times did Billie threaten them that this was it, she wasn't going to deal or help them only to make a deal or help them.

Another disappointment that that favor Dean owed Billie was just dropped.

[catrox14]

2 minutes ago, ILoveReading said:

Another disappointment that that favor Dean owed Billie was just dropped.

Oh, that's true! I totally forgot about that.

[ILoveReading]

11 minutes ago, Wayward Son said:

This is what I liked about the empty as referenced by Billy. I liked the idea of it making death something to be taken seriously again on the show, as the brothers (and the audience) were living with the knowledge they were on their final life. That the next time they died they'd be placed In a realm there was no coming back from.

season 13 spoiler 

  Reveal hidden contents

Sadly, that's about to be taken away again, since it sounds like Cas will be in the empty and conveniently raised from the dead. 

 

Dont get me wrong, I love Cas and am glad he's coming back. I just wish it wasn't from the supposedly impossible to escape Empty. 

Responding to your spoiler comments in the spoiler thread.

[RulerofallIsurvey]

1 hour ago, Jeddah said:

I feel the opposite.

Word to your entire post! :)

1 hour ago, Pondlass1 said:

But I don't get that exciting tight stressed feeling in my chest anymore now.

46 minutes ago, ILoveReading said:

For me what's missing is a real sense of danger.  I just don't feel it anymore. that much. 

I haven't really felt that sense of danger since the first time one of them got 'killed' and brought back to life.  I think that was in S1.  Since then, it's never worried me - well, that and I was binging on Netfllix and knew there were several seasons to go, so they definitely weren't going to die permanently anyway.  :)  Maybe it was different in the early seasons for those who watched 'live' and had to suffer through the summer hiatus with the cliff hanger.  

It's different now for a couple reasons, imo: 1. the show's been on so long, I think the viewers pretty much know that one of the main leads is not going to be in serious mortal danger.  Even the cast didn't have that assurance in the early days. 2. Other new viewers, perhaps like me who binge watch on Netflix, also miss out on the sense of 'danger' from the early seasons for the exact reason I did: there are 12 seasons to get through.  You know they ain't gonna die permanently or stay in hell, etc.  

Neither of which is the fault of the writers or showrunner, imo.  I do agree with @DittyDotDot that the scariest villains are the ones you know the least about.  

[catrox14]

I think the big bads after s10, were both too big and powerful and woefully underdeveloped which is pretty hard to do.   Amara was resentful and angry, just like a human.  BFD! I couldn't have cared less about their stupid family drama.

It had all the earmarks of the pantheon of Greek and Roman gods who had family squabbles. I really would have loved to see a reveal that Chuck and Amara were not REALLY GOD and GODDESS, but instead they were just A god and A goddess, who had usurped GOD or that GOD sent for GOD reasons to serve as GOD'S avatars, but alas I guess that wasn't the case. IMO the Amara/Chuck is God SL was worse than the Leviathan. There I've said it.  I feel better for it. LOL

[CluelessDrifter]

6 hours ago, SueB said:

Dean's redemption, OTOH, was not, IMO, taking on the Mark of Cain.  In fact, that was making another REALLY bad decision.  Dean WANTED a quick redemption.  He wanted to get the special blade to kill a Big Bad and thus redeem himself from getting Kevin killed.  

While I agree with a lot of what you said, I think where we disagree is that:

1) I agree that Sam was introspective in Season 5, but I think for me, it was more about overcoming his addiction and identifying the route cause of said addiction, so that by the end of the season he was in a relatively 'good place' and 'in his right mind' - back to being Sam again - and was at that point ready for redemption through his act of self-sacrifice.  Not a massive difference from what you said, but slightly different.  

2)  I don't think Dean wanted redemption when he took the Mark, let alone a quick redemption by taking the Mark.  I don't think Dean thought he could be redeemed, which is a good starting point for a redemption arc, but a redemption arc is often a last chance for a character after everything they have done wrong, and taking the MoC certainly wasn't that.  It was another thing to add to his list of bad decisions - so on this part we agree.  I think that the set up for Dean's redemption began when he decided to go to Death to find a solution for his MoC problems, but Death put up another road block by saying that Dean had to kill Sam first, so I agree that Dean's redemption started with his choice not to sacrifice Sam in the moments before the Darkness was released, but I disagree that it was because he took on board what Sam said about him being a force for 'good.'  While it offers a nice kind of symmetry, since Dean took the MoC not long after Sam said that Dean thought he did more good than bad, but that that wasn't true; I think it was simply a combination of Sam and those family photos breaking through his MOC-hazed-mind, however briefly.  I'm not even sure that Dean knew where he was going to swing that scythe when he swung it, because he seemed surprised when he killed Death and afterwards said, 'I think I just killed Death,' as if it hadn't been his intention.  From a more practical standpoint, sacrificing an 'innocent', is never the right call to make for a redemption to be had, even if it's for the greater good (Unless it's self-sacrifice), and that's why they couldn't have Dean sacrifice Sam in order to be redeemed.     

