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

[ahrtee]

11 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.

This is one of my pet peeves.  A Very Supernatural Xmas showed very clearly that Sam intended the amulet for John, and only gave it to Dean when John disappointed him (again) by not showing up.  IMO it was indicating more of Sam's anger with John than his undying affection for Dean.  His actual words:

SAM takes the present he wrapped from the pocket of a jacket that is lying over the arm of the couch. He holds it out to DEAN.

SAM: Here, take this.

DEAN: No. No, that’s for Dad.

SAM: Dad lied to me. I want you to have it.

SAM continues to hold out the gift. DEAN looks at it and at SAM.

DEAN: You sure?

SAM: (Nods) I’m sure.

Nowhere in there does he say "you've been more of a father to me than dad," or "you deserve this more than him," and IMO his expression when Dean thanked him showed more of a "meh, whatever" attitude than anything.  TBH, I always felt embarrassed that Dean was so overly grateful for something that didn't really seem to mean anything *at the time.*  I do think over the years, when Sam saw how much it meant to Dean, he realized the significance to both of them, and it did become their "symbol," but at the time it honestly annoyed me.

 (TMI:  when I was about 8 I bought a "very expensive" (ie, about $5, my whole allowance) present for my mom, then she did something that made me mad and so I gave the present to my sister instead.  My sister recognized that it wasn't intended for her (and was given out of anger with mom instead of out of love for her) and so didn't really care about it. As I recall, my mother and I made up the next day and my sister gave her the present back.)

Now, I do think it would be logical for Sam to retrieve the amulet from the trash, and maybe even keep it in his "memory box" till now, but there are too many logic holes to make that canon for me (not that the writers seem too bothered either by canon or logic).  But the fact that Chuck had the amulet in his pocket and said something like "you'll never believe where this has been" makes me want to believe that Chuck had it all the time; otherwise, there was no reason for him to show it to Metatron (except for exposition about turning its power off) before slipping it back in Sam's pocket in time for the big reveal.

[DittyDotDot]

1 minute ago, ahrtee said:

This is one of my pet peeves.  A Very Supernatural Xmas showed very clearly that Sam intended the amulet for John, and only gave it to Dean when John disappointed him (again) by not showing up.  IMO it was indicating more of Sam's anger with John than his undying affection for Dean.

You know, I was kinda ambivalent about the amulet at first because that was my initial reading of that scene. I remember being really disappointed that Sam didn't have a present of some sort already for Dean, but instead "regifted" the present he had intended to give his dad. But, over time I've come to think of it as Sam giving Dean the only present he had to give at the time as a way of reciprocating what Dean had tried to do for Sam--which was give him Christmas and let him be a normal kid for a day. I think it took on a different meaning to Dean because Dean took his caring for Sam very seriously, so over the 10-plus years he wore it, it became a symbol of their bond for Dean.

14 minutes ago, ahrtee said:

Now, I do think it would be logical for Sam to retrieve the amulet from the trash, and maybe even keep it in his "memory box" till now, but there are too many logic holes to make that canon for me (not that the writers seem too bothered either by canon or logic).  But the fact that Chuck had the amulet in his pocket and said something like "you'll never believe where this has been" makes me want to believe that Chuck had it all the time; otherwise, there was no reason for him to show it to Metatron (except for exposition about turning its power off) before slipping it back in Sam's pocket in time for the big reveal.

See, I don't have an issue with that because Chuck is God, after all. He doesn't need to actually physically have the amulet for him to make people believe he does or use an illusion of it to illustrate a point.

[catrox14]

I'm not saying ti didn't matter at the time Dean tossed it. I'm saying that the show didn't care about the amulet after Dean tossed it, and IMO neither did Dean nor Sam, since it was never discussed in 6 years on the show.

But fandom kept bringing it up all the time. "Where's the Samulet" which IMO really tends to make Dean throwing it away less about Dean over time.  Anyway, it's always bugged me and it always will. I wish Robbie had never brought it back. It was one bit of fanservice I could have done without.

Edited September 5, 2017 by catrox14

[FlickChick]

Very late to the party, but THANKS @catrox14 and @DittyDotDot for the excerpts from the Fangasm article with Robbie Thompson. Very enjoyable and informational reading.

[ahrtee]

4 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said:

You know, I was kinda ambivalent about the amulet at first because that was my initial reading of that scene. I remember being really disappointed that Sam didn't have a present of some sort already for Dean, but instead "regifted" the present he had intended to give his dad. But, over time I've come to think of it as Sam giving Dean the only present he had to give at the time as a way of reciprocating what Dean had tried to do for Sam--which was give him Christmas and let him be a normal kid for a day. I think it took on a different meaning to Dean because Dean took his caring for Sam very seriously, so over the 10-plus years he wore it, it became a symbol of their bond for Dean.

 

See, that doesn't work for me because I can't see Sam not having a present for Dean (even if it was something homemade, or he could have gotten something for Dean from Bobby.)  Also, Dean has always tried to give Sam "normal" whenever he could, so I don't see this as anything particularly unusual for them.  But the main killer for me is Sam's expression when he gives Dean the present.  YMMV.

5 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said:

See, I don't have an issue with that because Chuck is God, after all. He doesn't need to actually physically have the amulet for him to make people believe he does or use an illusion of it to illustrate a point.

Except he wasn't making people believe anything, he was showing it to Metatron, one of his favorite (sort of) angels.  He had no reason to create an illusion.  So I might believe that he whipped it away from wherever it was, brought it to show Metatron and then stuck it in Sam's pocket, but that just seems...silly.  Again, JMO.

3 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

I wish Robbie had never brought it back. It was one bit of fanservice I could have done without.

I didn't mind it in Fan Fiction (because that was fanservice in the most literal sense--a nod to those who wanted it back just like they gave a nod to Destiel) but not if he meant it seriously.

[gonzosgirrl]

1 hour ago, AwesomO4000 said:

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.

 

I disagree. He says Singer or Carver suggested putting 'the Samulet' in 200. Now, he could mean that Singer and Carver actually used that word and he was quoting him, or, he used it in relaying their intent. Either way, that's how he refers to it. Given that he wrote the name into the script, I'm thinking he uses it. I'm not sure what him talking about two different things has to do with it though. He's pretty clearly stating that in his opinion, Sam did keep it  and had it all along.

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.

[catrox14]

2 minutes ago, ahrtee said:

I didn't mind it in Fan Fiction (because that was fanservice in the most literal sense--a nod to those who wanted it back just like they gave a nod to Destiel) but not if he meant it seriously.

I was always concerned, that if it it wasn't planned to be in s11 as of FF, then they couldn't resist the temptation to bring it back for real later. Of course, maybe I'm looking at this all wrong and I should be happy they brought it back and I can keep an eye out for some low key canon Destiel :). 

[catrox14]

I want to know what happened to Dean's ring. LOL. Seriously. I really do. I should tweet at Dabb and ask him what is the deal with Dean's ring.

11 minutes ago, ahrtee said:

See, that doesn't work for me because I can't see Sam not having a present for Dean (even if it was something homemade, or he could have gotten something for Dean from Bobby.)  Also, Dean has always tried to give Sam "normal" whenever he could, so I don't see this as anything particularly unusual for them.  But the main killer for me is Sam's expression when he gives Dean the present.  YMMV.

 I feel like Carver was saying that Sam was really hurt and angry that John didn't come for Christmas. And I agree he was like "here you have this thing I was going to give to Dad". I still don't get why Sam didn't have a present for Dean already, unless he did but gave him John's to spite John. 

[DittyDotDot]

41 minutes ago, ahrtee said:

See, that doesn't work for me because I can't see Sam not having a present for Dean (even if it was something homemade, or he could have gotten something for Dean from Bobby.)  Also, Dean has always tried to give Sam "normal" whenever he could, so I don't see this as anything particularly unusual for them.  But the main killer for me is Sam's expression when he gives Dean the present.  YMMV.

Well, Dean didn't have any present for Sam either, so I'm not sure why Sam not having one for Dean was unbelievable?

Sure, Dean had tried to shelter Sam from the truth for years and let him be a normal kid, but Sam had just then learned the truth about just how abnormal their lives really were, so I think this was an unusual day for both of them. IMO, Dean went and stole those presents for Sam in the wake of his innocence being broken as a way to let him hang on to it for just a little longer. And, I think Sam realized Dean had went to all this trouble for him, so reciprocated with the only thing he had to give Dean at the time.

