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

[DittyDotDot]

Part of what I loved about the show in S1 is they knew how goofy the show was with how limited they were in being able to bring some of these things to life, but they embraced it and just had fun making a cheesy horror movie every week. 

The thing about Bugs is, it has it's failings, but they didn't try to make it into something it wasn't. And, even though I don't hate it, he problem with Route 666 is they tried to make it into something it wasn't. 

Edited November 25, 2017 by DittyDotDot

[Myrelle]

The hunts were weak in both episodes, IMO. But the familial stuff was good and interesting and entertaining to me.

Both had some so-bad-they-were-funny moments(I still crack up at the plastic "spiders" that the brothers found after the real estate lady bought it in Bugs); and in this maybe the show has come full circle. Go figure.

[shoetingstar]

11 hours ago, catrox14 said:

I think both Bugs and Route 666 get a bad rap but there are far worse episodes of SPN than those two. I mean they are almost charmingly bad at this point in the show's history. Some things in later seasons are SO MUCH WORSE LOL

B.It's  funny that Kripke talks about how Singer told him to not do it and he should have listened but Singer was totally fine with a stupid racist ghost truck LOL. (yes I know his wife wrote it)

Bugs was bad because the pacing made no sense and I do not do arachnids even if they look totally fake. It was poorly constructed and the whole live bees debacle makes it worse. Time is weird in the episode too. I did like that it juxtaposed how the brothers saw each other and both had misconceptions like most families.

Route 666 had a good idea but egads find some other way to a good ghost story around racism in the South, without using a stupid haunted truck.  I liked learning that Dean had a real love interest, told her the truth about his life and was dumped for it. I can see why he chose to avoid commitment after that and just went with casual relationships henceforth, in general.  And it was another nice tie in to the through line that the brothers really didn't know each other if they grew up together. Like most families. 

I haven't seen bugs in awhile, but you are my Spirit Animal about Route 666. I've personally found the tide as turned around a bit on the initial hate it reportedly received. I think, newer fans discovering the show with fresh eyes, as well as older viewers having less of their previous prejudices (Dean dated someone! And she dumped him - how could she?! etc.. not to mention some ironic reactions to him being in an interracial relationship, ahem - that's for another thread), has helped that episode be less hated. Megalyn is no Meryl Streep but her and Jensen had great chemistry (whereas Cindy Sampson is great but the chemistry is not there for me), but the writing was pretty horrible.  But yes, it was an important episode for Dean as a character, enjoyable in that regard.

[catrox14]

I thought the fight between Cassie and Dean was pretty good. I never thought Cindy and Jensen had any chemistry but maybe that was Jensen playing Dean as being reticent and confused about their relationship after Sam came back. Who knows but I never bought them based on chemistry which is subjective, of course. 

I loved that Dean was the one that was so vulnerable and was hurt by Cassie leaving him. 

5 minutes ago, shoetingstar said:

I haven't seen bugs in awhile, but you are my Spirit Animal about Route 666. I've personally found the tide as turned around a bit on the initial hate it reportedly received. I think, newer fans discovering the show with fresh eyes, as well as older viewers having less of their previous prejudices (Dean dated someone! And she dumped him - how could she?! etc.. not to mention some ironic reactions to him being in an interracial relationship, ahem - that's for another thread), has helped that episode be less hated. Megalyn is no Meryl Streep but her and Jensen had great chemistry (whereas Cindy Sampson is great but the chemistry is not there for me), but the writing was pretty horrible.  But yes, it was an important episode for Dean as a character, enjoyable in that regard.

[gonzosgirrl]

On 11/13/2017 at 9:37 AM, gonzosgirrl said:

Season to date:

Saves: Dean 3  Sam 3

Kills: Dean 2 Sam 3

 

I missed counting last week, but there isn't really anything to count for the guys. I guess technically Dean saved Athena and the sarge, but that's a pretty thin call since Sarge got the kill and saved them all. I'm not counting anything for this one.

13x06 Tombstone

0

13x07 War of the Worlds

They worked together to save the witch, so 1 each there. Dean killed 2 stunt demons, Sam killed 1 and Ketch killed 1. Although I'm still trying to figure out where the 4th demon came from. The female attacked Dean, then two appeared in the doorway behind Sam. The boys each killed one of them but then when the female goes afer Sam, suddenly there's another one on Dean, who he eventually kills. Anyway, the count stands.

