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

[ILoveReading]

20 minutes ago, Aeryn13 said:

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. 

Agree.  I don't think Dean not killing Sam was anything but his programming kicking in.

I don't really see any redemption because Sam put himself on a pedestal in s4.  It's not redemption to send that message that he was right all along and he really does belong on that pedestal.  I don't see it as redemption for Dean about him learning endless lessons about how wrong he is to treat Sam like he does.  I can think of far more examples of Dean giving into Sam than I can of Sam actually listening to Dean.  IMO, its Sam that needs to learn to work in a team setting more than Dean. 

I don't see that Dean's learned to value himself.  If you value yourself you don't let people treat you like Dean did all last season.  Despite being the one that was lied too all season, Dean was the one that did all the apologizing and compromising. 

Also if Dean valued himself he'd realize that his past and his trauma mattered, but when he has the perfect opportunity to actually voice those hurts, its still all about how much he failed Sam and how much Sam's been through.  \

Dean still doesn't think he really matters.  So IMO, his self loathing is still intact and even seems to have regressed from the first part of the season.

20 minutes ago, Aeryn13 said:

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.

Unfortunately, I see the show treating this as yet another very special lesson that Dean needed to learn. 

Edited September 1, 2017 by ILoveReading

[catrox14]

1 hour ago, CluelessDrifter said:

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.

FWIW, Dean took on the Mark before Sam told him that. He took on the Mark in First Born, had it when he took off on his own at the end of First Born, had it when Sam told him he did not want to be brothers anymore in Sharp Teeth, and when he told Dean he did more bad than good in The Purge.  Sam words in the Purge had nothing to do with why Dean took on the Mark.

IMO, the MoC arc was never a redemption arc for Dean, it was a redemption arc for Sam. Dean will never think saving Sam is a thing he should be redeemed for because that has been his purpose throughout his life. That's why he said he would do it again. It's truthful.

IMO, Dean took on the Mark because it was the only way he knew of to make up for his terrible judgement about trusting "Ezekiel" which got Kevin killed.  He couldn't go after Gadreel because he couldn't find him. Crowley came around with plan B with Abaddon. Dean had a personal and profession reason to go after Abaddon. IMO that wasn't redemption at all. It was vengeance and mission, because killing Abaddon only made the effects of the Mark worse. 

Maybe the redemption was being the soul bomb, but even that I question as redemption.  I don't know. I'm conflicted on that one.

Edited September 1, 2017 by catrox14
Sorry, the quote was not from Aeryn. I forgot the quote thingy doesn't take it from the original comment.

[CluelessDrifter]

27 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

FWIW, Dean took on the Mark before Sam told him that.

You're absolutely right.  I put 'before' instead of 'after'.  Funny how one little word can change the entire meaning of a sentence.  :)

[catrox14]

Just now, CluelessDrifter said:

You're absolutely right.  I put 'before' instead of 'after'.  Funny how one little word can change the entire meaning of a sentence.  :)

Indeed. It changes my perception of your opinion in general. I was thinking that if you thought Dean took it on after Sam's words then I can see why you think it was a redemption for Dean to make Sam's words be wrong. Because otherwise I don't see where Dean was trying to redeem himself for his decision to save Sam. Anyway, thanks for clarifying!

[CluelessDrifter]

1 hour ago, catrox14 said:

Indeed. It changes my perception of your opinion in general. I was thinking that if you thought Dean took it on after Sam's words then I can see why you think it was a redemption for Dean to make Sam's words be wrong. Because otherwise I don't see where Dean was trying to redeem himself for his decision to save Sam. Anyway, thanks for clarifying!

No, I don't think Dean was trying to redeem himself for not killing Sam.  To be redeemed, you can't try to do it, because you can't do it for the purpose of redemption.  It has to be selfless and not calculated in any way.  It has to be simply doing the right thing for the sake of it, not so you can get something out of it.  Or do you mean save Sam using Gadreel?  I don't think his redemption was for that either (I think I've written that a few times, so I want to make sure you're reading me right and your perception is based on what my real opinion is).  I think it was supposed to be for the things he did while he had the MoC.  

 

1 hour ago, catrox14 said:

IMO, the MoC arc was never a redemption arc for Dean 

No, the MoC wasn't the redemption arc, IMO.  It's what necessitated the redemption arc.  The problem is that they kept him from going too dark.  While he was a demon, they made a point of saying he needed to pick a side, because he hadn't.  His intentions weren't good, but his actions 'saved' Lester's soul.  When the waitress turned him down, he didn't react in any way that one could describe as 'good,' (Or like Dean at all), but I think he meant it when he asked her to come with him.  He liked violence for the sake of it - was sleazy with the stripper, so he could bait the bouncer into a fight, etc.  He didn't care about Sam or the Impala, but he still sat at a piano, played a few notes of Hey Jude (his Mom's song), and was contemplating his new existence.  He hunted Sam down in the bunker - He didn't get the chance to go full-on 'evil' or 'dark,' but it was enough for Dean to never want to be a demon again after he was cured.   Then when he was cured, they had him kill a room full of scum bags, and while he beat himself up about that, it didn't necessarily make me think he was 'bad'.  We heard in the back half of the season how he was getting 'worse' over and over again, but never really saw it, because they had him do things like, slam a guy's head into a table and then had Cas act like Dean wouldn't do that, so it meant he had to be sidelined.  He didn't really go dark until The Prisoner, the episode before they started his redemption for having the MoC, IMO.

1 hour ago, catrox14 said:

it was a redemption arc for Sam. 

Sam did have a personal redemption arc going on during the MoC story line (IMO).  

1 hour ago, catrox14 said:

Maybe the redemption was being the soul bomb, but even that I question as redemption.  I don't know. I'm conflicted on that one.

I think it was supposed to be the culmination of his redemption arc, and we were supposed to see it that way, but I don't think they fleshed it out well enough. 

Edited September 1, 2017 by CluelessDrifter

[catrox14]

https://fangasmthebook.wordpress.com/2017/09/04/behind-the-scenes-of-supernatural-with-robbie-thompson/

Robbie Thompson talks to Fangasm

Just a few excerpts.

Quote

L: People use it a lot though…it’s kinda a no brainer. But still, good on you. So usually when we talk about codependence, we talk about it in a negative way. But on Supernatural, the codependence in some ways is not a negative. I mean, I love the brodependence, you know that.

R: Mm hmm.

L: And so do a lot of people. But some people really take issue with it. When you look at Sam and Dean, is their codependence a point of resilience for them, like a way they’ve made it through so much trauma, or does it make life more challenging for them in terms of getting through their traumas?

 

Quote

R: So, as the youngest of two boys, I look up to my older (so old) brother and I really relate to the dynamic on the show. But as a writer, it depends on the situation. There were times when the boys were at odds, where they challenged that dependence, or sought independence, that were extremely helpful from a dramatic standpoint. I know that from a fan standpoint, any time you separated the boys, there was…what’s the word I’m looking for?

L: Outcry? Pitchforks?

R: Pandemonium…fandomonium? It was not beloved. But it can help the story. I remember on the first episode I wrote, Slash Fiction, we changed the ending, they weren’t gonna be at odds, they were mad, and it was rough, but they were together, and then we changed it, splitting them up at the end — and also Sera added the scene with Dick Roman meeting Crowley. And I remember, I think it’s one of the first times I went online to check to see what people thought, I wasn’t twitter savvy at that time but I went on some message board, and people were like “well good job, but he fucked it up in the end by splitting up the boys.”