46 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

I'm not saying ti didn't matter at the time Dean tossed it. I'm saying that the show didn't care about the amulet after Dean tossed it, and IMO neither did Dean nor Sam, since it was never discussed in 6 years on the show.

But fandom kept bringing it up all the time. "Where's the Samulet" which IMO really tends to make Dean throwing it away less about Dean over time.  Anyway, it's always bugged me and it always will. I wish Robbie had never brought it back. It was one bit of fanservice I could have done without.

Just so you know, even though I always thought Sam dug it out of the trash in Dark Side of the Moon, I never wanted to have it brought back--I kinda think, like with Lucifer, they should leave that shit alone, even though the show doesn't seem to agree with me on this--but do think the way they did it made sense.

Edited September 5, 2017 by DittyDotDot

[DittyDotDot]

42 minutes ago, ahrtee said:

Except he wasn't making people believe anything, he was showing it to Metatron, one of his favorite (sort of) angels.  He had no reason to create an illusion.  So I might believe that he whipped it away from wherever it was, brought it to show Metatron and then stuck it in Sam's pocket, but that just seems...silly.  Again, JMO.

I'm not saying he whipped it from where it was and then put it in Sam's pocket, but I think Sam had the real thing all along and Chuck used an illusion of it to illustrate his point that he was actually God to not-so-marvy Marv. Which, to be honest, creating an illusion is probably a better illustration of being God than not using an illusion.

Edited September 5, 2017 by DittyDotDot

[catrox14]

24 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said:

Well, Dean didn't have any present for Sam either, so I'm not sure why Sam not having one for Dean was unbelievable?

I figured Dean was expecting John to bring the presents and  that Dean had already picked a present for Sam, which is why he went out and stole presents from another house. If Sam hadn't said "This was supposed to be Dad's but here you have it", it would have played better for me that Sam wasn't giving it to Dean to spite John. 

Damn, amulet. Always a lightning rod! LOL

[RulerofallIsurvey]

2 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:

As for why fans called it the Samulet... I don't know. 

(Caution! Snark ahead!) Well, Damulet might give the wrong connotation... ;)  And not be so easy to say on network tv.

1 hour ago, ahrtee said:

This is one of my pet peeves.  A Very Supernatural Xmas showed very clearly that Sam intended the amulet for John, and only gave it to Dean when John disappointed him (again) by not showing up.  IMO it was indicating more of Sam's anger with John than his undying affection for Dean.  His actual words:

SAM takes the present he wrapped from the pocket of a jacket that is lying over the arm of the couch. He holds it out to DEAN.

SAM: Here, take this.

DEAN: No. No, that’s for Dad.

SAM: Dad lied to me. I want you to have it.

SAM continues to hold out the gift. DEAN looks at it and at SAM.

DEAN: You sure?

SAM: (Nods) I’m sure.

Nowhere in there does he say "you've been more of a father to me than dad," or "you deserve this more than him," and IMO his expression when Dean thanked him showed more of a "meh, whatever" attitude than anything.  

I haven't watched the scene in awhile, but just reading the transcript as you posted it, I think the "Dad lied to me.  I want you to have it." speaks volumes.  In other words, his father lied to Sam, but Dean never did and so Dean is more deserving of the present than John.  YMMV.

[DittyDotDot]

50 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

I figured Dean was expecting John to bring the presents and  that Dean had already picked a present for Sam, which is why he went out and stole presents from another house.

See, I got the distinct impression there were no presents coming from John and the possibility that John would actually show was pretty slim. My impression is Dean went and stole those presents as a way of giving Sam something good to hold on to now that his life had gotten a whole lot scarier.

In a way, giving Dean the amulet was Sam learning to give "stolen" presents, as a way to show you care, from watching Dean. ;)

Edited September 6, 2017 by DittyDotDot

[Bessie]

44 minutes ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

 In other words, his father lied to Sam, but Dean never did and so Dean is more deserving of the present than John.  

Actually, Dean was in on the deception but I think his intentions were good. And maybe John's were too.

I don't know how the writers intended for me to interpret the fact that Sam never calls Dean out on his lying, focusing his feelings of betrayal on John. But I always thought it showed remarkable emotional maturity on the part of a 10 year old to be able to discern the difference between the two.

Most ten year olds I know, would've lashed out at both of them. 

Edited September 6, 2017 by Bessie

[Jeddah]

1 hour ago, catrox14 said:

Damn, amulet. Always a lightning rod! LOL

At least he didn't mention...(looks around cautiously, whispers)...the green Army men.

[RulerofallIsurvey]

44 minutes ago, Bessie said:

Actually, Dean was in on the deception but I think his intentions were good. And maybe John's were too.

I don't know how the writers intended for me to interpret the fact that Sam never calls Dean out on his lying, focusing his feelings of betrayal on John. But I always thought it showed remarkable emotional maturity on the part of a 10 year old to be able to discern the difference between the two.

Most ten year olds I know, would've lashed out at both of them. 

Well, yeah...I guess I just figured that Sam was smart enough to figure out that John, as the parent, held the responsibility for the deception, not Dean.  A few years younger, and I would have agreed with you about the lashing out at both, but I've known some 10 year olds who would have been savvy enough to discern the difference themselves.  

[AwesomO4000]

32 minutes ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

I haven't watched the scene in awhile, but just reading the transcript as you posted it, I think the "Dad lied to me.  I want you to have it." speaks volumes.  In other words, his father lied to Sam, but Dean never did and so Dean is more deserving of the present than John.  YMMV.

Agreed.

1 hour ago, gonzosgirrl said:

I disagree. He says Singer or Carver suggested putting 'the Samulet' in 200. Now, he could mean that Singer and Carver actually used that word and he was quoting him, or, he used it in relaying their intent. Either way, that's how he refers to it. Given that he wrote the name into the script, I'm thinking he uses it. I'm not sure what him talking about two different things has to do with it though. He's pretty clearly stating that in his opinion, Sam did keep it  and had it all along.

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.

For me, the key word there was "from" the 200th. It sounds to me like Thompson is talking about "The Mystic" - which he also wrote - and specifically what was in Sam's memory box, and that's where the "So that one's in there," the "that one" being the wooden Samulet and the "there" being the memory box, comes in. (Because  the wooden Samulet was in the memory box.) And from that, that's where Thompson got the "head canon" that Sam also could have saved the "real" amulet in the memory box too, because as he said in your quote, Sam carrying it around for all of those episodes made no sense, but why couldn't it be in the memory box (or something similar)? If he was talking about the idea of putting in the real amulet for the 200th episode, to me the sentence structure doesn't make sense... there shouldn't be a "from" in there. So to me, the "Samulet" he's talking about is the wooden one from the 200th episode and it was Singer or Carver's idea to have that in Sam's memory box as part of his keepsakes and Thompson thought that that was a great idea. But that also got him to thinking that Sam could have the "real one" (see the brackets above) in there too... which is why he mentioned "head canon."

Now it gets more confusing later on when Thompson maybe calls the "real one" both the Samulet and the amulet (in the last sentences of the quote), but in the first sentence, I'm pretty sure he's talking about the wooden one. If nothing else the last sentence establishes that he's not committed to just calling it the "Samulet" but interchanges what he calls it rather readily.

Now since I only read the excerpts that @catrox14 provided - I haven't had time to read the whole interview yet - I could be wrong, but to me, it sounds like Thompson is talking about the memory box there - from that episode of his - rather than discussing "Fan Fiction."

3 hours ago, ahrtee said:

This is one of my pet peeves.  A Very Supernatural Xmas showed very clearly that Sam intended the amulet for John, and only gave it to Dean when John disappointed him (again) by not showing up.  IMO it was indicating more of Sam's anger with John than his undying affection for Dean.  

{snip}

I do think over the years, when Sam saw how much it meant to Dean, he realized the significance to both of them, and it did become their "symbol," but at the time it honestly annoyed me.

But that was the part of "A Very Supernatural Christmas" I was referring to. It wasn't necessarily the origin story itself for me... it was that Sam was now remembering that incident and that night and seeing it for what it was: Dean doing his very best to make a bad situation not so bad for Sam. And Sam's remembering that night in that new light is what made Sam decide to give Dean Christmas even though it was hard for him to do so. And for Sam, the amulet was now a symbol of that night and that time in their lives.... that Dean was so happy to have that one small token, because Sam gave it to him, how could Sam not give Dean the small effort of a last Christmas as well? Especially since Sam now truly realizes that not only had Dean been the one he could depend on, but exactly just how much Dean had done to make his childhood not so bad.