Saves: Dean 1  Sam 1
Kills: Dean 2  Sam 1

Season to date:

Saves: Dean 4  Sam 4

Kills: Dean 4  Sam 4

[AwesomO4000]

On 11/23/2017 at 10:21 AM, gonzosgirrl said:

1) Dabb isn't giving Dean the treatment Sam got, he's doing worse. Sam abandoned Kevin to begin the season, but Dean not only wants to kill this woobie child, he has to be mean and heartless while doing it. 2) Dabb had Sam put the words right there in canon - if Spawn goes bad, it's because of you. Dabb had a therapist tell Dean he is doing grief wrong. 3) Carver gave Sam golden-tinted memories and girlfriend, and a mature way of handling grief, not to mention a convenient 'agreement' not to look for each other. 4) Just because a portion of the fandom rejected that nonsense, it's still what was written into canon. Just like Dean being an asshole to a 'kid' is now. 5) And Sam got the trials arc to make up for it. Just because he failed in the end, he was still the 'hero' of the season - if that's punishment, then please, please punish Dean the same way this season.

6) And for the record, if they *had* shown Sam to have experienced the same kind of grief and despair, and then expressed any remorse for being a dick* like Dean has after only 4 episodes, then yeah, I would've felt less gobsmacked by his actions. But he didn't, and throwing Dean under the bus now doesn't make up for it, it just gets Dean run over by a bus.

*He not only didn't apologize, he doubled down on it, threatening to walk away from Dean if he didn't get over it

It's also worth mentioning that Sam didn't look for a way to save Dean, ever, and never would have if Dean didn't find his own way back a year later. We're still counting Mary's disappearance in days, and Dean is already softening in his belief that she's dead/gone.

1) I didn't really see Dean as heartless. I saw Dean as not handling his grief emotions, because... 2) Dabb also had Sam say - though the words weren't great - that Dean wasn't handling his grief well, so Sam was also - in canon - saying that Dean's anger was misplaced. So in canon, Dean was also being given a reasonable excuse for his behavior, one that was explained in a scene all its own and later expanded upon during Dean's scene with Billie. 3) Exactly. Carver gave Sam "golden-tinted memories" not sympathetic ones showing Sam grieving for Dean and then moving on. In my opinion, that would have been the "mature" portrayal, but by skipping over the necessary grieving part, Carver was not giving Sam a sympathetic portrayal at all. He was giving Sam an out of character one by having Sam do the complete opposite of what he did in "Time After Time..." with no transitional scenes anywhere. What epiphany, thought process, etc. got us from Sam's behavior in that episode to Sam "hitting a dog?" We don't know, because Carver never cared to show us or tell us, thereby making Sam's actions seem awful with no explanation. Actions which would later - in canon - be questioned and found lacking (see #4). In contrast, with Dean, Dabb gave us numerous illustrations that Dean's behavior was born of his grief... and just in case we didn't pick up on that, the writers had Sam explain it unequivocally to Jack. It was just that Jack didn't understand it, but that didn't mean that the reasonable explanation was nullified just because Jack didn't understand it. 4) Also written into canon: the "convenient agreement" was not a good enough explanation, because Bobby - one of the writers' mouthpieces - called Sam out on it, saying that Sam should have looked for Dean anyway... and Sam was given no defense against Bobby's recriminations, so in my opinion, the canon went back on the "convenient agreement" and replaced it with... nothing, leaving Sam in the wrong. 5) How was Sam the "hero" of the season? He didn't save Dean, he didn't save Kevin, and he didn't save the world. That briefly mentioned "Sam is so strong" stuff was (in my opinion) only lip service and the writers way of damning Sam with faint praise only to snatch it away at the last moment. In my opinion, Carver's character Benny was the "hero" of the season. Benny saved Dean and was a good friend to Dean, and then Benny saved Sam, sacrificing himself to do so and to keep the world safe from himself. To me Benny was being portrayed as the mature character, too. Benny was aware of and accepted his limitations (that he would likely eventually slip in the real world) and acted appropriately (stayed in purgatory) all the while also helping Dean and saving Sam. For me, the writers' Benny love was written at the expense of Sam... and Dean, because even Dean in the end was made to look like a jerk towards poor, struggling Benny. I very much got the message: "Benny is the real hero here." 6) Exactly... so how is that supposedly better than Dean's portrayal this season where Dean's reasons for his behavior are being shown and told to us? And not only is Dean allowed to grow and not double down on his bad behavior, he apologizes. To me that is much better then what was done with Sam's character in season 8... who in case we didn't know he behaved badly by Bobby's recriminations, the writers mockingly reminded us later on with "and Sam hit a dog" jokes.

In my opinion, the bus here only gave Dean a glancing blow at the most while in season 8, it ran over Sam, then backed up and ran over him again. Then laughed and made jokes about it... after running him over again in season 9.

