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

[AwesomO4000]

23 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

I was comparing only these two things in my original post, because they were so similar in nature: a supernatural influence (psycho doctor; vengeful spectre), coming after a significant trauma where the one had reason to resent the other (Jess dying/Sam getting dragged back into hunting: Dean going to/escaping from Purgatory; Sam not looking for him) and each driven to the point of violence against the other.

Okay, I get that, but to me, it's a pretty narrow comparison.

I could do the same kind of thing if I were to only compare soulless Sam (no soul) to demon Dean (twisted soul) and blood addicted Sam to mark of Cain Dean. Looking only at those instances and what they said and did and how the other reacted, it could be said that Dean seemed to take offense and / or held it against Sam for what he did while soulless or addicted while Sam didn't take offense with what Dean said or did under similar conditions, but I don't think that would be fair, because we're talking about different writers and different show runners with likely different intents.

In my opinion, Carver's intent was to ramp up the angst by having the guys behave bitchily to each other - so we got Sam's ultimatums and crappy behavior and we got Dean's flippant blame-ish of what Sam did while soulless where he wouldn't be blaming (and didn't blame!) under the previous showrunners... and then we had "let's make it up to Sam's character a little bit"*** time in season 10, so we got understanding Sam.

My point being that I try not to take one episode / writer's - or even one showrunner's - presentation of a character at face value, because sometimes there are ulterior motives involved and I don't think that should change or influence the entire rest of the show. Just my opinion on that one.

*** I say "a little bit," because of course Sam still lied all over the place and started an apocalypse, but hey at least some progress. Considering season 8 and 9, I'll take it!

Edited October 19, 2017 by AwesomO4000

[auntvi]

4 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:

He let Garth sum it up for him I think. "And Sam here: Sam can be a bit insecure at times, but for good reason... Bless his heart.*"

That was a great big WTF?? out of the blue. I can't think of anything positive Adam Glass was going for. It also spoiled Garth for me completely.

[gonzosgirrl]

6 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

Okay, I get that, but to me, it's a pretty narrow comparison.

I could do the same kind of thing if I were to only compare soulless Sam (no soul) to demon Dean (twisted soul) and blood addicted Sam to mark of Cain Dean. Looking only at those instances and what they said and did and how the other reacted, it could be said that Dean seemed to take offense and / or held it against Sam for what he did while soulless or addicted while Sam didn't take offense with what Dean said or did under similar conditions, but I don't think that would be fair, because we're talking about different writers and different show runners with likely different intents.

In my opinion, Carver's intent was to ramp up the angst by having the guys behave bitchily to each other - so we got Sam's ultimatums and crappy behavior and we got Dean's flippant blame-ish of what Sam did while soulless where he wouldn't be blaming (and didn't blame!) under the previous showrunners... and then we had "let's make it up to Sam's character a little bit"*** time in season 10, so we got understanding Sam.

My point being that I try not to take one episode / writer's - or even one showrunner's - presentation of a character at face value, because sometimes there are ulterior motives involved and I don't think that should change or influence the entire rest of the show. Just my opinion on that one.

*** I say "a little bit," because of course Sam still lied all over the place and started an apocalypse, but hey at least some progress. Considering season 8 and 9, I'll take it!

But Dean didn't hold it against Sam, only by those two ridiculous lines in S8 - in all his actions, he supported Sam. And no, I just can't equate Sam's crappy behaviour over multiple episodes, beginning with not looking for him and ending with the ultimatum with one mean-spirited reference to Sam's soullessness. YMMV, and I realize it does, so I'll agree to disagree.

[AwesomO4000]

15 hours ago, Aeryn13 said:

Now I do think what Sam says to Dean under the influence holds truth on account of him saying it also when not under the influence because it is more than two examples and it is basically the same thing every time. A variation of "weak/selfish/pathetic". I`ve heard that now from Sam under some influence to Dean directly, from Sam not under influence to Dean directly, from Sam not under any influence to other people, from figments of Sam`s mind in Sam`s head or even from other people TO Sam about Dean. At a certain point, there is obviously a pattern.  

This could very well be the case, but Sam isn't the only one...

I could say the same about Dean thinking Sam is a burden, weak-willed, and a screw up, because he's said this also both under the influence (as demon Dean and mark of Cain Dean - also as the shape shifter, but that can't necessarily be taken at face value) and not - more than once to Castiel and to Sam himself. There are multiple examples over multiple episodes and seasons.* The wording might be more subtle at times (not always), but the meaning is still the same. Dean's also directly called Sam selfish before (not under the influence) as well, so he apparently also thinks that fits Sam, too, covering pretty much all the same bases. I'm not sure why often only Sam is criticized for thinking badly of Dean when Dean has exhibited the same behavior. I guess with Dean it's generally excused as "well, Dean's right and Sam deserved it," but even if that were the case - which I might argue against - it doesn't make it any less true that Dean thinks just as badly of his brother at times as vica versa.

And just because they sometimes each think this and say this about the other doesn't mean - in my opinion - that they always think this way or even most of the time think this way. Or that they don't love one another. Or that they don't forgive one another. They are human beings with human faults.

* If asked, I can list examples, but we all know the show, so you (general "you") likely know the examples I am referring to.

Edited October 19, 2017 by AwesomO4000
because a shapeshifter and a siren are not the same thing

[AwesomO4000]

5 hours ago, gonzosgirrl said:

But Dean didn't hold it against Sam, only by those two ridiculous lines in S8 - in all his actions, he supported Sam. And no, I just can't equate Sam's crappy behaviour over multiple episodes, beginning with not looking for him and ending with the ultimatum with one mean-spirited reference to Sam's soullessness. YMMV, and I realize it does, so I'll agree to disagree.

You can agree to disagree, but this just isn't our opinions varying... your comparisons above aren't the same, and aren't at all what I was talking about. Sam not looking for Dean didn't enter into this. And neither did Sam's crappy behavior in season 8 - which I entirely admit was crappy, no question about it. So you are 80% right that those two things are not equal. (I reserve 20% that Carver screwed both Sam and Dean over, and that Sam's crappy behavior - in my opinion - wasn't in character (Dean's either) because Carver wanted angst. And Adam Glass - urgh***.)

You compared two instances that you said were equivalent: Sam influenced by the psycho doctor and Dean influenced by the coin and contrasted Sam and Dean's behavior surrounding those examples, and explained - very reasonably - why you chose that comparison. And based on that comparison, I agreed that there was a difference in behavior there, based on that narrow comparison.

So I compared similar - in my opinion - things: soulless Sam and demon Dean and blood addicted Sam and mark of Cain Dean. Season 8 doesn't even factor into those except for the two "mean-spirited references" (one under the influence and one not) being in season 8. But if you want to throw out Dean's season 8 behaviors (which I admitted above were out of character and not what season 6-7 Dean would do) while keeping Sam's season 8 behavior as representative of Sam, okay, let's throw that example out...