When Dean comes through the door, the camera focuses for a moment on the amulet - as maybe Sam also did, remembering his memory in that new light - and from then on in my opinion, the amulet had a special meaning. So no matter what it meant before in their history, now it meant something more, especially to Sam. And to me, that was the point of "AVSC."

And also as I said, that Sam wore it after Dean died shows - to me - that Sam, himself, continued to put a lot of meaning into that symbol. And since Dean knew that Sam had been wearing it, he should have known that his throwing it away also had meaning beyond it just being an amulet that Sam gave him. In my opinion anyway.

3 hours ago, catrox14 said:

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.

I don't know. Maybe if he'd put it on, but just hanging it on the rearview mirror... I'm not so sure that it was that clear cut. Not enough to admit he had it.

3 hours ago, catrox14 said:

I'm not saying ti didn't matter at the time Dean tossed it. I'm saying that the show didn't care about the amulet after Dean tossed it, and IMO neither did Dean nor Sam, since it was never discussed in 6 years on the show.

But fandom kept bringing it up all the time. "Where's the Samulet" which IMO really tends to make Dean throwing it away less about Dean over time.  Anyway, it's always bugged me and it always will. I wish Robbie had never brought it back. It was one bit of fanservice I could have done without.

How do we know that the show didn't care about it, though? Or if they weren't going to care about it, or want us to care about it, why did they give it so much meaning in the first place? Because just think... you even want to know what happened to Dean's ring, and that didn't even get a backstory. Of course there were going to be at least some fans who would would want to know what happened to the amulet after they gave it so much meaning.

But then again to me, once they were planning to have God come back, it would make sense that the amulet would have to come into play even if they hadn't mentioned it in 4 seasons, but that could just be me.

As for the not discussing it, that actually makes sense to me. Considering all that happened to them, and especially Sam, in those 6 years - more like 186 after Sam got his memories back - it makes sense that he might just forget about having the amulet until the subject of God came up in his mind, and then if God did happen to show up for real, Sam might want to know He was there - so amulet in pocket now.

[catrox14]

1 hour ago, AwesomO4000 said:

How do we know that the show didn't care about it, though? O

Well, Jensen hated the thing, so he wanted it gone to save him getting his teeth chipped. But seriously, typically, doesn't this show leave at least some clue about something coming that would be a such a huge call back if they were planning on ever using it again? iMO they would.
 

 

1 hour ago, AwesomO4000 said:

As for the not discussing it, that actually makes sense to me. Considering all that happened to them, and especially Sam, in those 6 years - more like 186 after Sam got his memories back - it makes sense that he might just forget about having the amulet until the subject of God came up in his mind, and then if God did happen to show up for real, Sam might want to know He was there - so amulet in pocket now.

There were plenty of opportunities for the show to actually have Dean or Sam bring it up even not to the other one. I can't fathom that Sam would have ever forgotten he had the Amulet. If it was a big enough deal from him to dig it out of the trash can especially before and after such a monumental life altering experience, why would he forget it? Now if he suffered from memory loss, then I MAYBE I could by it. But otherwise...eh. I don't think it works.

1 hour ago, AwesomO4000 said:

How do we know that the show didn't care about it, though? Or if they weren't going to care about it, or want us to care about it, why did they give it so much meaning in the first place? Because just think... you even want to know what happened to Dean's ring, and that didn't even get a backstory. Of course there were going to be at least some fans who would would want to know what happened to the amulet after they gave it so much meaning.

 

IMO, once Dean tossed the amulet, he no longer valued it. The ring is different because we have no idea what happened to it. Maybe it's in his memory box, or he gave it away or tossed it. IMO, I have no reason to think his ring will ever see the light of day again, and I'm also not clamoring for it.

[AwesomO4000]

39 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

If it was a big enough deal from him to dig it out of the trash can especially before and after such a monumental life altering experience, why would he forget it? Now if he suffered from memory loss, then I MAYBE I could by it. But otherwise...eh. I don't think it works.

Technically Sam did suffer memory loss for a while fairly soon after he would've dug the amulet out of the trash... within half a dozen episodes, Sam was in hell. Then he was soulless Sam who would have cared less about the amulet, then he had memory damage - he should have remembered the amulet, but had other stuff to worry about. Then he was going crazy, including hell memories, so truthfully I think Sam had a lot of stuff on his plate at the time. After that maybe Sam suffered some sort of brain damage in that car accident when he hit that dog - he seemed to forget a bunch of stuff after that *cough* Kevin *cough* -  because otherwise I have little explanation for his behavior in the first half of season 8... but that's a topic I think I'll avoid revisiting tonight.

But seriously, even if Sam remembered the amulet, considering everything else going on in his life, I could see him not bringing it up to Dean - and I expanded on this in the "Unpopular Opinion" thread. Just because we didn't see him with it doesn't mean he wouldn't have taken it out to look at it every once in a while, but before season 11, we rarely saw Sam alone contemplating things or anything like that. Not like we tended to see Dean. And when we did in season 7, it was often to explore his Lucifer hallucinations - which I found fascinating (and creepy and horrifying) because we did get some insight into Sam's inner thoughts.

1 hour ago, catrox14 said:

But seriously, typically, doesn't this show leave at least some clue about something coming that would be a such a huge call back if they were planning on ever using it again? iMO they would.

Well, in my opinion, they sort of did once they potentially considered visiting God, because they gave a clue with the wooden Samulet - and Chuck - in "Fan Fiction" which was a season and a half before God and the amulet showed up. Now the writers hadn't considered God showing up, I can imagine that they wouldn't have revisited the amulet, but for me, once they were going the God route, the amulet showing up, too, just made sense to me.

1 hour ago, catrox14 said:

IMO, once Dean tossed the amulet, he no longer valued it. The ring is different because we have no idea what happened to it. Maybe it's in his memory box, or he gave it away or tossed it. IMO, I have no reason to think his ring will ever see the light of day again, and I'm also not clamoring for it.

Much like DittyDotDot, I wasn't really needing to see the amulet again, even if I wondered what became of it, because I was fine with fanfic exploration of what became of it. However, I do think as I said, once they were going the God route, mentioning it again did make a certain kind of sense, so I was okay with it too. And I think the conjecture that Sam had it makes some sense for the reasons I outlined in that "Unpopular Opinions" post, especially because of the fact that Sam didn't let it go before (when he didn't bury it with Dean) and that it was a faith-related object. And now that Sam knew God really did exist, I think he would even more not want to see a God-related item just thrown away in the trash, especially if there was a chance that it might be useful and or work one day... even if at that point in time he wasn't so much on the God train, Sam is generally a hopeful creature by nature, so...

[SueB]

Robbie left to do comics. He was doing that prior to departing but it has really amped up since he departed in 2016.
 

Quote

 

 Writer:

 The Amazing Spider-Man & Silk: The Spider(fly) Effect (Infinite Comics) (2016)
 The Amazing Spider-Man & Silk: The Spider(fly) Effect (2016)
 The Amazing Spider-Man (2015)
 Amazing Spider-Man: The Clone Conspiracy (2017)
 Deadpool & the Mercs For Money (2016)
 Doctor Strange [GER] (2016)
 Doctor Strange and the Sorcerers Supreme (2016)
 Guardians of Infinity (2016)
 Human Target (2010)
 Planet of the Apes/Green Lantern (2017)
 Silk (2015)
 Silk (2016)
 Spider-Man (2008)
 Spider-Man [GER] (2013)
 Spider-Man [GER] (2016)
 Spider-Man: Master Plan (2017)
 Spider-Verse (2015)
 Spider-Women (2016)
 Spider-Women Alpha (2016)
 Spider-Women Omega (2016)
 Spidey (2016)
 Spidey - 20 Jahre Panini Comics Gratis-Exemplar (2017)
 Star Wars: Poe Dameron (2017)
 Timely Comics: Venom: Space Knight (2016)
 True Believers: Amazing Fantasy Starring Spider-Man (2017)
 True Believers: Silk No. 1 (2015)
 Venom (2017)
 Venom: Space Knight (2016)
 Vertigo Quarterly SFX (2015)
 Web Warriors (2016)

 Penciller:

 Human Target: Kopfgeld für den Paten - Die Adaption der TV-Serie (2011)

 

I had a lovely chat with him in July (there was no one in his autograph line so I totally abused the time, and he was happy to visit... he really does love the fans IMO).  I asked him flat out what would it take to get him to come back to Supernatural and he said he wouldn't.  He said he LOVED his time on the show but that time had passed and he wanted to do other things.  If you think about comic book writing, you get MUCH more autonomy in those endeavors.  I asked him about writing a chapter in one of Lynn's books and he said he's not a novelist.  He HAS, however, written a movie script that he's trying to get produced.