R: And I was like, okay, I get where you’re coming from. So as a fan, I never looked at it as a bad thing, and I never really looked at it as anything other than a dramatic device as a writer. It always depended on the story. I do understand where the criticism comes from though – the show itself is very claustrophobic. My wife worked on a show where their call sheet was like 12 people and you have to service all those voices. So when you have a show like this, that is so tight and compact, you’re gonna end up in these situations. As a fan, it never really got in my way of enjoying an episode. As a writer, it would just depend on the episode. But there was never a time when I was like, don’t break them up! [sobs]. If you break them up and then bring them back together, you root for that, you know?

L: It’s good drama, yeah…

R: The rule is, you figure out what the audience wants and never give it to them, but the variation on that tune is figure out what the character wants and make it really hard for them to get it. And I think there were times when we split up the boys creatively where that made sense for the story. In terms of the actual codependency, I know it’s a common criticism among some fans who would like to see them have more friends and spend time with more characters, which would be awesome, but it is a smaller show. And it’s something no one likes to talk about, but they don’t have a Game of Thrones budget. It’s not like they have 10 Million dollars to produce an episode.

 

 

So budget is the excuse for unhealthy co-dependency? What?

 

Quote

R: It would be great to populate their world. I think I shared this with you before, I had an alternate pitch for the 200th episode that was essentially like The French Mistake II. The boys go back to that episode’s universe but they go to a Supernatural convention and every convention in that universe starts out with the Misha Collins Memorial, because he’s one of their fallen heroes, but I was like that way we get to bring everybody back! And they get to play themselves! And folks were were like, that’s great. That’s gonna cost 6 Million Dollars.

I would have loved to see this episode. That would have at least included Misha instead of excluding him for the 200th (that really pissed me off).

 

Quote

R: One of my favorite things was bringing in a new character and seeing how the characters react, but also seeing how the boys react. Classic example, and I’ve worked with Tim Omundson on a couple shows, when he got cast as Cain.

R: But it’s also a front row seat to two really talented actors and a supporting cast that’s also phenomenal.  And you can always tell, the boys don’t ever phone it in, they don’t ever fuck off for a take, they’re very dialed in. And you could just tell that Jensen in particular was really dialed in for that episode, First Born. Part of that comes from the fact that Tim came in very prepared and had a real strong take on the character but they also had a great director, John Badham. There was an instant chemistry even though I don’t think they had ever met in real life, only as characters. I think it’s really fun when you can bring in an actor or a character who can really mix up the dynamic and add drama.

L: Mm hmm

R: And if it creates chaos for the bond between the bros, all the better for the drama.

 

A bit about the collaboration between writers, actors, and showrunners:

Quote

R: I always joke that we may not have staff writers on set, but we have two writers on set, and that’s Jared and Jensen. And it was the same with Misha and Mark. There was an example of that in “First Born” too, where Mark says “You’re good, but I’m Crowley.”

L: Oh I love that line!

R: It was a combination of two different lines, one that was scripted and one that was in the description, and on the day the scripted line I wrote didn’t work and John Badham said to Mark, well, try something else. And Mark tried different things and came up with that line.

L: That makes so much sense.

R: So, to answer your question, whenever you’re pitching an episode, you want to pitch something that’s produceable, that’s your first job, but also pitch something that’s in keeping with the canon of the show and speaks to the characters. If you can, move the plot forward, and if you can’t, shine a light on the characters. So I hoped that the boys would like the episode. I knew it was going to be a challenge to shoot. God bless Jensen, trapping him in a car with a gaseous costar is no joke, but the idea for that episode really came from…I think at that point I had written 14 or 15 episodes and I loved writing the show – I still love writing the show …**

R: You could always find a little moment in those scenes to let the story breathe. Let the characters just be. And this isn’t a criticism of the series, but it’s 42 minutes and a procedural show. There’s a case and a lot of elements and details take up a lot of real estate in the script — and I’m looking at the other writers at this table, they know — for a procedural show, there’s always exposition that has to come out, and you know those just eat pages up. Typically for Supernatural if you wanted to hand in a script that wouldn’t get too heavily noted, you wanted to keep it to 38 or 39 pages. At least 20 to 30 pages of that is gonna end up being the blah blah blah of the case. So I just noticed that the scenes that I really loved writing and watching were the scenes of the boys in the car because you could put in character moments that would shine a light on the boys and let them play and improvise.

 

**Wait, is Robbie saying he's still writing in some capacity? That's weird.

Edited September 5, 2017 by catrox14

[catrox14]

More from the Fangasm article:

Quite a bit about Baby in this.

Quote

R: And you think, oh, well, they’re actors, they should know how to do that. But the thing is, when you’re an actor on an ongoing show, you’ve just wrapped one episode, you’re prepping another, and you’re shooting another. So you’ve got like 16 different scenes over three episodes in your head, and we’ve got a floating shooting day so they may need you to do pick up from a previous episode. So to have all that stuff in their heads…

L: My head hurts just thinking about it.

R: This is how cold they had it, there was a take where I can’t remember who, one of them did the other one’s lines, and then the other one did the other one’s lines, and then they did the whole scene switched. And it was like, how? I don’t even know how they’re doing that.

R: This is how cold they had it, there was a take where I can’t remember who, one of them did the other one’s lines, and then the other one did the other one’s lines, and then they did the whole scene switched. And it was like, how? I don’t even know how they’re doing that.

(About Jared farting. )

R: I don’t think I’ve ever shared this, though, there’s an amazing take – and I hope he forgives me if you do end up sharing this part – where it’s super emotional, and I think it’s an A and B camera over Jared’s shoulder on Jensen and it’s great, super emotional, like 6 minutes long, and so dramatic. You could hear a pin drop. And then at the very, very end as they tuck in to go to sleep, they had to kinda like wiggle down into the seats, you hear the gentlest, sweetest little fart from Jared.

[snip]

R: And it was like the longest pause after they settled in and then BRRRR. God bless him, he waited until the scene was done.

L: (still laughing) Then he could let go.

R: Then he could let it rip. So I certainly hoped they’d enjoy the episode, but I knew it would be a challenge. But fortunately Bob and Jeremy let me take a real big swing. The lion’s share of the credit has to go to the episode’s director, the legendary Tom Wright and to Serge and his crew that built those camera mounts. There’s a sequence in there….hang on, I think I have it…

Quote

R: “The song kicks in and we move through quick shots of the boys singing along, laughing, talking, eating fast food. New paragraph…”

Everyone: is still rapt

R: “Being brothers.”  And then that’s it, that’s all I wrote. So everything you see there is them, and the director said ‘let’s just give them room to play.’

L: Wait, so Jared changed the line to ‘in my brother’s 67 Chevy’?

R: Yeah, that’s all Jared.

R: Which at first I was like, oh shit, because if you sing along, it’s a separate fee.  But they worked it out. Supernatural really does have one of the best Post Production teams ever.

 

Comments on meta episodes:

Quote

R: I have a love/hate thing with the meta episodes, because every time you do it, you’re sorta messing with the fabric of the show. Sometimes I think it’s great and sometimes I don’t like it, including the times I did it. It’s a tricky thing, but because the show opened that door, we couldn’t not walk through it for an episode like the 200th. It’s already canon that they’ve talked about this stuff, so we’ve gotta lean into it. I felt that there was no way to do an episode like that without talking about shipping and shipping culture, and the challenge was finding a way to do that – at least this was my intention – in a way that would not feel in any way dismissive. And again, credit to Bob and Jeremy for being so willing to go there and try something risky.