There's still blood addicted Sam versus mark of Cain Dean. Dean's response to blood addicted Sam was in season 5, nothing to do with season 8. And no, in my opinion, Dean didn't always support Sam in season 5 - there were at least two sarcastic digs directly at things Sam did while under the influence of demon blood in different parts of the season, and there was outright accusation and distrust. Did I blame Dean for doing this - no, I understood entirely - but my point was that Sam, despite Dean taking the mark recklessly and saying horrible things to Sam, didn't hold it against Dean at all that I remember. Sam said awful stuff about Dean and Gadreel - no question about it - but with mark of Cain Dean, Sam not only was understanding about Dean taking it on ("Mother's Little Helper"), but never in later seasons brought up the awful things Dean said to him or any of the things he did while under the mark's influence - like Dean saying that Sam would have to fall in line or that Sam should be dead instead of Charlie or killing all of the Stynes. Sam was supportive of Dean the entire time post-demon that Dean was under the mark's influence and throughout season 11.

In my opinion, that example is just as valid as your doctor influenced Sam vs coin influenced Dean example, and it - to me - shows that it's not all one sided, but happens for both brothers.

*** Unless he's writing a Dean episode, because sometimes those are good. I adored "About A Boy." "Mommy Dearest" was also good. The rest - generally a nope.

Edited October 19, 2017 by AwesomO4000

[RulerofallIsurvey]

11 hours ago, auntvi said:

That was a great big WTF?? out of the blue. I can't think of anything positive Adam Glass was going for. It also spoiled Garth for me completely.

I still like Garth, but I have no idea what that was supposed to mean.  And I'm southern, and I've said the "bless his/her/their heart" before.  No, what confuses me in the line, "And Sam here: Sam can be a bit insecure at times, but for good reason" is the 'but for good reason' part.  So Sam has good reason to be insecure?  Insecure about what?  

[Katy M]

35 minutes ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

I still like Garth, but I have no idea what that was supposed to mean.  And I'm southern, and I've said the "bless his/her/their heart" before.  No, what confuses me in the line, "And Sam here: Sam can be a bit insecure at times, but for good reason" is the 'but for good reason' part.  So Sam has good reason to be insecure?  Insecure about what?  

Apparently for being a complete screw up.

[Bessie]

Quote

Apparently for being a complete screw up.

That’s what I figured, too. But that implies the writers are aware that they write him that way and I’m not so sure about that. 

Edited October 19, 2017 by Bessie

[Aeryn13]

Quote

It's kind of sad for me that this one episode - which as I mentioned above I thought was not only an exception to the rest of the narrative, but wasn't written by a writer that I even think was particularly good for the most part compared to other writers (I only liked one of her episodes, really, and three I really, really disliked) - ruined the rest of the arc for you. 

Because I saw it as the pivotal episode that "resolved" the personal conflict during Season 4. In Dean`s disfavour. After that episode, I saw it as done, anything else was just aftershocks that hammered home the same point. How Dean would have to change and what he would need to do. There wasn`t any episode down the line they gave a more balanced approach and gave Dean`s side any weight so the sole episode that tied up Season 4 in that regard was Fallen Idols. And I hated it. Hence, it ruined that part for me. 

Since mytharcs are of higher priority to me, it might have been salvageable if at least there Dean got a favourable resolution to his proposed arc and played an active part in saving the world. But they fucked that up even worse. Which means at the end of Season 5, I was horribly disappointed across the board. 

Then of course Season 6 proceeded to rub salt in the wound. In retrospect I especially "love" how Dean, after a year out, was called rusty and basically mocked as a stupid civilian when a new group of hunters was introduced with the Campbells. Meaning Dean, the guy who had started the show as more the proponent of hunting was conveniently on the wrong side of the issue when that became a celebrated trait.

But moreso now with Mary, she comes back after thirty+ years back and the writers are all up her ass on being a super-hunter who immediately kicks ass. Nope, she doesn`t have to be mocked and rusty like Dean. 

Stuff like that annoys me so much. For some reason or another there is always an excuse why something with Dean is done half-assed but for other characters, they pull out all the stops. Or my personal favourite "just because they mishandled it with Dean, it is no reason to not do it better for character xy and now it would inconvenient to pick that back up for Dean, the time has passed." There is also no reason to mishandle it for Dean all the time. And there is especially no reason why potential stories for Dean need to have a fixed shelf life but stories for others can go on and picked back up 10 years later if they want.    

[companionenvy]

14 minutes ago, Aeryn13 said:

Then of course Season 6 proceeded to rub salt in the wound. In retrospect I especially "love" how Dean, after a year out, was called rusty and basically mocked as a stupid civilian when a new group of hunters was introduced with the Campbells. Meaning Dean, the guy who had started the show as more the proponent of hunting was conveniently on the wrong side of the issue when that became a celebrated trait.

 But...the Campbells all wound up dead, and IIRC, Dean got to snipe back at one of them -- Christian, I think -- about  being a "professional." They were calling Dean rusty, but I don't remember that actually being shown onscreen.  Dean's perfectly competent in season 6, and winds up being the one to kill Eve. 

[Katy M]

25 minutes ago, Aeryn13 said:

Then of course Season 6 proceeded to rub salt in the wound. In retrospect I especially "love" how Dean, after a year out, was called rusty and basically mocked as a stupid civilian when a new group of hunters was introduced with the Campbells. Meaning Dean, the guy who had started the show as more the proponent of hunting was conveniently on the wrong side of the issue when that became a celebrated trait.

Who cares what a bunch of jerks called him.  Christian was a demon for cyring out loud.  He was the one that came up with the plan to use them as bait.  And the one who realized the wouldn't come until everybody else left. 

[Aeryn13]

Quote

They were calling Dean rusty, but I don't remember that actually being shown onscreen.  Dean's perfectly competent in season 6

There is a lot of Deansel in distress in the first half of the Season. He isn`t as painfully incompetent as in 12.B but it was certainly no fun to watch. 

Quote

Who cares what a bunch of jerks called him.  

It was the entire set-up of the thing. Dean starts the show as the one who stayed in the hunting lifestyle and defends it to Sam. Then when the time in the show comes to introduce his heretofore unknown hunter`s family on the maternal side, it JUST so happens to be at a time when they can mock and belittle him for being a rusty civilian. 

Whenever something seems set up like it could highight something about Dean in a positive way for a change, just in the one moment where it becomes important for the plot, Dean will conveniently have been put in a situation where he is suddenly on the losing end of the issue. Not just in Season 6 but all over the freaking show. Dean could wear blue for 100 episodes straight and just when an episode came alone where all character wearing blue get saintified, he would switch to green five seconds before that. I know this is a goofy example but it`s the concept of it that bugs me. 

Edited October 19, 2017 by Aeryn13

[gonzosgirrl]

26 minutes ago, Aeryn13 said:

There is a lot of Deansel in distress in the first half of the Season. He isn`t as painfully incompetent as in 12.B but it was certainly no fun to watch. 

It was the entire set-up of the thing. Dean starts the show as the one who stayed in the hunting lifestyle and defends it to Sam. Then when the time in the show comes to introduce his heretofore unknown hunter`s family on the maternal side, it JUST so happens to be at a time when they can mock and belittle him for being a rusty civilian. 