Bottom Line: I'm not aware of ANY drama related to Robbie leaving except that I think he was determined to go.  He's kept fairly busy since and has a lot of ideas for the future.

[catrox14]

4 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:

Well, in my opinion, they sort of did once they potentially considered visiting God, because they gave a clue with the wooden Samulet - and Chuck - in "Fan Fiction" which was a season and a half before God and the amulet showed up. Now the writers hadn't considered God showing up, I can imagine that they wouldn't have revisited the amulet, but for me, once they were going the God route, the amulet showing up, too, just made sense to me

I  mentioned upthread that FF may have been the hint of a plan to bring in the real amulet in s11 . I'm talking about the time between DSoTM and FF that the show didn't seem to care about the amulet and the show had many opportunities to hint that Sam had it prior to FF. I think  Robbie is kind of romantic about the amulet like much of fandom, so he wanted to believe that Sam kept it.

[AwesomO4000]

13 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

I  mentioned upthread that FF may have been the hint of a plan to bring in the real amulet in s11 .

Yes, now I remember that you did. For some reason I confused yours with another post above that I thought said something about it showing up in season 11 with no previous warning.

But I still think that bringing God back was probably one of the main reasons to bring the amulet back... because to me that would make sense, and it might be annoying for fans to bring God into the mix and not mention the amulet in some way... kind of like how annoying it was to bring up the spear of Michael, but not mention the previous connection to Dean.

It's annoying to me when the show forgets or messes up their canon or previous history, so I for one was appreciative that they didn't in that case. It's like Chekov's gun - if the writers are going to introduce that Dean's amulet - which already had a backstory - is also a supernatural object that detects God's presence... then for me, it would be nice to actually have that amulet do the thing it was said to do when God does actually show up. As God said when he had Metatron put on the special glasses because he wanted to his whole "hallelujah" big reveal... (paraphrase) "Come on, it's a whole big thing."

20 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

I'm talking about the time between DSoTM and FF that the show didn't seem to care about the amulet and the show had many opportunities to hint that Sam had it prior to FF.

The writers likely weren't considering bringing God back at any point then, so I could understand why they wouldn't bring the amulet up before then. But throwing God into the mix for me = good reason to bring the amulet back so it can finally do what it was intended to do.

35 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

I think  Robbie is kind of romantic about the amulet like much of fandom, so he wanted to believe that Sam kept it.

That's likely true, while other writers may have wanted to keep it more vague, but I don't mind Robbie thinking that way. It doesn't bother me... and more often than not (with the exception of some of the Charlie episodes) I really like his episodes, so whatever his process is is fine with me. For season 11, for example, his 4 episodes (Baby, Into the Mystic, Safe House, and Don't Call Me Shurley) are all in my top 5 of that season - along with Just My Imagination. Similar with with season 7 (Slash Fiction and Time After Time...) season 9 (First Born and Metafiction) and season 10 (Fanfiction and Book of the Damned).

[trxr4kids]

On 9/5/2017 at 6:55 AM, DittyDotDot said:

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.

I completely agree with this. I feel like they started to give to much weight to the more vocal segments of fandom and using it as an justification in a way for why this or that happened like the time jumps in S6 and S8. In truth I feel like they kinda wrote themselves into corners that the new show runners either didn't know how to back out of (S6) or weren't interested in (S8). 

Regarding Charlies death and the deaths of other beloved or loathed characters, I realize they cant and shouldn't even try to please everyone but the deaths seem to be done for shock value and don't feel organic or necessary to the story. Kevin and Charlie were both killed only to cause tension and drama between Sam and Dean which was unnecessary because of this...

On 9/5/2017 at 6:55 AM, DittyDotDot said:

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

Anyway I guess my whole point is I have no idea why I even read comments from writers and show runners since I usually not only disagree with a minimal of 90% of what they have to say it usually only irritates or confuses me. LOL

Edited September 6, 2017 by trxr4kids
missing words

[catrox14]

5 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:

That's likely true, while other writers may have wanted to keep it more vague, but I don't mind Robbie thinking that way. It doesn't bother me...

It bothers me because IMO neither Sam nor Dean's characterizations in s5 would lead me to believe that either one cared about the amulet once it was thrown away. Sam fishing out out of hope seems unlikely when he never used it again. What was he hoping for?

[AwesomO4000]

2 hours ago, catrox14 said:

It bothers me because IMO neither Sam nor Dean's characterizations in s5 would lead me to believe that either one cared about the amulet once it was thrown away. Sam fishing out out of hope seems unlikely when he never used it again. What was he hoping for?

I guess I look at it differently, because I'm the kind of person who is more attached to my favorite things than I am a home. I could call almost anyplace home as long as my hubby and my favorite things were with me. The rest is mostly just walls to hold those things and keep them safe, so I guess the thought that someone would just suddenly have no attachment to something that had previously held so much meaning is a little foreign to me.

As for what Sam might have been hoping for: maybe that his relationship with his brother might improve and the amulet was a symbol of better times in their relationship that he's hoping for again? That his faith wasn't entirely misplaced and maybe one day God might give a crap, so maybe one day that amulet just might shine? Either one works for me. If nothing else, there's the point that it was an amulet with supernatural properties. In practical terms, it was a piece of history / lore / etc. that I couldn't see Sam leaving behind - because he seems to be interested in that kind of stuff - even if it did have no emotional importance... which it did. To me it makes sense that Sam would retrieve it. For me, maybe the only thing that would be holding him back would be respecting Dean's decision to dump it, but that could be fulfilled in a way by him keeping it to himself and not bothering Dean with its existence.

Sam had no real home. The car was as close as he had to a home. It would make sense to me that Sam would be less likely to give up or leave behind what few things that meant something to him and/or Dean that were left.

It's interesting that, in terms of characterization, we all see the same show and interpret the characters differently. To me I couldn't see Sam leaving it behind - except for the reasoning I gave above - and I'm not the only one here who has said as such. Whereas you see the opposite. It seems like the writers themselves are similarly divided. So that's why it doesn't bother me that Thompson sees it that way, because there are other writers who don't, and I like that there is a range of opinions on the show. It helps to balance things out with characterization on the show. I was grateful for example, that Thompson was one of the few writers who didn't seem to write Sam - or Dean for that matter - as a complete jerk in season 8. Not that I really loved any of his episodes that season, and there was a lot of Charlie, but at least it wasn't a "We Need to Talk About Kevin,"  "Cold Comfort," or "Citizen Fang" character trashing going on.

[catrox14]

5 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

I guess I look at it differently, because I'm the kind of person who is more attached to my favorite things than I am a home. I could call almost anyplace home as long as my hubby and my favorite things were with me. The rest is mostly just walls to hold those things and keep them safe, so I guess the thought that someone would just suddenly have no attachment to something that had previously held so much meaning is a little foreign to me.

Oh I'm the worst for keeping things with sentimental value. Things that matter only to me. I would like to start breaking myself of that habit that's for sure!

If I gave someone a gift that meant a lot to me to have given them, and they threw it away in front of my face, I would be like, welp, 'Fuck you' and I would just leave it there. I wouldn't want it back at all. Now, if it had value, like a diamond ring, then I would take it and sell it LOL. But for something that was largely sentimental, I would always think about them throwing it away and it would lose it's value to me. 

[gonzosgirrl]

15 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

 Not that I really loved any of his episodes that season, and there was a lot of Charlie, but at least it wasn't a "We Need to Talk About Kevin,"  "Cold Comfort," or "Citizen Fang" character trashing going on.