L: I thought that was very Kripke-esque, because in the early seasons, he wasn’t afraid to go there either and I thought he kept the right tone of affectionate ribbing instead of dismissive. He was like well, they’re writing Wincest, I’m gonna incorporate Wincest and just poke fun at all of us, show and fandom, across the board.

R: Yeah, and I also wanted to poke fun at the show itself. My hope was that if anyone was gonna be the butt of a joke, it would be me or us. Not the people who love the show.

L: Right, and I think Kripke walked that line too – not everyone thought that, but I thought it was affectionate poking fun all around.

R: Whether I was successful or not, I wanted it to be a love letter to the fans. To me, it was a love letter to the people who have been so dedicated to the show and I wanted it to be as inclusive as possible. And it was a song again, like in Don’t Call Me Shurley, that helped — I thought if this episode ends with them singing Carry On Wayward Son and the boys actually hearing fans sing that to them – hearing it as the characters, but also as themselves – I thought that’s enough for me.

Edited September 5, 2017 by catrox14

[catrox14]

More excerpts;

Robbie on talking with Jensen about the 200th

Quote

L: So you and Jensen, how did you reassure him?

R: Jensen and I had a chat. It’s been asked before and I think the story has been blown out of proportion. I think I’ve heard versions that he called, that he flew down… no. He was in town.  And he came to the office, and I actually wasn’t even supposed to be in the office that day.

L: So he didn’t come in to talk to you.

R: He came in to talk to Phil, and Bob and Jeremy, and those are grown up meetings so I wasn’t there for that. And he was walking out of Jeremy’s office and I saw him and went in for the hug, you know…

R: So I went right in for that, and we chatted in the writer’s room. And to his credit, he expressed his concerns and talked about the show. He had heard what the episode was about but hadn’t read the script yet, maybe only the outline was out. He had directed an episode, which is why he was in the office, looking at a cut, and we just talked it through. He was great. I said this is what I’ve done with this episode, but you’ve done 200 of these episodes, so read the script, and if anything doesn’t feel right, let’s talk about it and fix it. I’m not the boss of the show, I’m not even the boss of this episode – and this has to feel right for you guys. And that was the end of the conversation

[snip]

R: That was something he added on the day and I think those things really shine through. The episode doesn’t work if they don’t commit to it. Like I can write what I wanna write and Jay Gruska and Chris Lennertz can create incredible music and we could have awesome directing from Phil – but the guys had to totally lean into it. So much credit to them, because there’s a delicate balance. I wanted to make sure personally that we didn’t offend anybody and I’m sure that we did. And that’s part of what I said to him, I said look, not only do you know the show better than I do, you know fandom better than I do…

L: I don’t think that’s true. Incorrect.

PG: (are nodding)

R: (laughing) I’ll put it to you differently. They go to a lot of conventions, so they understand the dynamics.

L: They do understand certain dynamics, yes. but so do you.

R: It’s a different experience. But I told him I didn’t want to jeopardize any of that stuff.  If it’s in any way, shape or form offensive or doesn’t work, you say the word and we’ll figure it out. And we didn’t end up changing a thing.

 

On the Amulet in "Don't Call Me Shurley".

Quote

R: I can’t remember if it was Bob or Jeremy, but one of them said, how about if we put in the Samulet from the 200th episode? And I was like oh, it’s perfect. So that one’s in there, but in my mind that was my head canon [for the real one]. The notion that Sam carried it around for 800 episodes doesn’t make any practical sense. But I think he kept it, and that’s why I wanted to establish that he had this keepsake box. I think we all have a sort of keepsake box, with like ticket stubs from your first date and so on, and I think each one of the boys has one and I think the Samulet was something Sam kept in there. But once Sam started thinking that God was talking to him, he pulled out the amulet just to have it on his person.

 

About writing itself:

Quote

R: You write the part of the story you’re asked to write, and sometimes it’s a batting order thing, I would’ve loved to have written soulless!Sam or demon!Dean.

L: Ohgod, I wish…

R: I didn’t get a chance to, there were like three episodes of demon!Dean and I was like wait, what if there were at least four or five…

L: That’s what all of fandom was saying too!

R: Here’s my theory though. If you had 18, you would have hated it by then.

L: Well there’s a lot of room in between there! How about six??

R: And I would have loved to write more human!Cas stuff.

 

Quote

R: They’re great, in both Vancouver and in LA. So to answer your question, typically when I would come in as a writer for a new season, didn’t matter what level I was, I could be an executive story editor – which is a bullshit title – or a co-executive producer, which is an even further bullshit title – but it would be the same thing. The showrunners, Bob, Sera, Jeremy, they’d say, this is what we’re thinking for this season, and usually it was built around a pivot point, which was the mid season finale. So, you wanna end midseason on some kind of cliffhanger and then pick it up and go this way. With the general guidelines in place, or the destinations on the roadtrip agreed upon, then everyone pitches at the same time, so if this was the writers’ room, you [gestures at one of us] are writing the first episode, you the second, you the third and fourth and fifth and sixth. So we’re all writing simultaneously and sometimes it will be oh, we love that character, can we put him in your episode? And then all of a sudden those things start to kind of domino plot wise.

L: They’re like puzzle pieces, every time you move one you knock the others out of place.

R: And I’m not defending or persecuting when I answer, but it’s a really tricky thing especially when you’re doing something that has 23 episodes. I’m jealous of Game of Thrones’ budget, it’s like a feature, but I’m also jealous of the episode order. My dream for Supernatural was, can we just do True Detective, just one case, and live and breathe that case.***

***IF ONLY.  PLEASE this would be perfect for the final season

On reacting to fandom stuff:

Quote

You try to make sure you’re listening to the audience, but you’re also months and months ahead of them decision wise. You can’t react week to week, barely within a season. There were times when things changed or a plot or character changed, and people will think oh, they listened to us. I remember there was a season with a character that people did not like, and people were like, thank god they listened to us and got rid of that character. My sternly worded email worked. But I knew from day one, first day in the writers’ room, that character was leaving mid-season.

Edited September 5, 2017 by catrox14

[Casseiopeia]

Yes a really fascinating read.  I was also surprised to read (at least it sounded like it to me) that Robbie was let go from the show.  All this time I thought he wanted to move on to other things.

[catrox14]

More.

This is really interesting about Castiel:

 

Quote

Candice: Do you feel like it’s sort of a cop out to just remove Cas from an episode?

R: That’s a great question because again, sometimes the decision to do that is more based in some of the practicalities of production than story. People will say, oh, they didn’t want them to be together in this episode, but no it wasn’t about that at all, everyone has contracts, you know? The first episode I ever wrote was for a tv show called Jericho, and I had pitched a very big A story and a B story. And my bosses pointed out that we had some actors who were under contract for that episode, so we literally put them on a list on a board and were like, well, maybe these two have a scene and then these two have a scene, and we can use this standing set. And in another case, we didn’t have an actor for that episode and had to write them out. That’s not how you think good drama is made, but it’s the reality sometimes of how we make tv.