Whenever something seems set up like it could highight something about Dean in a positive way for a change, just in the one moment where it becomes important for the plot, Dean will conveniently have been put in a situation where he is suddenly on the losing end of the issue. Not just in Season 6 but all over the freaking show. Dean could wear blue for 100 episodes straight and just when an episode came alone where all character wearing blue get saintified, he would switch to green five seconds before that. I know this is a goofy example but it`s the concept of it that bugs me. 

Losing at poker in 5x07, the new and mysterious 'smiting sickness' in 11x10 spring immediately to mind.

[Pondlass1]

Also - the episode where the monster can only be seen by someone who's drunk.  Dean drinks - it's his thing.  But this ONE TIME Dean's stone cold sober, can't see the monster.... it's Sammy that's drunk (of course!) and gets the kill.

Dean fights for his life in purgatory 24/7.  For Sam it's a walk in the park - he even picks up some ol' weapon just lying on the ground. 

A whole season devoted to Dean saying no to Michael.  Then  Sam  swings the lance.

Sour grapes, for sure.  But sometimes it's frustrating to be a Dean gal. 

[Aeryn13]

Even if I believed in coincidences of that magnitude, I would not believe in coincidences of THAT magnitutde. Like, are you kidding me, show? 

[catrox14]

1 hour ago, companionenvy said:

But...the Campbells all wound up dead, and IIRC, Dean got to snipe back at one of them -- Christian, I think -- about  being a "professional." They were calling Dean rusty, but I don't remember that actually being shown onscreen.  Dean's perfectly competent in season 6, and winds up being the one to kill Eve. 

By the time Frontierland and Mommie Dearest happened, yes, which were eps 18 and 19.

[ILoveReading]

14 minutes ago, Pondlass1 said:

Also - the episode where the monster can only be seen by someone who's drunk.  Dean drinks - it's his thing.  But this ONE TIME Dean's stone cold sober, can't see the monster.... it's Sammy that's drunk (of course!) and gets the kill.

Dean fights for his life in purgatory 24/7.  For Sam it's a walk in the park - he even picks up some ol' weapon just lying on the ground. 

A whole season devoted to Dean saying no to Michael.  Then  Sam  swings the lance.

Sour grapes, for sure.  But sometimes it's frustrating to be a Dean gal. 

Actually, it was kind of a joint kill.  Sam was drunk and could see the ghost and was telling him where to swing.

This is probably the one exception to the rule.  I kind of liked the irony that Dean was the sober one here. 

There was also, Dean's "can you fix it" about the colt to Sam.  Plus in an article I read,  tag for spoiler

Spoiler

about the shootout in ep 6.  Dean's gun jams. 

The weapons expert is suddenly no longer looking after his weapons.

Then there was the whole leadership thing last season.  Dean's always been the defacto leader.  But when its on screen and acknowledged Sam gets to speechify, and everyone including Dean gets to look at Sam adoringly.

Edited October 19, 2017 by ILoveReading

[Pondlass1]

When Dean met up with the Campbells he was royally pissed at not being told by anyone that he'd agonized for a whole year about his brother being tortured in hell when, in fact, Sam had been alive all the time.  Also at that time Dean was growing more & more apprehensive that Sam wasn't human.  Dean was also very suspicious of the Campbells and what they were up to.  Dean Winchester possesses intuition in truckloads.

They sneered and called him rusty because 1) they were up to no good 2) they were scared he'd find out.  Which he did of course.

They may have belittled calling him rusty - no way they believed it to be true.

[Aeryn13]

Quote

Plus in an article I read,  tag for spoiler...

Answering in the Bitterness Spoilers thread.

[Katy M]

1 hour ago, Pondlass1 said:

it's Sammy that's drunk (of course!) and gets the kill.

Um, actually Dean gets the kill.  Sam just tells him, not particularly coherently, where he is in relation to the monster.

[AwesomO4000]

1 hour ago, Pondlass1 said:

When Dean met up with the Campbells he was royally pissed at not being told by anyone that he'd agonized for a whole year about his brother being tortured in hell when, in fact, Sam had been alive all the time.  Also at that time Dean was growing more & more apprehensive that Sam wasn't human.  Dean was also very suspicious of the Campbells and what they were up to.  Dean Winchester possesses intuition in truckloads.

They sneered and called him rusty because 1) they were up to no good 2) they were scared he'd find out.  Which he did of course.

They may have belittled calling him rusty - no way they believed it to be true.

Exactly. (I wish I could like that a bunch.) What the characters were saying was one thing, but the entire narrative was showing that out of hunting for a year or not, Dean was the only one who noticed that Sam was not right and suspected early on that Samuel wasn't right either. In terms of Sam being off, Samuel didn't notice (or care), the rest of the Campbell clan (who wasn't a demon) didn't notice, Bobby didn't notice, and Castiel either didn't notice, or at least not enough to think something was up, or knew but didn't say anything. And even though the Campbell clan was "hunting," they weren't really hunting. Samuel had an ulterior motive in mind that very much didn't involve "saving people, hunting things."

And as you said, calling Dean "rusty" was an excuse, because the Campbell clan knew that Dean would find out what they were doing and object.

2 hours ago, Aeryn13 said:

It was the entire set-up of the thing. Dean starts the show as the one who stayed in the hunting lifestyle and defends it to Sam. Then when the time in the show comes to introduce his heretofore unknown hunter`s family on the maternal side, it JUST so happens to be at a time when they can mock and belittle him for being a rusty civilian. 

Whenever something seems set up like it could highight something about Dean in a positive way for a change, just in the one moment where it becomes important for the plot, Dean will conveniently have been put in a situation where he is suddenly on the losing end of the issue.

Except as I pointed out above, Dean was the only one shown to figure out what was going on in the narrative and the only one with the know-how and wherewithal to do anything about it. The entire season highlighted - in my opinion - that since Dean was out of hunting, no one else was doing that great a job... including Soulless Sam as highlighted by "Unforgiven" where Soulless Sam had actually created way more monsters (like 6 to 8 - likely multiplied to 64 now that year later) than he had killed (none, just an innocent civilian or two, potentially a police officer). Grandpa Campbell was doing less hunting so much as making a deal with a demon (Crowley).

Then Dean - out of hunting for a year - proceeds to hunt just fine, including surviving becoming a vampire himself and killing an entire powerful nest, including the leader, all by himself as an unfed newbie vamp, a joint kill of a truth god, offing a a fairy, another vampire, demon Christian, etc. etc. within the first 10 episodes. Compare that to rusty Sam, the huge damsel in distress in season 8.

Basically I'm saying that, in my opinion, the narrative didn't show Dean as either "rusty" or domesticated - even living with Lisa, his instincts to still follow the usual safety precautions and pick up on the signs were strong. It showed that he was a hunter at heart, immediately picking up where he left off without missing a beat. I guess I'm just not seeing Dean is left out of the loop now that hunting is all the cool thing.*** I saw the narrative as showing Dean as the cool thing - here's the real hunter returning now. Everyone else was a moron (or a psychopath).... because they were.... which the narrative showed us in real time and in flashbacks... and then they were dead (or resouled). Obviously your miles varied.