Freudian slip? :)

[catrox14]

19 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

If nothing else, there's the point that it was an amulet with supernatural properties. In practical terms, it was a piece of history / lore / etc. that I couldn't see Sam leaving behind - because he seems to be interested in that kind of stuff - even if it did have no emotional importance... which it did.

I've addressed this in the bitterness thread.

[trxr4kids]

I hope this is the right thread for this but I was wondering about everyone else's opinion on best/worst show runner. Since Singer has been on board from day 1 I count him as the worst due to lack of character consistency/regression/natural progression of said characters, blatantly ignoring past events and retconning. I think my favorite is Kripke although that could be nostalgia or just the newness of it all. I think Gamble was meh. Carver was Chuck awful and Dabb is a bizarre mix of meh and awful. Although Kripke dropped ( maybe changed or ignored is a better term(s) the Dean storyline in S4&5 and Carver did a shitty job with the MoC/Amara/DemonDean storyline but at least there was follow through no matter how poorly done I thought it was. 

[catrox14]

Kripke at number 1 for me simply because of s2, and s4 which despite being frustrating at times was mostly satisfying. He gave us The End which is my absolute fave episode ever.
Carver is number 2 for me, because I think the Purgatory,DemonDean and MoC!Dean was one of the better arcs, even if it petered out over time or wasn't quite to my satisfaction in the end. I appreciated that Dean had a true mytharc.  I was less pleased with the angel war and his handling of Sam in s8 but not so much that I throw out the whole of his era.
Sera is meh. I think she had some really good individual episodes in s6 and I liked the Leviathan and Dick Roman arcs. I am less than pleased that she killed of Cas. NOT COOL.
Dabb is last for me for many reasons.

Singer might be the reason the show is still around but at the same time, Singer might also be the reason for some of it's awfulness and well, problematic elements. I don't know what to think about Singer LOL

[DittyDotDot]

3 hours ago, trxr4kids said:

I hope this is the right thread for this but I was wondering about everyone else's opinion on best/worst show runner. Since Singer has been on board from day 1 I count him as the worst due to lack of character consistency/regression/natural progression of said characters, blatantly ignoring past events and retconning. I think my favorite is Kripke although that could be nostalgia or just the newness of it all. I think Gamble was meh. Carver was Chuck awful and Dabb is a bizarre mix of meh and awful. Although Kripke dropped ( maybe changed or ignored is a better term(s) the Dean storyline in S4&5 and Carver did a shitty job with the MoC/Amara/DemonDean storyline but at least there was follow through no matter how poorly done I thought it was. 

This is a hard question to answer simply because I think they all had their strengths and weaknesses, but I'd say Carver was the worst for me. The whole tone of the show was off under his reign--far to melodramatic, mopey and bitchy for my taste. And, I just never cared for Carver's attitude. I always got the vibe he felt he was too good for this little horror show.

I'd say Gamble and Dabb are fairly even. They both took over the show at an ending points and I think they both did okay scrambling to get things going again. There were things I really liked about both their years and I things I could've lived without, but nothing that made me want to stop watching. 

Kripke takes top slot simply because of his enthusiasm and love for the show. I think he also managed his staff well and struck a better balance with Singer than any subsequent showrunner has. 

As for Singer, I don't know, I feel like he needs a Kripke as much as Kripke needs a Singer. I think he's is probably an affable guy, though, just his "style" seems outdated to me. 

Edited September 15, 2017 by DittyDotDot

[ILoveReading]

For me the best show runner was Kim Manners (okay, not technically a show runner), but I give him a lot of credit for helping to establish the tone of the show and characterization of Sam and Dean.   I will always thank him for being able to recognize Jensen's talent and the value of Dean as a character outside of Sam.

The further this show gets from his death the more convinced I become he was a major reason for the success of the early years of the show.

That's why I give 2nd place to Carver.  He at gave Dean a myth arc out side of Sam.  Even if it fizzled out at the the end, at least I'll always have s9.  Which is my favorite after s4.  We also got purgatory Dean.  How i miss him. 

Sera had some good episodes but she treated Dean as a Sam extension.  There was just too much limp/sick/something wrong with Sam for my tastes.  My favorite being The Mentalists.  I really wish Ben Blacker and Ben Acker how been given another episode.

Last and certainly very least is Dabb.  He, IMO is the worst thing that ever happened to the show.

*my apologies if some of this sounds like bitch/jerk, its not meant in that context but its just to explain why I feel the way I do about certain show runners. 

Edited September 15, 2017 by ILoveReading

[AwesomO4000]

This is long-winded... sorry, but my reasoning is also long-winded. I'll try to bold for the too long: didn't read among you guys.

21 hours ago, trxr4kids said:

I hope this is the right thread for this but I was wondering about everyone else's opinion on best/worst show runner.

I agree with @DittyDotDot that this is a hard question to answer, and my answer is going to be based on different things than many here, because for me, character is generally the draw of a show more than anything else. And then I guess you would call it tone or atmosphere is also important. Those things are generally more important to me than even plot. And I've explained this before using House as an example, but I'll reiterate and expand, because it is critical to my rankings of the Supernatural showrunners. House has all sorts of interesting plots, mysteries, and things happening in it... but based on the 10 or so episodes I've seen, I still dislike the show, because I really dislike the character of House, himself, and can't relate to him, so I could care less that all this interesting stuff is happening. I'm still not entertained, because I find it enjoyable to watch House do these things. The "tone" of the show is also annoying for me, because I know pretty much what's going to happen... House is going to treat everyone else like idiots and do reckless things, the patient is going to go through pain and/or emotional trauma, and then House will "save the day." And it's not that I dislike procedurals in general. I watched almost all of the L&O series, and still watch L&O: SVU, but it's because I enjoy those characters, and the outcome isn't always as I think it's going to be. So with all of that in mind...

I would rank Kripke as my favorite, because despite a few issues I have with season 4 characterization and/or lack thereof (for both Sam and Dean), for me he did a good job of introducing the characters and of wrapping it up in the end. I enjoyed most of the tone and atmosphere of the show, except again for my issues with season 4, which I found relentlessly grim in comparison to the other seasons. There wasn't enough other elements to balance that grimness out for me. However season 5 brought things back around, so I was good.

I would rank Gamble as a close second (for me). There were a few issues with season 6 being somewhat over crowded and with Dean's character arc in season 7 not getting a proper finish - and I wish we could have seen what Sera would have done with the purgatory set up - but overall the atmosphere and characterization was great for me. I loved the noir feel to season 7 and the dark comedy aspect of both season 6 and 7. Despite the subject matter of season 7 being just as grim as season 4 for example - Dean dealing with his depression concerning the loss of Castiel and then Bobby and Sam dealing with his hallucinations - somehow Sera balanced this out for me with some memorable dark comedy and interesting characters.

I can remember more details about one-off and semi-recurring characters from that season - and season 6, too, for that matter - than I can from season 4... and most of the ones I remember from season 4 were Ben Edlund's characters or Sera's character. My favorite episode of season 4 was written by Sera Gamble, and I mainly loved it because the atmosphere was different, and I enjoyed the new character introduced (namely Zachariah). So that was pretty much a preview of how I was going to feel about season 6 and 7. Comparing arrogant Uriel to arrogant Dick Roman, for example, I found Dick Roman much more interesting. And the Leviathans (Edgar, Chet, Joyce, George, even the little girl who eventually became "Dr. Sexy") for me were much more interesting than the mostly boring angels we ended up meeting later (Castiel aside). And I think that also made it more engaging now that I think of it. In season 4, except for 3 or so, we never got to know the angels - or the demons for that matter - who were fighting behind the scenes in season 4. We didn't know their personalities, their motivations, nothing. And I get that this was a dark arc for Sam, but considering what was at stake - the apocalypse - for me, I might've found it interesting to meet some of the beings behind it and why they were doing what they were doing... to give the season a bit more breadth and life than it had. Less claustrophobic, I guess is the word. And I guess that's one of the things that I liked best about Sera's turn as showrunner: I never found her narrative claustrophobic. There were always interesting characters introduced (the leviathans I already mentioned, the alternate world characters of "the French Mistake," the fairy lady in "Clap Your Hands...", Frank, Jesse the antichrist, Kevin, and a bunch more) and good use of existing characters - Jodi, Bobby, Death, and Rufus (also a Sera character) to keep things more open. There were a few duds - like Grandpa Campbell - but most of the characters I enjoyed. There were lighter episodes along with the more serious, and there was good incorporation of the one off episodes and the main arc, so that the two kinds of episodes coexisted well. And the unexpected happened... Crowley not being dead surprised the heck out of me, and I entirely did not see Castiel working with Crowley coming, but in retrospect it made sense for the narrative.