Edited September 1, 2017 by CluelessDrifter

[catrox14]

1 hour ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

It's different now for a couple reasons, imo: 1. the show's been on so long, I think the viewers pretty much know that one of the main leads is not going to be in serious mortal danger.  Even the cast didn't have that assurance in the early days. 2. Other new viewers, perhaps like me who binge watch on Netflix, also miss out on the sense of 'danger' from the early seasons for the exact reason I did: there are 12 seasons to get through.  You know they ain't gonna die permanently or stay in hell, etc.  

Neither of which is the fault of the writers or showrunner, imo.

The writers and showrunners are the ones that are creating the show and the storylines and the deaths and resurrections. I guess I don't understand what you mean by it's not their fault.

[RulerofallIsurvey]

1 minute ago, catrox14 said:

The writers and showrunners are the ones that are creating the show and the storylines and the deaths and resurrections. I guess I don't understand what you mean by it's not their fault.

It's not their fault that the viewership has changed due to the show being on for 13 years and on Netflix on which it's easy to binge - and a viewer knows before ever starting S1E1 that neither of the Winchesters die permanently for 13 more years at least.  Viewers watching 'live' in the early seasons wouldn't have had that assurance.  It makes for a different perception/perspective on the part of the viewer, I think.  I believe that SPN could write and film an episode that was every bit as suspenseful as an early season ep, but the viewers themselves are not going to be as on the edge of their seat because their perspective has changed for the reasons I stated.  

[Aeryn13]

Quote

but I disagree that it was because he took on board what Sam said about him being a force for 'good.'  While it offers a nice kind of symmetry, since Dean took the MoC not long after Sam told him that Dean thought he did more good than bad, but that that wasn't true; I think it was simply a combination of Sam and those family photos breaking through his MOC-hazed-mind, however briefly.  I'm not even sure that Dean knew where he was going to swing that scythe when he swung it, because he seemed surprised when he killed Death and afterwards said, 'I think I just killed Death,' as if it hadn't been his intention.  From a more practical standpoint, sacrificing an 'innocent', is never the right call to make for a redemption to be had, even if it's for the greater good (Unless it's self-sacrifice), and that's why they couldn't have Dean sacrifice Sam in order to be redeemed.     

For me that entire scene was a mess. Death was so stupid, he basically died with the Darwin Award in his hands. And if Dean believed that speech, I`d think he had gone full on crazy. "You`ll never hear me say you are anything but good" was one of the most ridiculous, nonsensical statemtents ever in the show. I - and I`m sure Dean as well - could perfectly remember the times when Sam already said what he claimed he`d never say. So I highly doubt such flimsy nonsense changed Dean`s mind. IMO he just couldn`t overcome his apparent prime impulse: Sam above everything. 

Quote

Then Dean is written as a doormat for the rest of the season, who lost every skill he had. 

That`s why "Dean learns to trust others and let go and lean on others" is not working for me as any kind of redemption or even good development. He is too often a doormat as it is. So that is the opposite of the development I want him to have. Run in the other direction, Dean. Denounce doormat-dom, grow a spine and keep it. And whenever he does trust and open up, it ends up biting him in the ass.

I reckon the writers dropped Dean having leadership skills and will keep him as General Sam`s obedient flunky from now on - well, the one who "acquiesces" when Sam lectures him on the whatever du jour - so this is probably a moot point but my dream development would have been for Dean to realize that he actually always has had good leadership skills and was perfectly capable of taking other ideas into account and work in a team-scenario.

Alas, we got not a word of acknowledgment from him on the topic of leadership in 12.22.   

Quote

 I believe that SPN could write and film an episode that was every bit as suspenseful as an early season ep, but the viewers themselves are not going to be as on the edge of their seat because their perspective has changed for the reasons I stated.  

Baring knowing an actor wants to leave, I`m pretty confident in the main characters surviving any kind of danger on any show I watch. So, I wasn`t truly worried and on the edge of my seat about Dean potentially "dying" back in Faith in Season 1 either. Or that he wouldn`t come back from hell. In fact, I was ecstatic that he died and went there for story reasons. I was never on the edge of my seat about that. 

And the writers do know they are going in the 13th Season. They must know it`s nigh impossible to keep a show fresh and energetic on the same level than it was in Season 1 and 2 for example. But IMO they are not even trying. Singer actually saying they pride themselves on not repeating stories and keeping it fresh is a joke. Do they honestly believe they are not repeating themselves? Do they honestly insultingly think viewers are too thick to notice? Or that it is not repetetion if you change just minor details? Maybe. But I`m not letting them off the hook for that. And I certainly don`t think the problem is either the viewing audience or how shows are viewed these days.  

Edited September 1, 2017 by Aeryn13