*** Which as far as I know, the show has always taken that stance anyway. Sam was the one who abandoned the family for leaving the life and had comeback to see how worthy it was. Season 4 was full of "see how wrong you were to have left" messages. And lesson learned by "Point of No return" ("And I was wrong... every time I did [leave]).

3 hours ago, Aeryn13 said:

Because I saw it as the pivotal episode that "resolved" the personal conflict during Season 4. In Dean`s disfavour. After that episode, I saw it as done, anything else was just aftershocks that hammered home the same point. How Dean would have to change and what he would need to do. There wasn`t any episode down the line they gave a more balanced approach and gave Dean`s side any weight so the sole episode that tied up Season 4 in that regard was Fallen Idols. And I hated it. Hence, it ruined that part for me. 

I guess I'm dense, because I'm not seeing it. I'm not seeing how Dean had to change all that much in their dynamic after "Fallen Idols" except maybe considering Sam a little more as a partner in their work when Sam wants to give input, and I'm not seeing how that's a bad thing. Sam still looked to and listened to Dean as the leader most of the time. And we saw Sam change, also. There was evidence of it all over the season. In "Sam, Interrupted," Sam admitted to Dean that he was having problems (rather than hiding it). Same thing in "My Bloody Valentine," admitting he was in trouble and needed help (rather than hiding it.) When he had his plan, he made sure everyone was agreed first and didn't proceed until Dean was on board... until the demon blood messed him up again (which I saw that coming).

Yes, Sam (and Cas) didn't listen to Dean concerning Michael, but Dean didn't exactly share his reasoning or even give anyone else any input in the matter. He just ran off and decided unilaterally (so much for "Fallen Idols"). When push came to shove, though, Sam conceded and let Dean make the decision, pretty much like usual. So I guess I'm not seeing the resolution after "Fallen Idols" being that much different than it always was, and I'm not sure what "Dean's side" that you wanted to give weight to. If it was Sam groveling for making a bad choice, that's not this show's style. There was now groveling from Dean - quite the opposite actually - for his bad decisions in season 9 either.

And, I know some may not like it, but I saw Dean as having to let Sam go - rather than be involved in the save - as the bookend to his deal where he couldn't let Sam go that started everything in the first place. Dean got to kill Azazel already, and he'd get to kill more big bads later on. Sam got the same kind of arc in season 10 - 11 where he didn't get to be involved in the save either and had to let Dean go.

My opinion on that.

3 hours ago, Pondlass1 said:

Dean fights for his life in purgatory 24/7.  For Sam it's a walk in the park - he even picks up some ol' weapon just lying on the ground. 

A whole season devoted to Dean saying no to Michael.  Then  Sam  swings the lance.

Sour grapes, for sure.  But sometimes it's frustrating to be a Dean gal. 

And then Sam has to be saved by Benny.... who was obviously good, because Dean said he was.

Two seasons of Sam with special powers supposedly connected to the Yellow Eyed Demon only for those powers to do little (we never saw his psychic powers again), Sam to be killed by Jake, Dean kills the YED (Sam's not in the vicinity) and Sam's "boy king" destiny is nothing but a red herring where most demons mock him.

Sometimes it's frustrating to be a Sam girl, too,* so I can relate.

* (Though I also like Dean).

2 hours ago, ILoveReading said:

Then there was the whole leadership thing last season.  Dean's always been the defacto leader.  But when its on screen and acknowledged Sam gets to speechify, and everyone including Dean gets to look at Sam adoringly.

Except the leadership - until the last episode - was the BMoL. My opinion is that Dean was less than enthusiastic last season, because he was unwittingly turned into a follower... and he was not thriving under that mantle. Sure Sam rallied the troops in Dean's absence (the "troops" sounded like they would've preferred Dean to me) but I doubt that's going to last. What Sam's really going to learn is that he tried to follow the wrong leader... I'm sure he'll learn that Dean is the real leader somehow this season when things go belly up somehow, because:

Spoiler

we have profits saying Sam shouldn't do something. Sam's gonna be wrong and/or screw up royally by not listening to Dean, because that's how the show rolls.

[ahrtee]

29 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

Season 4 was full of "see how wrong you were to have left" messages. And lesson learned by "Point of No return" ("And I was wrong... every time I did [leave]).

Not in Season 4 AFAIK.  After all, Sam spent the 4 months Dean was in hell hunting (even if Dean hated his method/choice of partners.) And that was all Sam, with no one pressuring him or dragging him into things.  The only blame I saw assigned to Sam was "how wrong you were to work with Ruby," and I'm not touching that one with a 10-foot pole at this point. 

And the "lesson learned" in PONR was, IIRC, aimed at *Dean,* who was being talked off the ledge by Sam.  He and Cas were blaming him for wanting to give in (and IMO, twisting it to be about them:  "how dare you let me down" and "I killed xxx of my brothers all for you so how dare you quit?")  And yes, YMMV.  Greatly so.

TBH, IMO most of the arguments on this site seem like those trick images where you see one thing when you look one way, the opposite when you look at it from a different angle. Which actually means *both* views are correct.  So if people would just accept that, it would make this site a lot less bitter.

42 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

Sam's gonna be wrong and/or screw up royally by not listening to Dean, because that's how the show rolls.

This particular complaint always grits my teeth.  If you want to blame the writers for something (which, duh, yeah!) it's not for making Sam be wrong all the time (which I disagree with just because I disagree with all "absolutes" like that) but because every time they had God or a prophet or Cas or Dean or Bobby or any of the other angels specifically tell him NOT to do something, he still decided that his way was right and everyone else was wrong.  So it's not that they're "making" whatever he does turn out wrong, it's that they're "making" him appear too arrogant to listen to anyone else.  If he did think things through, listened to advice and it turned out wrong and he still got blamed, that's a problem worth complaining about.   SS specifically said "when both angels and demons agree on something, I listen."  So why doesn't regular, intelligent, logical Sam listen to Chuck, Cas or Dean?   Is it just that fans want Sam to get a win *without* someone else being involved?  That he has to prove that he's smarter than everyone else?  Because, um, no.  Not for me.

TBH, sometimes it feels here like people want Sam to have everything equal to or great than what Dean has--whether it's his friends, his fighting abilities, his hunting instincts and his leadership qualities--while keeping his own specialties like empathy, logic, research and intelligence all to himself.  Somehow that doesn't seem fair to me.  Can't the guys have their own friends, as well as their own strengths/weaknesses?  That's what makes them different, and IMO interesting.  Otherwise they might as well be clones (and no, I'm not saying that I want disagreements or angst, just distinct differences in character that aren't, TBH, just caricatures.  Something besides Dean eating with his mouth full and craving pie and cheeseburgers, and Sam insisting on salads and being able to google-fu his way to any answer in 5 minutes or less.)  

So they can *each* have their own strengths and weaknesses, and there's no need to give something to the other just to make things "equal."  I know I've said this many times, but this isn't a contest.  One can do something stupid *without it being the other's fault.*  

//rant over (this time.)\\

[Bessie]

12 minutes ago, ahrtee said:

This particular complaint always grits my teeth. 