So there are times when Cas is out of an episode, and it’s “have you heard from Cas? No, nothing…” We only have him for a certain number of episodes so you have to make them count. I remember in Baby people were like, I can’t believe they burned him on that, but it felt right and it felt like a comedic moment to have him in, and I’m sure Misha didn’t mind. So some of it has to do with that practical stuff and has nothing to do with the narrative. It’s not personal, but I know it can be perceived that way out of context. This is why showrunners have such impossible jobs, sometimes it’s the narrative you can afford to tell. In the end, it’s really a question for the showrunners, but there were times when they’d say, you’re writing episode 16 and I’d say okay, who do I have? Do I have Misha, do I have Mark?

[catrox14]

13 minutes ago, Casseiopeia said:

Yes a really fascinating read.  I was also surprised to read (at least it sounded like it to me) that Robbie was let go from the show.  All this time I thought he wanted to move on to other things.

Which part gave you that impression? I didn't pick up on anything like that but it's a long read too LOL

[DeeDee79]

7 hours ago, catrox14 said:

https://fangasmthebook.wordpress.com/2017/09/04/behind-the-scenes-of-supernatural-with-robbie-thompson/

Robbie Thompson talks to Fangasm

Just a few excerpts.

This was a really interesting interview. Thanks so much for taking the time to post it Catrox14!

[Pondlass1]

Thanks. Interesting read.  It really hits you with the practicalities of writing a TV series and all the aspects that apply before they even write that script.  

I'm pretty sure the disliked character let go half way through the season was Amelia (Samelia).  

[DittyDotDot]

Few thoughts about that interview with Robbie (https://fangasmthebook.wordpress.com/2017/09/04/behind-the-scenes-of-supernatural-with-robbie-thompson/):

Quote

R: Pandemonium…fandomonium? It was not beloved. But it can help the story. I remember on the first episode I wrote, Slash Fiction, we changed the ending, they weren’t gonna be at odds, they were mad, and it was rough, but they were together, and then we changed it, splitting them up at the end — and also Sera added the scene with Dick Roman meeting Crowley. And I remember, I think it’s one of the first times I went online to check to see what people thought, I wasn’t twitter savvy at that time but I went on some message board, and people were like “well good job, but he fucked it up in the end by splitting up the boys.”

I think the problem here is that the writers misunderstood what fans were saying; it's not that they simply broke them up, it's how they broke them up. The tiff over Amy was pretty weak and silly. I mean, I understood why Sam was pissed, but pissed enough to walk away like that was very contrived and forced. I don't think fans have an issue with breaking up the boys as much as the writers think, as long as they do it justice and commit to it. 

I also think they misunderstood what fans were saying about Charlie's death too. It's not simply that they killed Charlie, but the way they killed her that enraged the fans.

Quote

R: The rule is, you figure out what the audience wants and never give it to them, but the variation on that tune is figure out what the character wants and make it really hard for them to get it.

I thought the rule was to give the audience what they want but in a way they didn't expect?

Quote

R: At the core of the show, though, is those two guys, those two bros, and if you’re not adding friction in there and things are perfect, like having a good time and nothin’ but high fives…

Everyone: lol

R: You wouldn’t give a shit!

L: It would be boring, you’re right.

Oh, I so disagree! I don't think you need to add friction to their relationship because they're two different people with two different points of view, the friction is naturally there. Personally, I loved the dynamic of Sam and Dean in S12. Their disagreements were natural instead of forced and contrived. 

Quote

R:  Jared said we should just do one of those every year [referring to Baby], and I agree.

I totally agree!!!

Quote

R: Yeah, that was pretty terrifying. When I came into that season, I didn’t know we were gonna do a musical. That was an idea that Jeremy and Bob came in with. I thought we were gonna be doing more demon!Dean stuff…

[...]

R: So I was surprised, and my initial reaction to the idea of doing a musical set in a high school based on the Chuck Shurley books was, OMG that’s a terrible idea. Can I write it?

Oh, that's very interesting that the musical portion of Fan Fiction wasn't Robbie's pitch. I always assumed that was his idea. Interesting.

Quote

R: I love the perceived drama behind the scenes. If people only knew how many times the decision comes down to something mundane, like schedules or money, can we combine these scenes? And then people see the episode and are like, this is what it really means.

I knows what you mean, Robbie! ;)

Quote

R: [Talkind about the Samulet] The notion that Sam carried it around for 800 episodes doesn’t make any practical sense. But I think he kept it, and that’s why I wanted to establish that he had this keepsake box. I think we all have a sort of keepsake box, with like ticket stubs from your first date and so on, and I think each one of the boys has one and I think the Samulet was something Sam kept in there. But once Sam started thinking that God was talking to him, he pulled out the amulet just to have it on his person.

Hee!! I knew I wasn't crazy for thinking Sam dug that thing out of the trash and hung on to it! ;)

Quote

So you just have to separate the two, take off the fan hat and put on the writer hat.

I think his comments about this are very interesting. I'm not sure I agree with him that the two need to be separated. Probably depends on whether you're likely to let your "love" for one thing overwhelm the story or not. This might be why I generally found Robbie's episodes so frustrating in the end? I always felt like he would get so caught up in the concept, he'd forget to tell the story. 

Quote

R: And I’m not defending or persecuting when I answer, but it’s a really tricky thing especially when you’re doing something that has 23 episodes. I’m jealous of Game of Thrones’budget, it’s like a feature, but I’m also jealous of the episode order. My dream for Supernatural was, can we just do True Detective, just one case, and live and breathe that case.

L: Oh wow. Yes please.

R: And every single thing is about that case. Just long scenes of them hangin’ out in bars figuring shit out.

Okay, and now I'm going to shamelessly pitch my Supernatural mini-series idea again. Four or five episodes working one case would be fantastic!!

Quote

The job Bob, Sera, Jeremy and now Andrew have is so hard, and oftentimes you get a lot of blame and none of the credit.

So true!

Quote

R: And Bob used to bust my chops all the time, and rightfully so. Even when I’d hand in a 38 page script, it would always time long because I’d find every single way to make it look nice on the page, but I was bringing up every single paragraph and window. But it’s like, “You can fuck with the margins, but we’re still three minutes over.”

Reminds me of college, but my problem was the other way around. I never wrote long enough so I'd mess with the spacing and margins to get to the minimum page requirement. ;)

Quote

R: Yeah, it balances. And also, to me, it’s less about that than how am I telling the story the best way? So if those stories are successful, it’s from reading Eric’s and Sera’s and Ben’s scripts, they leap off the page, especially the dialogue. And maybe someday they’ll publish the scripts, because it’s a fun thing to do to watch the episodes, like on Netflix, and have the old scripts so I’d see what the director changed, what the boys added, what Misha did, what Mark did. And you see it’s a collaborative thing. My favorite part of any scripts I wrote is always what the director added, or the cast, or crew, or a local Canadian actor added a layer that I wasn’t expecting and really nailed it.

I'd so love to see those scripts and play this game. ;)

 

Anyway, overall, it was an interesting read. Even though I didn't always love Robbie's episodes, I love Robbie. He's such a smart and enthusiastic guy that it's hard not to love him. ;)

 

8 hours ago, catrox14 said:

**Wait, is Robbie saying he's still writing in some capacity? That's weird.

No, he clarified: "R: I mean, I don’t write it anymore but I still love my time writing the show…"

[catrox14]

26 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said:

No, he clarified: "R: I mean, I don’t write it anymore but I still love my time writing the show…"

Thanks. It was a long article and it was late.  I was trying to post things I thought were interesting in the excerpts without reposting the whole dang article. LOL.