I understand that not everyone liked that, but I enjoyed the story and the tone of it all. and Sam and Dean acted like Sam and Dean - a huge plus in my book.

I'm not sure about Dabb yet. If he took over the reins in season 11, I say bravo to that, because I adored season 11, But season 12 fell into some stuff that bugs the crap out of me - characterization went to crap in lieu of plot, and I hate that shit. So I'm going to give him another season before I judge his run.

Carver is likely last on my list, because even though he wrote some of my very favorite episodes ever, for me as a showrunner, he created a very grim and claustrophobic show. In my opinion, he butchered characterization in lieu of plot (especially Sam's) and spent way too much time creating overly melodramatic conflict between Sam and Dean rather than introducing interesting other characters for the boys to interact with and have conflict with. The angels he introduced were mostly boring for me, or if they had potential - such as Naomi - their motivations weren't explained or made no sense. Other potentially interesting characters - like Benny - were watered down and / or introduced mainly as plot devices rather than as characters of their own. And then there was Amelia - why? No, really: why? What was the point of introducing her and continuing to shove her down our throats when she obviously wasn't working. (Still trying to insist she was the love of Sam's life in episode 8.21 - nope never bought it and still wasn't buying it.)

I found both of Carver's first two seasons disjointed. The first half and the second half seemed like two different seasons in tone and focus. And he seemed to insist on shoving Sam and Dean together even when it seemed almost obvious they should be apart. And that happened in both season 8 and 9 - mostly for manufactured reasons. So Carver manufactured scenarios were Sam and Dean didn't get along... then insisted on shoving them together anyway. Ugh. It made for a frustrating viewing experience. And little to no comedic respite as lighter episodes were few and far between, so it was a bunch of grim angst, angst, angst for angst's sake. Sure there was some interesting plot arcs going on - at least in season 9 anyway - but I couldn't enjoy them very much, because they'd either just sputter to an end or they'd be so caustic, I was mostly annoyed - Sam's Gadreel arc - or characterization was compromised to make it more dramatic - the mark of Cain arc.

Season 10 was markedly better for me... but Carver somewhat fumbled it for me in the end by introducing the same old grievances and biases he has, and doing the exact expected thing. In none of Carver's seasons was I ever surprised by the outcome, with the small exception of Dean becoming a demon... but then again, I knew Dean wouldn't go that dark, because Carver wouldn't allow it.

[Mick Lady]

On ‎9‎/‎4‎/‎2017 at 9:55 PM, catrox14 said:

“You’re good, but I’m Crowley.”

Hands down, my very favorite line from the show ever! I have the T-Shirt!

I gotta hit the "Bitterness" thread...

[RulerofallIsurvey]

4 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:

I'm not sure about Dabb yet. If he took over the reins in season 11, I say bravo to that, because I adored season 11, But season 12 fell into some stuff that bugs the crap out of me - characterization went to crap in lieu of plot, and I hate that shit. So I'm going to give him another season before I judge his run.

This is how I feel about Dabb.  As I understand it, he only took over at the very end of S11.  So I'm not sure that even counts (except the last three eps which were apparently rewritten at the last minute).  S12 did have some character missteps, as far I'm concerned - particularly Sam.  But I'll wait until I see what actually happens in S13 to completely judge him as a showrunner.  To do otherwise, I don't think is fair.  

[AwesomO4000]

1 minute ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

As I understand it, he only took over at the very end of S11.

He wrote quite a few middle episodes from season 11 though (11.10, 11.15, and 11.17), and I had heard that he might have started taking over mid season.

It is hard for me to say though since season 11 - despite my like of much of the season - still has a lot of Carver stamped on it... But I won't go into details on that so as to avoid veering into Bitch/Jerk thread territory.

[catrox14]

29 minutes ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

As I understand it, he only took over at the very end of S11.  So I'm not sure that even counts (except the last three eps which were apparently rewritten at the last minute).  S12 did have some character missteps, as far I'm concerned - particularly Sam.  But I'll wait until I see what actually happens in S13 to completely judge him as a showrunner.  To do otherwise, I don't think is fair

That's officially. I think it's reasonable to think Carver was easing himself out as early as the mid-season finale. JMHO. I could be wrong. I'm giving Dabb a much shorter leash given he's been with the show since s4 and never left like Carver did. So for me he's gonna have a LOT to do to make up for my dislike of s12.

[Casseiopeia]

13 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

That's officially. I think it's reasonable to think Carver was easing himself out as early as the mid-season finale. JMHO. I could be wrong. I'm giving Dabb a much shorter leash given he's been with the show since s4 and never left like Carver did. So for me he's gonna have a LOT to do to make up for my dislike of s12.

 I think they knew shortly after S11 started that Frequency was going to be picked up and Dabb was going to be the new show runner.  If Dabb doesn't make a miraculous turnaround in S13 I think he will go down as the showrunner that "wrecked the Lamborghini".  That being said he was also saddled with THEM writing 5 episodes for S12.  Not even Kripke could have overcome that!

[ILoveReading]

I'm one who feels like Dabb was unofficially in charge for most of s11.  Now that I've seen a full Dabb season, the back half of 11 feels like it has his fingerprints all over it.

Given that, last season, and what I know about this season, then I stand my my opinion that Dabb is the worst.

[DittyDotDot]

12 hours ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

This is how I feel about Dabb.  As I understand it, he only took over at the very end of S11.  So I'm not sure that even counts (except the last three eps which were apparently rewritten at the last minute).  S12 did have some character missteps, as far I'm concerned - particularly Sam.  But I'll wait until I see what actually happens in S13 to completely judge him as a showrunner.  To do otherwise, I don't think is fair.  

The whole tone of the show shifted--IMO, for the better--around mid-season so I'm pretty confident Dabb was running the show more than Carver at that point. I'm guessing Carver didn't fully disengage until mid-way through the second half, but it seems pretty clear Dabb was being groomed for the job from the beginning of the season judging by how he was very involved at Comic Con and such.

However, I also think that's probably why the back half of the season is somewhat disjointed and probably why the last three episodes needed so much collaboration. To me it shows Dabb's inexperience more than anything. And, it seems to me it was left up to Dabb to figure out how to tie up Carver's plan while also setting up his own plan; sometimes those plans just didn't play nice with each other. So, yeah, S12 is Dabb's first real season, for me. It's the first one designed by him from start to finish.

12 hours ago, catrox14 said:

That's officially. I think it's reasonable to think Carver was easing himself out as early as the mid-season finale. JMHO. I could be wrong. I'm giving Dabb a much shorter leash given he's been with the show since s4 and never left like Carver did. So for me he's gonna have a LOT to do to make up for my dislike of s12.

Actually, I gave them all pretty long leashes since they all had limitations to work with. Kripke had unmapped territory to work with, which is both a blessing and a hindrance. He had to build his team and the audience from scratch and then hang on to them for five years, but also wasn't limited to anything storywise.

Gamble was saddled with figuring out how to get the show going again after Kripke ended it, but storywise there was still a lot of places to go they hadn't treaded allover yet. And, she also had a well-seasoned crew to work with and help her. She did have to prove her self to the audience though since they were very wary of someone not named Kripke running the show and many didn't even give her a chance. 

IMO, Carver probably had the easiest row to how of all of them, but still managed to blow it. He had a good set-up storywise, he had the well-seasoned crew to work with and he had the audience confidence from the get-go--plus a whole new audience coming in from the show being put up for streaming on Netflix in S7. I actually think his leaving and returning is a positive because he gained valuable experience on how to run a show that both Gamble and Dabb didn't have coming into their tenures. IMO, Carver's only real limitation was the show was aging and there wasn't a lot of new places to go to, but he decided to retread old ground by focusing on Heaven and Hell again anyway, so I'm not sure how much of an obstacle that was for him. 