I'm sorry you hate it. I have complaints I hate reading about as well. But this one isn't going away. And it also applies to Castiel to a large degree who also fucks things up all the time. If you (general you) believe the writers are purposely characterizing Sam as an arrogant prick who won't listen to anyone, that's one thing. But, if you don't feel that way about him, it's perfectly legitimate to be of the opinion that he is generally wrong about the big things. As far as what's coming up, I believe whether or not Sam is right depends on Dean. If he chooses to agree with Sam, then Sam will be correct. If he doesn't then Sam will be wrong. 

 

17 minutes ago, ahrtee said:

TBH, sometimes it feels here like people want Sam to have everything equal to or great than what Dean has--whether it's his friends, his fighting abilities, his hunting instincts and his leadership qualities--while keeping his own specialties like empathy, logic, research and intelligence all to himself. 

Sure. And the same goes for Dean fans. This isn't limited to one character's fans. Happens all the time across all fandoms. 

[Wayward Son]

20 minutes ago, ahrtee said:

This particular complaint always grits my teeth.  If you want to blame the writers for something (which, duh, yeah!) it's not for making Sam be wrong all the time (which I disagree with just because I disagree with all "absolutes" like that) but because every time they had God or a prophet or Cas or Dean or Bobby or any of the other angels specifically tell him NOT to do something, he still decided that his way was right and everyone else was wrong.  So it's not that they're "making" whatever he does turn out wrong, it's that they're "making" him appear too arrogant to listen to anyone else.  If he did think things through, listened to advice and it turned out wrong and he still got blamed, that's a problem worth complaining about.   SS specifically said "when both angels and demons agree on something, I listen."  So why doesn't regular, intelligent, logical Sam listen to Chuck, Cas or Dean?   Is it just that fans want Sam to get a win *without* someone else being involved?  That he has to prove that he's smarter than everyone else?  Because, um, no.  Not for me.

 swer in 5 minutes or less.) 

The problem with this is the fact that both brothers have gone against the word of external forces such as angels etc and done what they felt was best. How come Dean is never the one who is completely wrong? How come when Dean shows “arrogance” and insistence on doing things his own way it never comes back to haunt him the way it does Sam? 

 

1 minute ago, Bessie said:

I'm sorry you hate it. I have complaints I hate reading about as well. But this one isn't going away. And it also applies to Castiel to a large degree who also fucks things up all the time. If you (general you) believe the writers are purposely characterizing Sam as an arrogant prick who won't listen to anyone, that's one thing. But, if you don't feel that way about him, it's perfectly legitimate to be of the opinion that he is generally wrong about the big things. As far as what's coming up, I believe whether or not Sam is right depends on Dean. If he chooses to agree with Sam, then Sam will be correct. If he doesn't then Sam will be wrong. 

Indeed there are pretty predictable rules of SN at this point. 

 

• If Sam and Dean are on one side of a debate and Castiel (or any other secondary character for that matter) is on the other side Sam and Dean will be correct.

•  If Sam and Dean are arguing with each other than Dean will be the one in the right and it’ll likely end with Sam causing some sort of apocalypse or personal disaster. 

 

Id include a scenario where Dean’s wrong, but alas that’s an impossibility since he’s the special Gary Stu snowflake of this show. 

[Katy M]

11 minutes ago, Wayward Son said:

Id include a scenario where Dean’s wrong, but alas that’s an impossibility since he’s the special Gary Stu snowflake of this show. 

I would argue that Dean was wrong to allow Zeke to possess Sam since he ended up killing Kevin and then taking off with Sam's body to work with Metatron.

[ahrtee]

2 minutes ago, Bessie said:

I'm sorry you hate it. I have complaints I hate reading about as well. But this one isn't going away. And it also applies to Castiel to a large degree who also fucks things up all the time. If you (general you) believe the writers are purposely characterizing Sam as an arrogant prick who won't listen to anyone, that's one thing. But, if you don't feel that way about him, it's perfectly legitimate to be of the opinion that he is generally wrong about the big things. As far as what's coming up, I believe whether or not Sam is right depends on Dean. If he chooses to agree with Sam, then Sam will be correct. If he doesn't then Sam will be wrong. 

 

Sure. And the same goes for Dean fans. This isn't limited to one character's fans. Happens all the time across all fandoms. 

Mostly what I hate is the "always" part.  No one is *always* wrong (or right.)  And the bitterness that makes everything *seem* like it's a black and white, either-or situation as if someone can't be arrogant or bossy in some ways, but not a "prick" or an "overbearing bastard" in general.  

I have no problem with people seeing things differently.  That was kind of the point of my post--that people see the same image different ways depending on their POV.  What I do have a problem with is the current attitude by so many here that everything that happens to one character is the fault of the other, for whatever reason.  As I've said before, it's the semantics that bother me, and the sense that it's *always* one brother or another's fault, not just that they're both flawed characters who make mistakes.  

[Wayward Son]

Just now, Katy M said:

I would argue that Dean was wrong to allow Zeke to possess Sam since he ended up killing Kevin and then taking off with Sam's body to work with Metatron.

And I’d argue instead of allowing this to stand the show opted to make Dean right in the end since Sam talks about how Gadreel didn’t really want to hurt him and was his friend (ugh that line still makes me want to vomit years later) and Gadreel gets to be a misunderstood man who was a good guy at heart and sacrificed himself.

[ILoveReading]

24 minutes ago, Wayward Son said:

And I’d argue instead of allowing this to stand the show opted to make Dean right in the end since Sam talks about how Gadreel didn’t really want to hurt him and was his friend (ugh that line still makes me want to vomit years later) and Gadreel gets to be a misunderstood man who was a good guy at heart and sacrificed himself.

I'd argue that this is exactly what happened when Sam was wrong about the British Men of Letters.  Dean called Mary out on her behavior and lying and almost getting Cas killed, but in the end he had to apologize for being mad at Mary not being home to make sandwiches.  Then Sam does the exact same thing, and Dean's made to quickly acquiesce to Sam and isn't allowed to maintain his own POV.  Despite wanting no part of it, Dean's suddenly reporting for duty and filing reports.

Not a single character called Sam out out his lying.  Dean wasn't even allowed to be upset or angry about it. Sam's big revelation is that he should have led instead of just followed.  Then despite being one of the only hunters being taken in by them no other hunter has an issue following Sam or points out that he got them in that mess in the first place.  Instead he gets the big leadership speech while everyone else gazes adoringly.

Does it really matter if Sam was wrong about Ruby when he got the big save, and Dean got to apologize and learn to love and accept Sam more.

Sam might be wrong but in the end it usually leads to big storylines, or big plot points.  So even if he's wrong he still gets validated the majority of the time.

Even if Jack goes off the rails, when its time to do whats right, I would be money on Jack being there and saying its all to Sam's guiding light. 

So, I really wish Dean was as wrong as Sam.