[catrox14]

41 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said:

I thought the rule was to give the audience what they want but in a way they didn't expect?

IIRC that was  Kim Manners rule, which IMO, was more about directing and acting, not necessarily the writing or story arcs plots per se, like finding what was between the lines and what was not in the script,  or playing something not how it would be expected.

That said, IMO, Robbie is saying that as a writer they are going to put the characters through some paces, before possibly giving the characters, and the audience. a version of what they think they want.

[DittyDotDot]

3 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

IIRC that was  Kim Manners rule, which IMO, was more about directing and acting, not necessarily the writing or story arcs plots per se, like finding what was between the lines and what was not in the script,  or playing something not how it would be expected.

That said, IMO, Robbie is saying that as a writer they are going to put the characters through some paces, before possibly giving the characters, and the audience. a version of what they think they want.

I understood what he was saying, but if you read my previous comment, it's more that I don't think the writers actually know what the audience wants. It was more a wink-wink sort of comment, but I do realize these things don't always read over the internet. Intonation can sometimes be important, but with a wink, expressions are kinda necessary. ;)

[catrox14]

4 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said:

I understood what he was saying, but if you read my previous comment, it's more that I don't think the writers actually know what the audience wants. It was more a wink-wink sort of comment, but I do realize these things don't always read over the internet. Intonation can sometimes be important, but with a wink, expressions are kinda necessary. ;)

I read your comments. I didn't see a smiley or winky face at the end of your question. I wasn't trying to be insulting with my reply. I didn't think you were joking. And I was just giving my take on Robbie's words.

Sorry for misunderstanding.

[Casseiopeia]

9 hours ago, catrox14 said:

Which part gave you that impression? I didn't pick up on anything like that but it's a long read too LOL

Like I said it was just my impression but when he talked about JC and Bob asking him to write one more episode for S11 (DCMS) he didn't realize it would be his last for the show.  I had been under the impression that he already knew it was his last season because he had other projects he wanted to work on.  But now I'm not so sure.  Kind of sounds like he was let go.  Maybe Dabb didn't think he would fit into his plans for S12?

[DittyDotDot]

1 minute ago, Casseiopeia said:

Like I said it was just my impression but when he talked about JC and Bob asking him to write one more episode for S11 (DCMS) he didn't realize it would be his last for the show.  I had been under the impression that he already knew it was his last season because he had other projects he wanted to work on.  But now I'm not so sure.  Kind of sounds like he was let go.  Maybe Dabb didn't think he would fit into his plans for S12?

Robbie wasn't fired, as far as I know, his contract was up and he chose not to renew it. Contract negotiations don't happen till after the season wraps, so while he may have been thinking about moving on, the decision wasn't made yet at the time he wrote his last episode. Maybe he just didn't want to commit to whatever they were offering? Maybe Dabb wanted to bring in some new writers and restaff the writer's room? I'm guessing the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Robbie was rumored to be working on a TV adaption of his Silk series at the time and such, so I'm guessing the decision was Robbie's in the end.

14 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

I read your comments. I didn't see a smiley or winky face at the end of your question. I wasn't trying to be insulting with my reply. I didn't think you were joking. And I was just giving my take on Robbie's words.

Sorry for misunderstanding.

No offense or insult taken, just clarifying since I obviously wasn't clear to begin with. 

[Casseiopeia]

18 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said:

Robbie wasn't fired, as far as I know, his contract was up and he chose not to renew it. Contract negotiations don't happen till after the season wraps, so while he may have been thinking about moving on, the decision wasn't made yet at the time he wrote his last episode. Maybe he just didn't want to commit to whatever they were offering? Maybe Dabb wanted to bring in some new writers and restaff the writer's room? I'm guessing the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Robbie was rumored to be working on a TV adaption of his Silk series at the time and such, so I'm guessing the decision was Robbie's in the end.

No offense or insult taken, just clarifying since I obviously wasn't clear to begin with. 

That could be and that was what I thought until I read this interview.  I know he was writing Don't Call Me Shurley right after Baby aired.  So from at least a month after that episode he had no idea that it would be his last.  That would have also been about the time that Frequency was picked up and everyone (but us) knew that Carver was moving on.  I just have a different impression than I did before about his departure from the show.

Edited September 5, 2017 by Casseiopeia

[DittyDotDot]

10 minutes ago, Casseiopeia said:

That could be and that was what I thought until I read this interview.  I know he was writing Don't Call Me Shurley right after Baby aired.  So from at least a month after that episode he had no idea that it would be his last.  That would also been about the time that Frequency was picked up and everyone (but us) knew that Carver was moving on.  I just have a different impression than I did before about his departure from the show.

Like I said, I'm guessing the truth lies somewhere in the middle--like most things in life. It might be that he did have an idea that it COULD be the last episode he wrote, but just hadn't decided on it, but it also could be the show didn't offer him what he wanted when contract negotiations came around too? This could be one of those "perceived drama behind the scenes" he was talking about? The decision to move on may have come down to something very mundane, in the end. 

[catrox14]

I thought it was interesting that Robbie is writing Deadpool comics. Maybe one day he'll parlay that into writing a TV version of Deadpool or work on a Deadpool movie script.   How great would it be if he managed to find a way to write a role for Jensen that made it to the screen.

[RulerofallIsurvey]

2 hours ago, DittyDotDot said:

Quote

R: The rule is, you figure out what the audience wants and never give it to them, but the variation on that tune is figure out what the character wants and make it really hard for them to get it.

I thought the rule was to give the audience what they want but in a way they didn't expect?

I agree.  I understand the 'make it hard for a character to get what they want' trick - I think that's valid.  But if, as the audience, I never get what I want?  I'm going to get real tired of watching, real fast.  (Just to clarify - I understand your comment was a bit of snark - but I was actually a little taken aback when I first read that comment from RT.  The first part of it, where he quotes 'the rule' seemed very out of touch with how I think - based on many real life discussions with friends and acquaintances - feel.  ::shrug::  but then I'm not a tv writer, so what do I know, right?)

[DittyDotDot]

5 minutes ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

I agree.  I understand the 'make it hard for a character to get what they want' trick - I think that's valid.  But if, as the audience, I never get what I want?  I'm going to get real tired of watching, real fast. 

Yes, there's also that little problem, too.  TBH, I think writers shouldn't be worried about what the audience wants at all. You can't control how the audience receives your work and you're never going to please everyone. So what you should be concerned with it writing the best story you can and let the chips fall where they may. 

[catrox14]

I think it would be great for me to get some things I want, but then, I balk, because, how it's delivered might be terrible because they'll give it to me in a way that hurts my soul or offends me. LOL. So I guess, for me, it's be careful what I wish for because there will always be a cost to getting what I want, or similarly others get what they want.

[DittyDotDot]

15 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

I think it would be great for me to get some things I want, but then, I balk, because, how it's delivered might be terrible because they'll give it to me in a way that hurts my soul or offends me. LOL. So I guess, for me, it's be careful what I wish for because there will always be a cost to getting what I want, or similarly others get what they want.

And, then there's also that. And, another reason they shouldn't be worried what the audience wants as much as just concern themselves with writing the best story they can. Even if it doesn't ultimately land with the audience, at least they can hold their heads up and and be proud of the effort and work involved. And, as an audience member, I can respect the work on that level too, even if it isn't my thing.