TBH, I think Dabb has had the toughest row to hoe of any of the showrunners. He not only took over the show after they had went so big it was hard to come back from, but it's so long in the tooth there really isn't much they can do they haven't already done in some form at this point. Plus, he had an almost complete change of staff--not just writers, but some of the production crew and producers moved on too--to try and pull together in his first season while also having very little experience of running a show himself. His only real benefit was the audience is pretty loyal. So, while I don't think he got it all right, I'm willing to give him another season to see if he can work out the kinks and do better.

Edited September 16, 2017 by DittyDotDot

[trxr4kids]

11 hours ago, Casseiopeia said:

 I think they knew shortly after S11 started that Frequency was going to be picked up and Dabb was going to be the new show runner.  If Dabb doesn't make a miraculous turnaround in S13 I think he will go down as the showrunner that "wrecked the Lamborghini".  That being said he was also saddled with THEM writing 5 episodes for S12.  Not even Kripke could have overcome that!

Good point about the duo having so many episodes but again I place the blame on Singer for that. Does anyone even know how much control he really has? I know Carver get's alot of blame but I watched a con panel vid of Singer and it's wasn't long after the death of Charlie where he gave the standard answers about her death and got flak, then was asked some question about how things work going into a season and he was explaining how it worked with each Kripke, Gamble and then when he got to Carver he sounded like he thought  Gamble didn't leave a good starting point, he said something like well what are we supposed to do with that. I was annoyed and quit watching pretty much after that because seriously, it was a great starting point and anything would have been better than what happened IMO. 

[Pondlass1]

Singer was pretty bad on that convention stage.  Saying 'it's just a show' and admitting they don't have a plan for the season at the start of the year.  He was raked over the coals a bit by fans too.  I can understand why the show runner doesn't get a panel at Vancouver Con.. Although I wish they would.  

Jensen once gave a pretty detailed account of the long twisted journey a script takes from the writer's ink drying to the words being said on TV.  It sure is a complicated affair.  So many implications and restrictions and things to take into consideration.  It's easy to criticize but the showrunner has a lot on his/her plate.

My favourite is Kripke.  He came up with a brilliant concept - and cast two perfect actors. I wonder what he thinks of the show now?

I enjoyed Sara because I'm shallow and soulless bare chests and hot lovemaking made a change.  But then season 7 was so bleak ...

My worst is Dabb.  For me it's like - what is this?... and what have you done with the REAL Supernatural?    I just think he's maybe trying too hard to knock socks off and forgetting about Sam & Dean, characterization, consequences and motives.  

They keep saying they're going small - but they never do.... I'd like the show to go full circle and end as it began with the boys saving people, hunting things... you know, the family business.  

Maybe Kripke would return to helm season 14 - probably the finale season.  I'd like that.

[DittyDotDot]

7 minutes ago, Pondlass1 said:

Singer was pretty bad on that convention stage.  Saying 'it's just a show' and admitting they don't have a plan for the season at the start of the year.  He was raked over the coals a bit by fans too.  I can understand why the show runner doesn't get a panel at Vancouver Con.. Although I wish they would.  

Yeah, Singer has a real penchant for talking out his ass sometimes. I actually wish they'd give Jerry Wanek a panel at here and there. It would also be cool for some of the crew, who are very important parts but don't really get much recognition, to do a panel too.

10 minutes ago, Pondlass1 said:

Jensen once gave a pretty detailed account of the long twisted journey a script takes from the writer's ink drying to the words being said on TV.  It sure is a complicated affair.  So many implications and restrictions and things to take into consideration.  It's easy to criticize but the showrunner has a lot on his/her plate.

I'm always reminded of one of the episode commentaries in S6 where Gamble says something to the effect of, "I knew it was going to be a hard job, but this job is hard!" So, yeah, I try to give them a long leash. There are so many decisions they have to make every day that they're bound to get one or two wrong.

15 minutes ago, Pondlass1 said:

Maybe Kripke would return to helm season 14 - probably the finale season.  I'd like that.

I'm of two minds about this. On the one hand, I love Kripke, he's a fun and enthusiastic guy and always open to ideas and such. On the other, the show has moved so far past his vision, I'm not sure he would actually fit with the show anymore. Sometimes you just can't go home again, so it might actually be best if he doesn't return.

However, I think once the show does end, it would be pretty cool if Kripke wrote and directed a movie or did a short mini series event or something like that. I also wouldn't mind him writing or giving notes on the final episode either, just not sure I'd want him to run the show for a whole season again or not.

[DittyDotDot]

1 hour ago, trxr4kids said:

Good point about the duo having so many episodes but again I place the blame on Singer for that. Does anyone even know how much control he really has? I know Carver get's alot of blame but I watched a con panel vid of Singer and it's wasn't long after the death of Charlie where he gave the standard answers about her death and got flak, then was asked some question about how things work going into a season and he was explaining how it worked with each Kripke, Gamble and then when he got to Carver he sounded like he thought  Gamble didn't leave a good starting point, he said something like well what are we supposed to do with that. I was annoyed and quit watching pretty much after that because seriously, it was a great starting point and anything would have been better than what happened IMO. 

Carver made a comment at Comic Con his first year saying he had gotten show back on track, so, I don't know if that was just Singer's opinion that Gamble had left them with crap. I agree Carver was set up with some very interesting story and he blew it.

Anyway, it seems like Singer has a lot of sway and power at this point, but since it was Kripke's baby, Kripke was able to hold his own with Singer and the had an equal-footing relationship. I think Gamble did pretty well with holding her own, but she did still have Kripke around that first season to help her establish that balance.

It seems to me Carver did okay, but I'm not sure he and Singer's opinions were in opposition that often; they didn't compliment each other as much as they were the same color, IMO. Plus, it seemed to me Carver didn't have a strong vision, but was more the whatever-you-think-will work sort of showrunner. Which has it's upside and downside. On the one hand, it leaves the crew to be very creative, on the other, not all the different "creations" work smoothly together if there isn't a clear understanding of what it is they're trying to achieve.

I'm not sure, I might need more data, but I get the impression Dabb may have been working under Singer for too many years to really be able to establish an equal footing with Singer. But it also seems Singer wants to step back more, so I don't know how much influence he is throwing around either.

Edited September 16, 2017 by DittyDotDot

[catrox14]

7 hours ago, DittyDotDot said:

MO, Carver probably had the easiest row to how of all of them, but still managed to blow it. He had a good set-up storywise, he had the well-seasoned crew to work with and he had the audience confidence from the get-go--plus a whole new audience coming in from the show being put up for streaming on Netflix in S7. I actually think his leaving and returning is a positive because he gained valuable experience on how to run a show that both Gamble and Dabb didn't get. IMO, his only real limitation was the show was aging and there wasn't a lot of new places to go to, but he decided to retread old ground by focusing on Heaven and Hell again anyway, so I'm not sure how much of an obstacle that was for him.

I guess that depends on how you define 'Blowing it'.

My opinion of Carver has changed dramatically since the original airing of s9 when I started live watching.  I think Carver's era stands up much better as a binge watch. I kind of remember Carver saying he had a 3 season story idea which took him to the end of s10 which I presume was about trying to remove the unhealthy relationship between the brothers. I never could figure out if Carver hated Dean or liked him and was trying to give Dean someone besides Sam by giving him more of Castiel and Benny in s8 but then the maybe fandom freaked out on him for doing it. Fandom freaked out on Sam having a GF so maybe by midseason Carver decided to go the other way. Maybe he was trying to look at the boys relationship after everything that happened to them with fresh eyes and 10 years later. I dunno. I'm less happy with how he went about it. I dunno. I have conflicting opinions about Carver at times LOL but I still mostly enjoy the first half of s8, most of s9, and s10.

I think Carver did try to do something original with the show. He took big risks with Sam, Dean, Cas and Crowley and sent them in unexpected directions. Purgatory, The Men of Letters, and the Mark of Cain were all IMO fresh new SL and arcs. Sam not looking for Dean was definitely new. Dean allowing an angel to possess Sam to heal him was both new, in character for Dean because of SSPD, and also incredibly controversial and uncomfortable. Cas and Crowley both had original SL IMO, that were not totally obviously derivative of previous SL from the show. Metatron much to my chagrin was a new thing and I hated but a lot of fans liked him and liked to hate him. I didn't LIKE and hated some of the choices but I can't say they were not original. I didn't like the canon shenanigans.