Edited October 19, 2017 by ILoveReading

[Wayward Son]

8 minutes ago, ILoveReading said:

I'd argue that this is exactly what happened when Sam was wrong about the British Men of Letters.  Dean called Mary out on her behavior and lying and almost getting Cas killed, but in the end he had to apologize for being mad at Mary not being home to make sandwiches.  Then Sam does the exact same thing, and Dean's made to quickly acquiesce to Sam and isn't allowed to maintain his own POV.  Despite wanting no part of it, Dean's suddenly reporting for duty and filing reports.

Not a single character called Sam out out his lying.  Dean wasn't even allowed to be upset or angry about it. Sam's big revelation is that he should have led instead of just followed.  Then despite being one of the only hunters being taken in by them no other hunter has an issue following Sam or points out that he got them in that mess in the first place.  Instead he gets the big leadership speech while everyone else gazes adoringly.

Who cares if Sam was wrong about Ruby when he got the big save, and Dean got to apologize and learn to love and accept Sam more.

Sam might be wrong but in the end it usually leads to big storylines, or big plot points.  So even if he's wrong he still gets validated the majority of the time.

Even if Jack goes off the rails, when its time to do whats right, I would be money on Jack being there and saying its all to Sam's guiding light. 

So, I really wish Dean was as wrong as Sam.

I think we can agree to disagree since it sounds like we have different viewing wishes and neither of us is going to be able to change the preferences of the other. If someone’s interested in the big flashy stuff sure Sam might seem to get the better deal, but if you’re like me and value characterisation over plot then Dean getting to be right all the time and Sam (and also Cas for that matter) gets to be the constant mess up who always causes apocalypses gets pretty tiring. 

Edited October 19, 2017 by Wayward Son

[companionenvy]

54 minutes ago, ahrtee said:

TBH, sometimes it feels here like people want Sam to have everything equal to or great than what Dean has--whether it's his friends, his fighting abilities, his hunting instincts and his leadership qualities--while keeping his own specialties like empathy, logic, research and intelligence all to himself. 

While my posts might come off that way, I think that's mostly because (IMO) the tenor of this thread is more anti-Sam than anti-Dean. I don't agree with every word Awesome0 and some other Samfans say (although I agree with a lot of it), but I REALLY disagree with the constant claims that the writers hate Dean, that he's not even treated as a main character, that the show is all about pimping Sam, etc. So when I'm arguing something like "Dean bonds more with guest stars" or "Dean is usually right on big-picture issues," it isn't because I want Sam to have all the good qualities possible, it is to explain why I don't think there is a clear anti-Dean bias.

Frankly, I'm happiest when the show doesn't need to fall back on shallow divisions like "Dean is the fighter, Sam is the smart one." Dean is more of a natural take-charge, action-guy, and Sam is more inclined towards research, but both of them are extremely experienced hunters, and that means both of them are highly skilled at both combat and lore -- as the show occasionally remembers. By the way, I do think Dean has gotten the worst of it in this respect, as of late, because Sam (in the last couple of seasons) has had plenty of action moments, but the writers often forget that Dean is quite intelligent and fully capable of research/tech/planning.

On the other hand, I do think that Sam still has the worst of it by far when it comes to making bad decisions. To an extent, some of this is a function of personality. Sam is somewhat more idealistic, and trusts more easily than Dean. That means it is more likely that he's going to wind up the dupe of someone who tells him a pretty story, whether it is "you can trust me even though I'm a demon" or "we're going to create a world without monsters -- just don't think too hard about the definition of "monster." That's also why he'll disregard the naysayers. Chuck and everyone who warned him against the Book of the Damned weren't offering him a clear alternative they were just saying "don't do that; it won't turn out well."

 But that, to me, isn't entirely satisfying. That might make sense as a character choice if Dean's sharper hunting instincts and more suspicious nature made him far more likely to avoid bad decisions than Sam. But, as AwesomeO has often argued, Dean hasn't avoided bad decisions. He's made some catastrophically stupid, impulsive moves, like killing Death and taking on the Mark. So it isn't that he has avoided bad decisions, he's avoided bad consequences and/or being held accountable for his actions. 

Furthermore, I'm not sure I'd agree that Dean has better instincts than Sam does - except when it matters most. Sam was right that Gordon was bad news, and he's sometimes proven right when he argues for giving individual monsters/supernaturally affected people a chance. But in bigger arcs, like Ruby or the MOL, Sam is the goat. As God himself has confirmed, more than once. 

[ILoveReading]

19 minutes ago, Wayward Son said:

I think we can agree to disagree since it sounds like we have different viewing wishes and neither of us is going to be able to change the preferences of the other. If someone’s interested in the big flashy stuff sure Sam might seem to get the better deal, but if you’re like me and value characterisation over plot then Dean getting to be right all the time and Sam (and also Cas for that matter) gets to be the constant mess up who always causes apocalypses gets pretty tiring. 

If you value characterization, Id say the whole Lucifer mess is also another good example of Sam getting validation.  There was no upside to going into the cage.  It's Lucifer who hates humanity.  But we get an entire episode telling us how brave and special Sam is.  He might have gotten stuck, but he ended up getting a direct confrontation with Lucifer where he basically get to telll him to go F' himself. 

I'd love something like that for Dean, even if it came from a screw up. 

But yes we can agree to disagree. 

[Wayward Son]

10 minutes ago, ILoveReading said:

If you value characterization, Id say the whole Lucifer mess is also another good example of Sam getting validation.  There was no upside to going into the cage.  It's Lucifer who hates humanity.  But we get an entire episode telling us how brave and special Sam is.  He might have gotten stuck, but he ended up getting a direct confrontation with Lucifer where he basically get to telll him to go F' himself. 

I'd love something like that for Dean, even if it came from a screw up. 

But yes we can agree to disagree. 

That falls under the category of both Winchester’s agree on something (Lucifer must not be let out of his cage) and so Castiel is the one who gets to be the major screw up so they can move the plot along. 

 

As I said the screw up hiearchy goes 

 

Dean (he is never 100% wrong. The one and only exception where they don’t try to negate things is Sam being right about Lenore and her nest and that was 11 seasons ago)

Sam (He is wrong when he disagrees with Dean, but if he and Dean are united they both get to be right) 

Castiel and other secondary characters (If the Winchester’s are United about something then any other protagonists opposing them will definitely be wrong). 

[ahrtee]

1 minute ago, companionenvy said:

Furthermore, I'm not sure I'd agree that Dean has better instincts than Sam does - except when it matters most. Sam was right that Gordon was bad news, and he's sometimes proven right when he argues for giving individual monsters/supernaturally affected people a chance. But in bigger arcs, like Ruby or the MOL, Sam is the goat

That's also kind of my point--that no one (including Sam) is *always* wrong.  I'm not keeping track of how big or small the wins (or arcs) are.  It's enough that they are (and IMO they *are*) roughly equal.  Do I think Dean has been sidelined a lot lately?  Yes.  Do I think Sam has gotten the short end of the stick a lot?  Yes.  Do I have a preference for one over the other?  Definitely. But that doesn't make me *hate* the other one, even though I might dislike the way one character treats the other.  (And that goes for *both* of them!) 