[gonzosgirrl]

Sorry, Robbie, still not buying that Sam had the amulet tucked away in a box. What happened to the box when he jumped into the pit? Did Dean have it? And if so, are we to believe that in a year of missing his brother, he never once looked in it?

1 hour ago, catrox14 said:

I think it would be great for me to get some things I want, but then, I balk, because, how it's delivered might be terrible because they'll give it to me in a way that hurts my soul or offends me. LOL. So I guess, for me, it's be careful what I wish for because there will always be a cost to getting what I want, or similarly others get what they want.

Which is why I hope they don't bring back Benny, at least not under Dabb's regime. He's my favourite non-TFW character and yet I shudder to think of the ways in which Dabb & Co would screw him over.

Edited September 5, 2017 by gonzosgirrl

[catrox14]

57 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

Sorry, Robbie, still not buying that Sam had the amulet tucked away in a box. What happened to the box when he jumped into the pit? Did Dean have it? And if so, are we to believe that in a year of missing his brother, he never once looked in it?

Same, I think Robbie just doesn't have a good answer. Maybe Sam put in a safe deposit box and hid the key in the Impala with a note thinking Dean might find it one day. LOL

[Wayward Son]

1 hour ago, gonzosgirrl said:

Sorry, Robbie, still not buying that Sam had the amulet tucked away in a box. What happened to the box when he jumped into the pit? Did Dean have it? And if so, are we to believe that in a year of missing his brother, he never once looked in it?

 

2 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

Same, I think Robbie just doesn't have a good answer. Maybe Sam put in a safe deposit box and hid the key in the Impala with a note thinking Dean might find it one day. LOL

I totally agree with this! Sam having the amulet the whole time is illogical and total fan service to the fans who are obsessed with the thing -rolls eyes- 

[DittyDotDot]

36 minutes ago, Wayward Son said:

I totally agree with this! Sam having the amulet the whole time is illogical and total fan service to the fans who are obsessed with the thing -rolls eyes- 

Quite frankly, I'm not obsessed with the thing at all and really never thought about it much after Dark Side of the Moon, but I think it makes perfect sense. I can totally buy Sam digging it out of the trash and putting it in that box--and probably forgetting about it until the whole thing with God came up again. I mean, Dean packed away his own jacket and John's journal that year he was with Lisa and Ben, so it seems perfectly reasonable Dean could've packed away Sam's box too and never looked inside. Some people don't want to look at things people they love leave behind, but also don't want to outright get rid of them.

Edited September 5, 2017 by DittyDotDot

[Casseiopeia]

3 hours ago, DittyDotDot said:

Like I said, I'm guessing the truth lies somewhere in the middle--like most things in life. It might be that he did have an idea that it COULD be the last episode he wrote, but just hadn't decided on it, but it also could be the show didn't offer him what he wanted when contract negotiations came around too? This could be one of those "perceived drama behind the scenes" he was talking about? The decision to move on may have come down to something very mundane, in the end. 

Considering they hired writers with very little experience writing for network series television it very well could be that SPN didn't want to pay RT what he deserved.

[DittyDotDot]

11 minutes ago, Casseiopeia said:

Considering they hired writers with very little experience writing for network series television it very well could be that SPN didn't want to pay RT what he deserved.

Or, maybe they couldn't afford to pay him what he deserved?

[Bessie]

52 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said:

I can totally buy Sam digging it out of the trash and putting it in that box

The only thing I can't buy, is Sam walking out of that room and leaving the amulet in the trash.

And I don't think that's fan service. So, I'm cool with RT's comments about it. 

Edited September 5, 2017 by Bessie

[gonzosgirrl]

Meh. Just the fact that Thompson refers to it as the Samulet tells me all I need to know about fan service and claiming now that Sam had it all along. I just don't believe that if Sam did have post-5x16, he would have kept it to himself all these years. I've read the 'hurt feelings' argument, but I don't buy it. Sam certainly never had any problem expressing his feelings about all the other perceived wrongs Dean did him (or anything else). And even if he didn't throw it up to Dean out of anger or spite (or to heap a little more guilt on him), then why not even out of love? Why not when they reconciled and joined forces after Point of No Return. Why not before he jumped in the pit? Why not after coming back from Hell (him), Purgatory (Dean), death (Dean) and all manner of looming, world-ending threats, why didn't he tell him? Nope, not buying it.

Edited September 5, 2017 by gonzosgirrl

[catrox14]

IMO, Robbie got fixated on appeasing the faction of fans who are obsessed with it and maybe he was obsessed with it himself.  It kind of bugs me that Robbie is using the fanon term for it. That was Dean's amulet. I know "Samulet" is cutesy but seriously, why is a gift named for the person that gave it to him? Why isn't it called the Deanulet? Why isn't the Impala called the Johnpala? Or Jaby?

Why wouldn't Sam mention he had it, especially after  Fan Fiction when a fake amulet showed up. He had the perfect chance to say "Hey, Dean. Did I ever tell you have saved the one I gave you that you threw away?".   

For me, it's not good for Sam's characterization to think he would go dumpster diving for something that 1) didn't work 2)that Dean clearly didn't want anymore, and IMO it kind of undercuts Sam's quest for independence from Dean in S5, if he dug it out of the trash.

Edited September 5, 2017 by catrox14

[DittyDotDot]

4 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

Meh. Just the fact that Thompson refers to it as the Samulet tells me all I need to know about fan service and claiming now that Sam had it all along. I just don't believe that if Sam did have post-5x16, he would have kept it to himself all these years.

To each there own, but I don't think it was some big secret or anything, just maybe something he thought he shouldn't leave in that trash can and over the years forgot about it. But once he thought God was sending him visions, remembered the thing was supposed to glow in God's presence so he dug it out just in case.

You don't have to buy Robbie's explanation, though. Jim Michaels tweeted out that God put the amulet in Sam's pocket so it's not like there isn't room for many interpretations here.

1 minute ago, catrox14 said:

It kind of bugs me that Robbie is using the fanon term for it. That was Dean's amulet. I know "Samulet" is cutesy but seriously, why is a gift named for the person that gave it to him?

Fans dubbed it that back in S3, it's not Robbie's fault that's what they named it--he wasn't even involved in the show then--but that's what it's called now. I personally hate a lot of smooshed-up fandom terms including "Samulet," but, when talking with fandom sometimes it's just easier to use them.

BTW, I believe it was the interviewer who used the term first, so I thought Robbie was just trying to talk the same language in his response.

[Casseiopeia]

40 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said:

Or, maybe they couldn't afford to pay him what he deserved?

I would think a writer that had been with the show for 5 years would command a higher price than a journeyman writer with little experience.  So  RT probably "deserved" a higher wage but SPN didn't want to pay up.

[ILoveReading]

22 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

IMO, Robbie got fixated on appeasing the faction of fans who are obsessed with it and maybe he was obsessed with it himself.  It kind of bugs me that Robbie is using the fanon term for it. That was Dean's amulet. I know "Samulet" is cutesy but seriously, why is a gift named for the person that gave it to him? Why isn't it called the Deanulet? Why isn't the Impala called the Johnpala? Or Jaby?

Why wouldn't Sam mention he had it, especially after  Fan Fiction when a fake amulet showed up. He had the perfect chance to say "Hey, Dean. Did I ever tell you have saved the one I gave you that you threw away?".   