On 11/23/2017 at 11:23 AM, Pondlass1 said:

Writers are protective of Sam for the most part...

Considering season 4... and 8, and 9, and 10, and even part of season 12, I would tend to disagree with this to an extent... or at least I think - occasional "Dean behaves like a dick" moments aside - the writers are just as protective of Dean as they are of Sam.

In my opinion, Dean is less likely to have major plot driven out-of-character moments than Sam (example: Sam's not looking for Dean*** and nonsensical "Yay, I'll join the BMoL!" moment in season 12.)

*** I know some don't consider this out of character, because they consider Sam's giving up in character here, but I don't think it is. Sam in the seasons preceding this was the character who more often didn't give up as in Sam's thinking he could get Dean out of his deal in season 3, thinking they would find a way to stop the apocalypse in season 5 (when Dean had given up), not giving up on Castiel in the beginning of season 7, etc. And after Carver's influence was lessened, Sam went back to his not giving up in season 11 when he rallied the troops. For me this can actually sometimes be a Sam flaws. Sometimes Sam has almost too much hope that there is a way out and it can get him into trouble when he gets on a track and has faith in it when he should abandon ship (train).... as in season 4.

Edited November 28, 2017 by AwesomO4000

[Reganne]

5 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:

1) I didn't really see Dean as heartless. I saw Dean as not handling his grief emotions, because... 2) Dabb also had Sam say - though the words weren't great - that Dean wasn't handling his grief well, so Sam was also - in canon - saying that Dean's anger was misplaced. So in canon, Dean was also being given a reasonable excuse for his behavior, one that was explained in a scene all its own and later expanded upon during Dean's scene with Billie. 3) Exactly. Carver gave Sam "golden-tinted memories" not sympathetic ones showing Sam grieving for Dean and then moving on. In my opinion, that would have been the "mature" portrayal, but by skipping over the necessary grieving part, Carver was not giving Sam a sympathetic portrayal at all. He was giving Sam an out of character one by having Sam do the complete opposite of what he did in "Time After Time..." with no transitional scenes anywhere. What epiphany, thought process, etc. got us from Sam's behavior in that episode to Sam "hitting a dog?" We don't know, because Carver never cared to show us or tell us, thereby making Sam's actions seem awful with no explanation. Actions which would later - in canon - be questioned and found lacking (see #4). In contrast, with Dean, Dabb gave us numerous illustrations that Dean's behavior was born of his grief... and just in case we didn't pick up on that, the writers had Sam explain it unequivocally to Jack. It was just that Jack didn't understand it, but that didn't mean that the reasonable explanation was nullified just because Jack didn't understand it. 4) Also written into canon: the "convenient agreement" was not a good enough explanation, because Bobby - one of the writers' mouthpieces - called Sam out on it, saying that Sam should have looked for Dean anyway... and Sam was given no defense against Bobby's recriminations, so in my opinion, the canon went back on the "convenient agreement" and replaced it with... nothing, leaving Sam in the wrong. 5) How was Sam the "hero" of the season? He didn't save Dean, he didn't save Kevin, and he didn't save the world. That briefly mentioned "Sam is so strong" stuff was (in my opinion) only lip service and the writers way of damning Sam with faint praise only to snatch it away at the last moment. In my opinion, Carver's character Benny was the "hero" of the season. Benny saved Dean and was a good friend to Dean, and then Benny saved Sam, sacrificing himself to do so and to keep the world safe from himself. To me Benny was being portrayed as the mature character, too. Benny was aware of and accepted his limitations (that he would likely eventually slip in the real world) and acted appropriately (stayed in purgatory) all the while also helping Dean and saving Sam. For me, the writers' Benny love was written at the expense of Sam... and Dean, because even Dean in the end was made to look like a jerk towards poor, struggling Benny. I very much got the message: "Benny is the real hero here." 6) Exactly... so how is that supposedly better than Dean's portrayal this season where Dean's reasons for his behavior are being shown and told to us? And not only is Dean allowed to grow and not double down on his bad behavior, he apologizes. To me that is much better then what was done with Sam's character in season 8... who in case we didn't know he behaved badly by Bobby's recriminations, the writers mockingly reminded us later on with "and Sam hit a dog" jokes.

In my opinion, the bus here only gave Dean a glancing blow at the most while in season 8, it ran over Sam, then backed up and ran over him again. Then laughed and made jokes about it... after running him over again in season 

 

I agree.  With Dean... at least the writers show us his emotional turmoil and grief.  This allows the audience to get a sense of where the character might be coming from.  I have said this before, but I was always disappointed that they didn't go into Sam's turmoil during season 8 and 4.   I think it would have done wonders for the character.  I don't know if it's because the narrative is from Dean's perspective or what, but I would actually like to see more emotional moments from Sam.  He always just seems to move on without dealing or grieving.