 

11 minutes ago, companionenvy said:

While my posts might come off that way, I think that's mostly because (IMO) the tenor of this thread is more anti-Sam than anti-Dean. I don't agree with every word Awesome0 and some other Samfans say (although I agree with a lot of it), but I REALLY disagree with the constant claims that the writers hate Dean, that he's not even treated as a main character, that the show is all about pimping Sam, etc. So when I'm arguing something like "Dean bonds more with guest stars" or "Dean is usually right on big-picture issues," it isn't because I want Sam to have all the good qualities possible, it is to explain why I don't think there is a clear anti-Dean bias.

I do disagree, however, about this.  There are some very vocal pro-Dean posts AND some very vocal pro-Sam posts, which is fine.  IA that there are many claims that "the writers hate Dean..." but I see just as many of the same accusations about Sam (cf:  the complaint that Sam is "always wrong.")  The problem as I see it is mostly that the ones who are seeing things strictly as black-and-white tend to be the loudest voices; and then things escalate from there.  So while you might be saying, "Dean is usually right on big-picture issues," others seem to be taking that as an insult to Sam (as if it means, by comparison, that Sam isn't) and then they feel the need to attack, by pointing out all the ways Dean screwed up, or Sam was right (but not allowed the win) or whatever else is their hot button.  And things just escalate from there, till all of a sudden you might be branded a Sam hater for your innocently intended comment.   

So my only point (or plea, if I'm allowed that) is for people to tone down the attacks.  You don't have to agree with other opinions, but you should at least acknowledge that they have the right to hold (and express) them without considering it a personal attack.  Maybe (like Jared) we should think how things sound *before* we hit the "post" button.

And I know this is none of my business, but I'm just trying to salvage my own (previous) enjoyment of an exchange of thoughts without having to take a Valium before reading.

[companionenvy]

20 minutes ago, ahrtee said:

That's also kind of my point--that no one (including Sam) is *always* wrong.  I'm not keeping track of how big or small the wins (or arcs) are.  It's enough that they are (and IMO they *are*) roughly equal. 

I agree with most of your post, but while I sometimes think there's a lot of hair-splitting going on in this thread -- i.e, IMO, since it is clear that both brothers have said and done extremely hurtful things to one another under varying degrees of supernatural influence, it really isn't important to figure out who was the meanest or who was 40 % in his right mind or 60 % in his right mind when he said it --I think the size of wins and arcs do matter.  A salt and burn is a win. So is defeating Lucifer. But the two don't compare.

Sam was the direct cause of both apocalypses. The second time, he wasn't even the one to clean up the mess,.He also took on the full blame for trusting the MoL. To me, that seems more significant than the fact that sometimes he is right and Dean is wrong on the course of a Case of the Week.

[Bessie]

Nevermind 

Edited October 20, 2017 by Bessie

[DeeDee79]

54 minutes ago, ahrtee said:

That's also kind of my point--that no one (including Sam) is *always* wrong.  I'm not keeping track of how big or small the wins (or arcs) are.  It's enough that they are (and IMO they *are*) roughly equal.  Do I think Dean has been sidelined a lot lately?  Yes.  Do I think Sam has gotten the short end of the stick a lot?  Yes.  Do I have a preference for one over the other?  Definitely. But that doesn't make me *hate* the other one, even though I might dislike the way one character treats the other.  (And that goes for *both* of them!) 

This is a great point. I believe @Pondlass1 said that both of the characters were flawed which makes them interesting and I totally agree. Both are awesome but they can also both be dicks in equal measure IMO.

[Whimsy]

As a reminder, you are not to debate in this thread. You guys are arguing your opinions. There is no way you’re going to change anyone’s minds so stop trying. 

[RulerofallIsurvey]

3 hours ago, ILoveReading said:

So, I really wish Dean was as wrong as Sam.

Ooh!  Me too!

[RulerofallIsurvey]

2 hours ago, ahrtee said:

And I know this is none of my business, but I'm just trying to salvage my own (previous) enjoyment of an exchange of thoughts without having to take a Valium before reading.

I was told I could always just avoid the thread.  

[ahrtee]

Just now, RulerofallIsurvey said:

I was told I could always just avoid the thread.  

I usually try to avoid the BvJ thread (though I tend to get sucked in, especially when someone quotes me) but IMO the bitterness has spread throughout many threads, especially the ep and rewatch threads.  I suppose I could limit myself to Small Talk, Eye Candy and comments about Jensen's tattoo, but I actually *like* hearing other thoughts, as long as they're not just telling me that my opinion is wrong. 

[RulerofallIsurvey]

1 minute ago, ahrtee said:

I usually try to avoid the BvJ thread (though I tend to get sucked in, especially when someone quotes me) but IMO the bitterness has spread throughout many threads, especially the ep and rewatch threads.  I suppose I could limit myself to Small Talk, Eye Candy and comments about Jensen's tattoo, but I actually *like* hearing other thoughts, as long as they're not just telling me that my opinion is wrong. 

Oh, I know.  And I agree.  But when I complained about the bitterness, that's what I was told.  Interesting, isn't it?  How reactions vary from one fan to another for the same complaint?  

[ahrtee]

Just now, RulerofallIsurvey said:

Oh, I know.  And I agree.  But when I complained about the bitterness, that's what I was told.  Interesting, isn't it?  How reactions vary from one fan to another for the same complaint?  

Sorry, not being snarky.  I don't understand what you're saying about the reactions varying from one fan to another.  When I complained about bitterness, I was told it was "negative opinions," and therefore allowed.  I'm just saying what I think, not what I was told.  

[RulerofallIsurvey]

1 minute ago, ahrtee said:

Sorry, not being snarky.  I don't understand what you're saying about the reactions varying from one fan to another.  When I complained about bitterness, I was told it was "negative opinions," and therefore allowed.  I'm just saying what I think, not what I was told.  

I'm not being snarky either.  When you complained about bitterness, you were told it was allowed.  When I complained about bitterness, I was told not to read the thread.   Two different reactions to two different fans over the same complaint.  I just think it's interesting, that's all.  

[ahrtee]

Maybe the difference is that my complaint was about it being widespread, not just limited to one thread that could be easily ignored. 

[AwesomO4000]

4 hours ago, ahrtee said:

Not in Season 4 AFAIK.  After all, Sam spent the 4 months Dean was in hell hunting (even if Dean hated his method/choice of partners.) And that was all Sam, with no one pressuring him or dragging him into things.  The only blame I saw assigned to Sam was "how wrong you were to work with Ruby," and I'm not touching that one with a 10-foot pole at this point. 

And the "lesson learned" in PONR was, IIRC, aimed at *Dean,* who was being talked off the ledge by Sam. 

You are correct now that I look again. I was focusing on "Afterschool Special" from season 4. And the part of "Point of No Return" I was trying to highlight was the beginning where Sam tells Dean that he (Sam) was wrong to leave every time he did leave the family...

But I obviously didn't adequately explain what I was trying to explain anyway. I was trying to say that I didn't see the show as ever implying that hunting was somehow not a good thing and then all of a sudden in season 6 - when Dean had given up hunting for a while - that now it was somehow great. I was trying to say that I saw the show as always being pro-hunting and pro-family. That was the point that I was trying to make - obviously badly. So sorry about that.