For me, it's not good for Sam's characterization to think he would go dumpster diving for something that 1) didn't work 2)that Dean clearly didn't want anymore, and IMO it kind of undercuts Sam's quest for independence from Dean in S5, if he dug it out of the trash.

Agree.  There is far to many plot points where it would make no sense for Sam not to mention he had Dean's amulet. 

[catrox14]

10 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said:

Fans dubbed it that back in S3, it's not Robbie's fault that's what they named it--he wasn't even involved in the show then--but that's what it's called now. I personally hate a lot of smooshed-up fandom terms including "Samulet," but, when talking with fandom sometimes it's just easier to use them.

I know the term predates Robbie's tenure.  I wasn't suggesting Robbie was the source of the term. IMO whether fandom uses it or not a writer has the choice of NOT using the term, even if he is talking to fandom writers.

[DittyDotDot]

9 minutes ago, Casseiopeia said:

I would think a writer that had been with the show for 5 years would command a higher price than a journeyman writer with little experience.  So  RT probably "deserved" a higher wage but SPN didn't want to pay up.

My point being was: we don't have the facts so I hesitate to jump to conclusions about these things and get uncomfortable when speculation gets bandied around as facts of the case. Yes, it could be the money grubbers just didn't want to pay him what he deserved; it could be Dabb hated Robbie and forced him out; it could also be they just didn't have the money to pay him what he wanted; or simply be that Robbie decided it was time to move on.

My impression has always been the latter and this interview didn't change that impression, but I understand why that might not be the case for others.

[catrox14]

Maybe there are some folks familiar with pay structures for writers that can help with this conversation.  I think it's reasonable to think Robbie wanted more money and they weren't going to pay him more.  Robbie is probably unlikely to air dirty laundry when the show is still on the air, if there is any to be aired.

I'm really interested in a tell all book about the show when all is said and done. It might turn out to be really boring LOL but maybe a little juicy.

[DittyDotDot]

18 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

I know the term predates Robbie's tenure.  I wasn't suggesting Robbie was the source of the term. IMO whether fandom uses it or not a writer has the choice of NOT using the term, even if he is talking to fandom writers.

Right, but does that mean that Robbie uses that term here because he's obsessed with the thing and just loves it so much he must use the cutesy term, or is he using the term the people he is talking to are using so the communication can be easier?

This seems to me to be another case of "perceived drama behind the scenes."

3 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

I think it's reasonable to think Robbie wanted more money and they weren't going to pay him more.

Again, not suggesting it's unreasonable, but when it's being presented as fact when it's just speculation--and especially when it calls someone's professionalism into question--I tend to error on the side of caution.

Edited September 5, 2017 by DittyDotDot

[catrox14]

Just now, DittyDotDot said:

Right, but does that mean that Robbie uses that term here because he's obsessed with the thing and just loves it so much he must use the cutesy term, or is he using the term the people he is talking to are using so the communication can be easier?

This seems to me to be another case of "perceived drama behind the scenes" to me.

Not really understanding where "perceived drama behind the scenes" factors into this conversation.  My opinion has nothing to do with anything behind the scenes.

I think Robbie does write a lot of fanservice for various factions of fandom be it bronlies, bi-bros, TFW and even low key Destiel IMO. IMO, Robbie used Samulet because he wants to use it.  He wrote the term into Fan Fiction and Marie uses it from the jump and goes on about it's importance to the brothers relationship. IMO, that's how Robbie sees it.   IMO, if the amulet had never been dubbed by fandom as the "Samulet" most viewers wouldn't care that Dean threw it away and definitely not 8 years later.

[Wayward Son]

3 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

Not really understanding where "perceived drama behind the scenes" factors into this conversation.  My opinion has nothing to do with anything behind the scenes.

I think Robbie does write a lot of fanservice for various factions of fandom be it bronlies, bi-bros, TFW and even low key Destiel IMO. IMO, Robbie used Samulet because he wants to use it.  He wrote the term into Fan Fiction and Marie uses it from the jump and goes on about it's importance to the brothers relationship. IMO, that's how Robbie sees it.   IMO, if the amulet had never been dubbed by fandom as the "Samulet" most viewers wouldn't care that Dean threw it away and definitely not 8 years later.

Plus, IIRC Robbie said in an exit interview he brought it back as "a gift to the fans". It was fan service by his own admission.

[AwesomO4000]

18 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

1) Meh. Just the fact that Thompson refers to it as the Samulet tells me all I need to know about fan service and claiming now that Sam had it all along. I just don't believe that if Sam did have post-5x16, he would have kept it to himself all these years. 2) I've read the 'hurt feelings' argument, but I don't buy it. Sam certainly never had any problem expressing his feelings about all the other perceived wrongs Dean did him (or anything else). 3) And even if he didn't throw it up to Dean out of anger or spite (or to heap a little more guilt on him), then why not even out of love? Why not when they reconciled and joined forces after Point of No Return. Why not before he jumped in the pit? Why not after coming back from the Hell (him), Purgatory (Dean), death (Dean) and all manner of looming, world-ending threats, why didn't he tell him? Nope, not buying it.

1) Actually from the way I interpreted what I read in his answer, the "Samulet" is the one from the 200th episode, and Thompson even mentions that. And that's why it - the "Samulet" is in the keepsake box in "The Mystic" (which Thompson wrote) and that is what he is specifically referring to as "the Samulet" there because he is referring to the wooden one from "Fan Fiction." Thompson then says "So that one’s in there, but in my mind that was my head canon [for the real one]." So for me he was talking about two different things: the wooden one - the "Samulet" - which got him thinking about the real one and whether Sam would have kept that one also.

2) It depends on when in Sam's history you are talking about. Season 4 Sam - fine, but Sam had changed in season 5 when the amulet was thrown away. In season 6 and 7, Sam was a little busy being soulless and then having crazy issues... and also, not really at odds with Dean. Carver's version of Sam in season 8 and 9 - again sure, but what would be the advantage for Sam to bring up the amulet then... if he was even thinking of it at that point. Apparently, according to Carver, Sam was too busy going to farmer's markets and such and living in a fantasy world of denial, so maybe he forgot all about it.

3) This one is easy for me. Just because Sam may not have wanted to see the amulet that meant something to him now, too - after his revelations in "A Very Supernatural Christmas" - tossed and lost forever doesn't mean he'd want Dean to know that he didn't respect Dean's decision to throw it away. Maybe if Dean had said something like "I shouldn't have thrown that away," in some form or another, Sam would have mentioned it. But if Sam thought Dean just didn't really want it any more, I can see him not mentioning it and keeping it to / for himself.   And considering that the wooden version was in Sam's memory box tells me that Sam had a pretty good idea that Dean wouldn't be all that interested in the real thing either. And Sam may not only have kept it from a Dean perspective, but from a historical and/or faith type perspective. Just because it didn't work supposedly doesn't mean it might not still be somewhat historically interesting to Sam. If I had been there, I entirely would have retrieved the thing, and it would have had no meaning to me except in a "that's kind of a cool amulet" kind of way. So I agree with @Bessie, that Sam retrieving it makes the most sense.

And I can imagine Sam leaving his memory box - or whatever his stuff was in before (maybe a smaller metal box) - at Bobby's before going into the pit,  since that was a planned and not spur of the moment thing. And then either getting it before or retrieving it from the rubble of Bobby's later on after the place was blown up. The memory box might have only come into play once they moved into the bunker and Sam moved all of his mementos into it then from something smaller. I mean Dean somehow had photos of Mary, and those would be much harder to keep than the much less destructible amulet.