Carver/Singer made IMO the wise choice to bring back Castiel and gave Crowley more to do. Maybe Carver/Singer were compelled to do that if the boys were wanting more time off. Maybe they though the show was just better with Castiel (I think it is) I don't know if that was the chicken or the egg.  I would like to know is how much of Carver not pushing them further into separation and angst was Carver's choice  or Singer's or fan feedback driven.  In the end Carver made the Sam, Dean, Cas and Crowley arcs all come together in s9 and s10, for better or worse, and IMO, nothing was just out there unrelated to the boys in some way, which I liked.  I have a feeling Carver wanted to do more with Dean and Amara but maybe internally there was confusion as to what they could do.  Maybe the transition from Carver to Dabb was what made that SL all over the place.

[Mick Lady]

9 hours ago, DittyDotDot said:

I'm of two minds about this. On the one hand, I love Kripke, he's a fun and enthusiastic guy and always open to ideas and such. On the other, the show has moved so far past his vision, I'm not sure he would actually fit with the show anymore. Sometimes you just can't go home again, so it might actually be best if he doesn't return.

However, I think once the show does end, it would be pretty cool if Kripke wrote and directed a movie or did a short mini series event or something like that. I also wouldn't mind him writing or giving notes on the final episode either, just not sure I'd want him to run the show for a whole season again or not.

This is something I haven't considered, but I think you're right, Kripke doing a few episodes of the last season would be wonderful! At the same time, I'd love a mini series or movie to wrap the show. Kripke would do a great job if he did that. I hate to think of this series ending, no matter what! But it's Kripke's vision, and he deserves to end it.

[ahrtee]

6 minutes ago, Mick Lady said:

This is something I haven't considered, but I think you're right, Kripke doing a few episodes of the last season would be wonderful! At the same time, I'd love a mini series or movie to wrap the show. Kripke would do a great job if he did that. I hate to think of this series ending, no matter what! But it's Kripke's vision, and he deserves to end it.

I like Kripke's characters and I think he is good at the big picture story arcs, but I'm not sure about having him write--or direct--the series ending (though I'd love to have his ideas on characters and bringing everything together).  

I know they've talked more than once about a Butch and Sundance-style, go out in a blaze of glory ending, but I'm afraid Kripke would be more of a "Wild Bunch" bloody shootout with lots of lovingly detailed blood and guts.  I remember him speaking quite a few times about his love of gore and how others had to tone him down (though I think it was Gamble who wanted dangling entrails in AHBL.)  This is probably an UO, but I'm not a big fan of excessive gore, and I'm still holding out for a (semi) happy ending.  I've kind of given up on my hope for a "riding off into the sunset together," but would like them to have some "peace when you're done," even if it means heaven (a non-Memorex version), the Empty, or any place with their loved ones all together, and I'm pretty sure that wouldn't be Kripke's vision.  But I could be wrong.

[Casseiopeia]

7 minutes ago, ahrtee said:

I like Kripke's characters and I think he is good at the big picture story arcs, but I'm not sure about having him write--or direct--the series ending (though I'd love to have his ideas on characters and bringing everything together).  

I know they've talked more than once about a Butch and Sundance-style, go out in a blaze of glory ending, but I'm afraid Kripke would be more of a "Wild Bunch" bloody shootout with lots of lovingly detailed blood and guts.  I remember him speaking quite a few times about his love of gore and how others had to tone him down (though I think it was Gamble who wanted dangling entrails in AHBL.)  This is probably an UO, but I'm not a big fan of excessive gore, and I'm still holding out for a (semi) happy ending.  I've kind of given up on my hope for a "riding off into the sunset together," but would like them to have some "peace when you're done," even if it means heaven (a non-Memorex version), the Empty, or any place with their loved ones all together, and I'm pretty sure that wouldn't be Kripke's vision.  But I could be wrong.

Kripke is under contract with Sony.  I doubt he would be able to write/direct/produce or do much of anything but give a few suggestions for the series finale.  We are stuck with Dabb for the duration I'm afraid.

[ahrtee]

23 minutes ago, Casseiopeia said:

Kripke is under contract with Sony.  I doubt he would be able to write/direct/produce or do much of anything but give a few suggestions for the series finale.  We are stuck with Dabb for the duration I'm afraid.

I'm not sure how writers' contracts work with studios.  Actors can get loaned out (as long as it doesn't interfere with their contract work.)  I think maybe "only for Sony" is aimed at any new work he creates, but there may be an exception for working on shows he created pre-contract, but IDK.  

Not saying it'll happen (or even if I want it to), just curious if it's even a possibility.  Any lawyers out there?

[AwesomO4000]

10 hours ago, catrox14 said:

I think Carver did try to do something original with the show. He took big risks with Sam, Dean, Cas and Crowley and sent them in unexpected directions. Purgatory, The Men of Letters, and the Mark of Cain were all IMO fresh new SL and arcs. Sam not looking for Dean was definitely new. Dean allowing an angel to possess Sam to heal him was both new, in character for Dean because of SSPD, and also incredibly controversial and uncomfortable. Cas and Crowley both had original SL IMO, that were not totally obviously derivative of previous SL from the show.

I actually agree with you here. In my explanation above I should have explained that it wasn't Carver's storyline's that I found to be expected, but their outcome. And I think that for me that was part of the the problem. The other was that Carver seemed to have interesting ideas, but for me the follow up / conclusion didn't bear that out and / or instead ended up as the status quo. For example, it wasn't necessarily Sam having a girlfriend that annoyed me... it was that she was not a good character and the storyline was bad: a dead husband who actually wasn't dead is more something I'd expect in a soap opera. But I guess I should be happy there wasn't a pregnancy, because I was really worried for a bit that that was going to happen. I also didn't appreciate Carver trying to retcon Sam's previous normal life experience and retconing his love of Jessica in the process either. That was unexpected in a bad way in that it was trying to change show history.

Also I agree that Sam not looking for Dean was unexpected, and that actually would have been okay... had Carver not made Sam appear annoyed that Dean was back and had him also abandon Kevin - which in my opinion was not cool and also didn't really service the idea that Sam was making a considered, mature decision not to look for Dean, but was more looking like Sam freaked out and ran away from everything. And things like having Sam act jealous of Benny and projecting his guilt also more looked like that (i.e. Sam running) rather than Sam deciding to stop the cycle (or however Carver tried to put it). And by the end of the season Carver had Sam guilty and suicidal for not looking for Dean (i.e. Sam was wrong for doing what he did)... so out the window went the follow through with the "mature" decision... so back to same old, same old. I knew Benny was good from the beginning, so nothing unexpected there... and of course Dean had to give Benny up because of (mean) Sam. So again, expected.

The Gadreel story did start out as controversial and uncomfortable... and I actually thought it had really interesting potential... but of course Gadreel was redeemed and Dean's decision was mostly justified in that Sam would also do the same thing in the end, so again the original storyline idea was fizzled into something expected. Instead of Sam bringing up the fact that Dean lied to him and the lengths Dean went to keep Gadreel in Sam, it was turned into "you didn't let me die" which once Sam wouldn't let Dean die either and Gadreel was "good"... pretty much sugar coated everything, so the controversial and uncomfortable was - in my opinion - thrown out the window in lieu of well, this is just what the brothers do for one another, because see Sam does it too once faced with the reality of losing Dean. Awww if only Sam had realized this sooner. At which point it was lucky I wasn't holding something substantial, because I would have thrown it at the television.

I have mixed feelings about Castiel's storyline. It was somewhat different, but I'm not sure it was good. And Castiel trying to do the right thing, but instead messing up was in the end kind of a retread of his season 6 storyline... but even more so, because at least in season 6, Castiel was facing a difficult situation and his initial choices made some sense in that regard.

Despite all of this, I can say that I enjoyed much of season 10... actually most of it. It was just that the ending was somewhat expected, because of course Sam started an apocalypse. They'd been leading up to and telling us all season that bad things would happen, so again that outcome was not unexpected there at all.

10 hours ago, catrox14 said:

Metatron much to my chagrin was a new thing and I hated but a lot of fans liked him and liked to hate him.

Guilty. Metatron grew on me, until I loved to hate him. And I think Curtis Armstrong did a terrific job playing him.

It was Naomi that I never warmed to. I just never learned enough about her motivations to care about her. She was more annoying. I kept thinking "but why? Why is she doing this to Castiel. What the hell does she even want?" At least I got Metatron. He was a jerk, but I got him.

Edited September 17, 2017 by AwesomO4000