[AwesomO4000]

On 11/25/2017 at 10:25 AM, Aeryn13 said:

I thought Bugs was harmless, stupid but harmless. 

I think you could work something from even that premise. Buffy IMO managed to pull off a pretty funny and well-written episode with a similar concept, granted, without the bugs but they had "funny syphilis" instead.  

Kripke was just always more the guy who was into "cool horror moments". Apart from a scene here or there in Bloody Mary, I just never thought the show could pull them off. It was always too goofy (and too network to get true horror in). 

And a fun Thanksgiving episode, too. If I had been home for the holidays, I would have watched it.

The episode could probably have turned offensive rather easily (and maybe was for some people, but I found it very amusing - unlike "Route 666" which more went the other way for me). It contained a lot of funny, including one of my favorite, "it's funny 'cuz it's true" evil Spike speeches as he's trying to explain why trying to reason with the angry American Indian spirits is not going to work, because they have a reason to be angry... and also, because he's Spike, he thinks it's counterproductive to get sentimental under the circumstances (which are that the Native American spirits are trying to kill them.)

Quote

You won! All right? You came in and you killed them and you took their land. That's what conquering nations do! That's what Caesar did; he's not going around saying "I came, I conquered,*pseudo apologetic voice* I felt really bad about it." The history of the world is not people making friends. You had better weapons, you massacred them, end of story. *smug head nod*

If I can somehow work a variation of that bolded part into a conversation: bonus.

But the episode was full of amusing - though maybe sometimes just skirting the line - dialogue like that for me (including the funny syphilis)*** and I think that was the difference between it and "Route 666" and "Bugs" in my opinion. I think that if those episodes had embraced the humor a bit more - even if it was risky - they maybe might've been more enjoyable... Because, I agree with Ditty here:

On 11/25/2017 at 11:28 AM, DittyDotDot said:

And, even though I don't hate it, he problem with Route 666 is they tried to make it into something it wasn't. 

And I think maybe the something it wasn't was maybe too serious and/or social commentary when it maybe should have been a ghost story. I think the writers went for a bit too much. And that was kinda the problem for me with "Bugs" too actually. The episode was a bit anvilicious for my taste. (Little did I know then that some anvils would get even heavier in some later episodes.) And the ending anvil of "Bugs" was especially annoying for me... I didn't like that message. But part of that was me being an Entomologist... we are a stubborn group, and not likely to give up on our passion as easily as the kid did... and thrown away specimens? Noooo! *tries not to be horrified*

What I actually liked about "Bugs" had more to do with little details and learning things about Sam and Dean than the story itself. I enjoyed, for example, learning that Sam knew about insects and had a soft spot for eight-legged critters, because of course that's something close to my heart. I think the episode could have focused on that without throwing a bunch of anvils into the mix.


*** Another apropos episode quote, this one from Xander:

Quote

Buffy: It wasn't exactly a perfect Thanksgiving.
Xander: I don't know. It kinda seemed right to me. A bunch of anticipation, a big fight and now we're all sleepy.

(Christmas would likely work as well.) Hee. Happy Holidays everyone!

[Aeryn13]

Quote

It contained a lot of funny, including one of my favorite, "it's funny 'cuz it's true" evil Spike speeches

Those speeches were great. And exasperated Giles who had been trying, more academically, to make much of the same points earlier. All around comedy gold. 

In that vein, Bugs could have been a good comedic episode but I feel it was only unintentionally so. Kripke probably wanted to explore the animal attack horror trope more but SPN was never a show that could make that work. X-Files in its heyday, yes, but SPN was always too goofy. They played the concept too straight. 

[bearcatfan]

I just don't understand how if someone has to try to convince others that Dean is being shown to be a dick, you can say that he's shown as being a dick? Woyldnt it be obvious to everyone if he was really supposed to be seen that way? Wouldn't my friends, who don't have a favorite brother, see it that way? Because the casual fans that I know that aren't online absolutely do not see it that way and look at me confused when I ask them about it. 

Edited November 28, 2017 by bearcatfan
Posted too soon.

[catrox14]

5 minutes ago, bearcatfan said:

I just don't understand how if someone has to try to convince others that Dean is being shown to be a dick, you can say that he's shown as being a dick? Woyldnt it be obvious to everyone if he was really supposed to be seen that way? Wouldn't my friends, who don't have a favorite brother, see it that way? Because the casual fans that I know that aren't online absolutely do not see it that way and look at me confused when I ask them about it. 

And the casual fans I know, all two of them, think Dean is being a dick.