8 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

IMO, Robbie got fixated on appeasing the faction of fans who are obsessed with it and maybe he was obsessed with it himself.  It kind of bugs me that Robbie is using the fanon term for it. That was Dean's amulet. I know "Samulet" is cutesy but seriously, why is a gift named for the person that gave it to him? Why isn't it called the Deanulet? Why isn't the Impala called the Johnpala? Or Jaby?

Why wouldn't Sam mention he had it, especially after  Fan Fiction when a fake amulet showed up. He had the perfect chance to say "Hey, Dean. Did I ever tell you have saved the one I gave you that you threw away?".   

For me, it's not good for Sam's characterization to think he would go dumpster diving for something that 1) didn't work 2)that Dean clearly didn't want anymore, and IMO it kind of undercuts Sam's quest for independence from Dean in S5, if he dug it out of the trash.

I think my explanation above also covers this. The fact that Sam had the "Samulet" (the wooden one) in his memory box rather than Dean, shows that he likely knew that Dean wouldn't be that interested in the real thing. Likely whatever conversation, action, etc. that lead to it being in Sam's box, probably convinced Sam Dean still wouldn't want the real one back.

As for Sam's quest for independence from Dean in season 5... I didn't get that from the season at all. I pretty much got the opposite. Sam's quest for independence was in season 4... and it ended really badly.  And very much like after John died and Sam had a sort of woulda, coulda, shoulda "independence remorse," it was the same in season 5 in my opinion. Sam didn't want independence from Dean. He wanted to be back with Dean as a partner. It was just that Dean wasn't ready to let him back in, and Sam first had to deal with his addiction issues.

For me it doesn't undercut anything if Sam decided "Dean doesn't want it anymore, but it still has meaning for me that I'm not ready to give up on." Which actually fits in very nicely, in my opinion, with Sam not giving up on Dean in "Point of No Return" (much like he wasn't ready to give up on the Impala in "In My Time of Dying.") - but at the same time not wanting to belittle Dean's decision to get rid of it either. And in that context, never telling Dean would be the right thing to do. Sam would be deciding to keep it for himself, and making that decision for himself, but at the same time, understanding that he didn't want to take away Dean's decision, either - maybe even feeling a bit guilty about that - and so never letting Dean know.

Besides no one said that the amulet didn't work. Castiel said that it was "useless," but that was because God said that he wouldn't help them. But no one ever said - that I remember anyway - that the amulet didn't work. So why would Sam assume that it didn't work rather than have historical and/or faith-based meaning? So in addition to its Dean-centirc value, it also had potential faith value. I couldn't see Sam letting that just lie there (pun intended), myself, but I can see the other side as well.

As for why fans called it the Samulet... I don't know. Maybe because it was through Sam-centric flashbacks that we learned it's history? (And perhaps ironically that was a Jeremy Carver episode).

[DittyDotDot]

30 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

Not really understanding where "perceived drama behind the scenes" factors into this conversation.

In the interview, Robbie talks about how most decisions are made for mundane reasons, but viewers find some sort of "perceived drama behind the scenes" meaning to ascribe to those decisions. So, I was saying: it seems to me Robbie's reason for using the term is probably a lot more mundane--like using the term the people he's talking to use as a way to ease communication--than the assumption he's obsessed with thing so he must use the cutesy term.

30 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

He wrote the term into Fan Fiction and Marie uses it from the jump and goes on about it's importance to the brothers relationship.

I think he wrote the term into Fan Fiction because that's the term fandom uses for the thing. It may not be the term you would like people to use, but I've rarely ever heard it referred to as anything but the "Samulet." ::shrugs::

Edited September 5, 2017 by DittyDotDot

[AwesomO4000]

12 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

IMO, if the amulet had never been dubbed by fandom as the "Samulet" most viewers wouldn't care that Dean threw it away and definitely not 8 years later.

I disagree. Carver's episode "A Very Supernatural Christmas" cemented the meaning of the amulet to both Dean and Sam. It was that episode that made Dean throwing away the amulet later in "Dark Side of the Moon" an emotional moment.  Now if not for AVSC, I may not have cared that Dean threw it away, but the episode happened, so I did.  I'm not saying that I represent all viewers, but for this viewer, the name - which I was actually unaware of myself until "Fan Fiction" - wasn't what made me care about Dean throwing it away. It was the history of the thing and, maybe even more importantly, Sam having a revelation about it and it now being something important to him also. Important enough that Sam didn't bury it with Dean, but instead chose to wear it to remind him of Dean - it therefore gaining even more meaning through that action.

And now that I'm writing that, it makes even more sense to me that Sam would retrieve the amulet from the trash. Why would he leave the amulet in the garbage when he couldn't even bare to bury it with Dean even when he buried Dean specifically - rather than a hunter's funeral - because he expected to somehow get Dean back? Yet still he kept it instead and actually wore it, presumably all the time.

[DittyDotDot]

4 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

I disagree. Carver's episode "A Very Supernatural Christmas" cemented the meaning of the amulet to both Dean and Sam. It was that episode that made Dean throwing away the amulet later in "Dark Side of the Moon" an emotional moment.  Now if not for AVSC, I may not have cared that Dean threw it away, but the episode happened, so I did.  I'm not saying that I represent all viewers, but for this viewer, the name - which I was actually unaware of myself until "Fan Fiction" - wasn't what made me care about Dean throwing it away. It was the history of the thing and, maybe even more importantly, Sam having a revelation about it and it now being something important to him also. Important enough that Sam didn't bury it with Dean, but instead chose to wear it to remind him of Dean - it therefore gaining even more meaning through that action.

And now that I'm writing that, it makes even more sense to me that Sam would retrieve the amulet from the trash. Why would he leave the amulet in the garbage when he couldn't even bare to bury it with Dean even when he buried Dean specifically - rather than a hunter's funeral - because he expected to somehow get Dean back? Yet still he kept it instead and actually wore it, presumably all the time.

I didn't even know the amulet was dubbed the "Samulet" until after I finished S6 and went online and saw some discussions about it, but it sure did matter to me when Dean threw it away anyway. So, there's at least two of us out there who weren't swayed by it's name, but by it's history on the show.

[catrox14]

18 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

I think my explanation above also covers this. The fact that Sam had the "Samulet" (the wooden one) in his memory box rather than Dean, shows that he likely knew that Dean wouldn't be that interested in the real thing. Likely whatever conversation, action, etc. that lead to it being in Sam's box, probably convinced Sam Dean still wouldn't want the real one back.

Dean hung the fake one on the rearview mirror between them with a smile. IMO, that signaled that Dean was amenable to the idea of the amulet again. At that point I see no reason for Sam to not go ahead and say "I have the real one" other than Robbie didn't know he was going to bring it back, or he did and wanted to hold the reveal until DCMS, but I didn't have that impression. Even after DCMS, it was never discussed on screen how or why Sam had the real one. If Sam had it in the memory box, then he put it in his pocket. Or Chuck took it out of Sam's memory box and put it in his pocket. I just think it's a poor writing choice that as fanservice in FF was okay, but then bringing back the real one in DCMS was more fanservice IMO that just confused everything. IMO either way, it still doesn't make sense to me that Sam had it for 8 years after dumpster diving.