4 hours ago, ahrtee said:

This particular complaint always grits my teeth.  If you want to blame the writers for something (which, duh, yeah!) it's not for making Sam be wrong all the time (which I disagree with just because I disagree with all "absolutes" like that)

I apologize again, because I forgot to add an important word - which I almost always add when stating things like that... "now" as in "that's how the show rolls now." I actually had few issues with the show at all until season 8. It was a bit annoying that Kripke just kind of dropped the psychic kids storyline - or wrapped it up so to speak by killing them all off - but that's fairly minor. An season 4 was sort of a bummer, but season 5 fixed that all for me, so i was good. Season 8 and 9, however... I won't get started again. I've covered it all before.

I'm generally pretty good at avoiding the "always" thing - even by implication like here - so that was unlike me.

4 hours ago, ahrtee said:

...So it's not that they're "making" whatever he does turn out wrong, it's that they're "making" him appear too arrogant to listen to anyone else.  If he did think things through, listened to advice and it turned out wrong and he still got blamed, that's a problem worth complaining about.   SS specifically said "when both angels and demons agree on something, I listen."  So why doesn't regular, intelligent, logical Sam listen to Chuck, Cas or Dean?   Is it just that fans want Sam to get a win *without* someone else being involved?  That he has to prove that he's smarter than everyone else?  Because, um, no.  Not for me.

TBH, sometimes it feels here like people want Sam to have everything equal to or great than what Dean has--whether it's his friends, his fighting abilities, his hunting instincts and his leadership qualities--while keeping his own specialties like empathy, logic, research and intelligence all to himself.  Somehow that doesn't seem fair to me.  Can't the guys have their own friends, as well as their own strengths/weaknesses?  That's what makes them different, and IMO interesting. 

No, not at all. Others who posted after this have covered most of my issue with this, so I'll be brief. No, I don't want Sam to be smarter, better or any of that. I actually think Sam does better (and is happier) following Dean's lead - and have generally said as such. My issue is that I think that Sam should be allowed to have his character flaws and eccentricities without always having to pay the ultimate price for them by messing up royally. Why when Dean messes up does everything usually still turn out mostly okay, but when Sam messes up, he usually starts an apocalypse? There are options in between a character being right and a character starting an apocalypse. I just want Sam to be somewhere in that middle category more often. It makes it hard for the characters to be flawed and different if the show doesn't generally celebrate all those differences and outright punishes some of them.

So my request to the writers is to please let both Sam and Dean be their beautiful, flawed selves and stop punishing them for their differences of opinion. Not everything the brothers disagree on has to turn into a right versus wrong and if one chooses the "wrong" side an apocalypse will happen situation. There is a middle ground. And sometimes they can work together to defeat a big bad that wasn't caused by either of them. Even if they disagree on it and have to compromise.

That's really all that I want.

[RulerofallIsurvey]

22 minutes ago, ahrtee said:

Maybe the difference is that my complaint was about it being widespread, not just limited to one thread that could be easily ignored. 

Nope.  Same as mine.  

Edited October 20, 2017 by RulerofallIsurvey

[AwesomO4000]

4 hours ago, ILoveReading said:

Then despite being one of the only hunters being taken in by them no other hunter has an issue following Sam or points out that he got them in that mess in the first place. 

How did Sam get them into that mess in the first place? I'm pretty sure the BMoL were going to end up taking out the American hunters eventually no matter what Sam did.

And as for not having an issue, they did first ask if Dean was coming, so I believe there were reservations expressed even if subtly.

[gonzosgirrl]

Welp, never was this thread title more appropriate for me. Dean was screwed over from every direction in 13x02, from once again not doing feelings right, to being OTT mean to Jack in his 'grief', to getting his ass kicked and needing saving by Sam yet again (two for two this season on that one). I am so, so tired of Sam talking down to Dean with that condescending, put upon attitude. And then he goes and Samsplains Dean's mental status to Jack, not 'he's grieving and angry - and it's justifiably pointed at you because, you know, you influenced Cas into his actions, you opened the rift, and you are, you know, the son of Satan'. Nope, Dean doesn't know how to process grief in any way but anger because his brain isn't right. FFS. And I'm sorry, but it's Jared's delivery of this tripe that exacerbates it for me. I half expect him to start glowing with this awesome light of awesomeness, given how kind and wise and understanding he is, while Dean's aura bursts into flames around him. Blargh.

[Wayward Son]

For anyone who complains that the show likes to big up Sam's story lines and downplay Dean's you'll probably be happy to know that BuckLemming just crapped all over Sam's season 6-7 storyline with Donatello stating "Oh being soulless is no big. It's just like having an appendix removed... You don't even notice when it's there"

1 hour ago, ILoveReading said:

IMO, despite the show trying to tell us Dean can't process emotions, because "his wires are crossed" I actually find the relationship between Jack and Dean to be more honest than the one between Jack and Sam.

At least Jack knows where he stands with Dean.  I'm not saying Dean's handling things perfectly, far from it, but he's upfront with Jack about certain things.    Sam isn't being honest with himself about why he keeps defending Jack.  What Jack doesn't know, is.... (I'm not sure if this is still considered a spoiler so I'm going to tag it just in case.

  Reveal hidden contents

Sam sees Jack as mirror for himself.  He's more interested in Jack being good because that some how means he can be good.  Sam want to use Jack for self validation.  Plus, he also sees Jack as some kind of tool.  If they can win him over to their side they can use him to get their mom back. 

Sam doesn't seem to actually care about Jack himself, so much as what he can do.

I'm not actually trying to be super bitch vs jerk, but I'm going to reply to you in here just in case. I actually agree with you on this one. So far I'm not seeing the Jack conflict coming across as "Mean old Dean won't even give Jack a chance while Saint Sam is being caring and compassionate". IMO Dean has valid reasons for feeling the way he does about Jack. Firstly, he's grieving the loss of several people he cares about and blames the loss of one of them (Cas) on his decision to aid Kelly and Jack. Secondly, he's understandably reticent due to their experience of beings who try to be good ultimately going bad. Those are valid reasons and even I, as a non-Dean fan, feel no need to criticize his behaviour here. On the other hand, Sam is much more hopeful than Dean and keeps talking about how useful Jack can be. Maybe it'll change in future, and as a Sam fan I hope it does, but right now I see Sam as viewing Jack as a tool to be used for getting his mum back more than anything. I'm assuming the whole

 

Spoiler

Sam sees Jack as a substitute for himself stuff is coming in future episodes because that's just not how Jared's portrayal thus far is coming across to me. For me it's primarily coming across as wanting to hope for the best and use Jack to get Mary back. 

Edited October 20, 2017 by Wayward Son

[RulerofallIsurvey]

22 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

o getting his ass kicked and needing saving by Sam yet again (two for two this season on that one).

I hope when you're counting kills and saves, you remember to count that Dean had an ultra-flashy save of Donatello and kill with throwing the angel blade into the demons' neck.  I also count Dean saving Jack for taking away the knife, because even though that knife wasn't doing him permanent harm, I think the next step was for Jack to find something that would.