It almost seems like some Sam fans want Sam to be the worst still. I mean I would be more than happy if I were a Sam fan to let him have the title of Dick Supreme from Sam's s8 debacle. As a Dean fan first, I take NO PLEASURE in saying how much of dick and borderline abusive Dean has been to a character who is intended by the narrative to be seen as a child. I personally think Dean has a case about Jack and I understand his grief and anger, that doesn't change that his behavior is what it is.

So I ask myself the following questions: 

What purpose does it serve the narrative structure of the story for Sam to tell Dean that Jack is messed up because of Dean?

What purpose does it serve to show Sam upset about Mary and then Dean being called out by therapist for terrifying Jack and making Sam upset?

[bearcatfan]

When people are grieving they lash out. Sometimes it's at someone they love, sometimes it's at someone who just is there or who they irrationally blame for the death of the one they love. If fans don't get that Dean isn't being a dick, but is actually grieving, I don't know what to say about that. It tells me that they have never seen someone in the throes of grief. Unfortunately, I have all to much lately. 4 deaths in 2 months will do that. Dean is acting an awful lot like several of my family members right now. 

When I say irrationally, that doesn't mean that It's not understandable. People often do this even as they know the person isn't at fault. It's human and normal. 

Edited November 29, 2017 by bearcatfan

[catrox14]

2 minutes ago, bearcatfan said:

When people are grieving they lash out. Sometimes it's at someone they love, sometimes it's at someone who just is there or who they irrationally blame for the death of the one they love. If fans don't get that Dean isn't being a dick, but is actually grieving, I don't know what to say about that. It tells me that they have never seen someone in the throes of grief. Unfortunately, I have all to much lately. 4 deaths in 2 months will do that. Dean is acting an awful lot like several of my family members right now. 

I'm sorry for your losses :(. That is awful.

I think with Dean that fans do understand that Dean was lashing out in grief but it doesn't alter that he's directing it almost exclusively at a "child". And it's juxtaposed by "Sam is grieving too but you don't see him lashing out at a child".  And the narrative continues to remind us that Dean is taking it out on a "child" and that is being shown to NOT be a good thing at all even IF understandable to many in the audience.

[Aeryn13]

Yes, the helpless, innocent "child" simply gets more sympathy in this scenario and the grieving party is expected to just keep it togehter. Which, in all honesty, would a person in real life be excused for abusing a child due to grief? I don`t think so. And juxtaposed with Sam being all warm and fuzzy, there was only one way that this kind of writing would go.  

[catrox14]

1 minute ago, Aeryn13 said:

Which, in all honesty, would a person in real life be excused for abusing a child due to grief?

Nope. They would not.

[bearcatfan]

Thanks. It's been rough. That doesn't t even count the cat that died and the relative who was shot during an attempted robbery. He's going to be fine. It's hasn't been a good few months  

Sam wasn't as close to Cas as Dean. It's also hard to think of Jack as a child unless you interact with him enough to realize how naive he seems to be. Dean didn't really interact with him much until Cas came back. 

I just found it odd that some Dean fans are trying to convince people that he's being a jerk rather than trying to explain to this who think he's a jerk why he's acting that way. 

[Wayward Son]

I find it surprising that those who profess to be Dean fans think of him so badly over Jack. I wouldn't call myself a Dean fan and even I can understand that Dean is currently grieving and it isn't as black and white as "mean Dean" and "child Jack". 

[ILoveReading]

37 minutes ago, bearcatfan said:

When people are grieving they lash out. Sometimes it's at someone they love, sometimes it's at someone who just is there or who they irrationally blame for the death of the one they love. If fans don't get that Dean isn't being a dick, but is actually grieving, I don't know what to say about that. It tells me that they have never seen someone in the throes of grief. Unfortunately, I have all to much lately. 4 deaths in 2 months will do that. Dean is acting an awful lot like several of my family members right now. 

When I say irrationally, that doesn't mean that It's not understandable. People often do this even as they know the person isn't at fault. It's human and normal. 

I'm sorry for your lose. 

I don't disagree with what your saying, unfortunately the show did not present Dean's grief sympathetically.  They overemphasized woobie Jack by writing him as dangerous as a newborn kitten.  The show, IMO, completely wants to pretend that Jack isn't Lucifer's son.  That' he's just some random pyschic Sam and Dean picked up off the street.

What I as a Dean fan think and what I believe the authorial intent was are too different things.

The only person to actually show Dean any compassion was Missouri of all people.  Dean flat out told Sam he had trouble looking at Jack.  Sam's response was to shove Jack even further down Dean's throat and act confused as to why Dean's irritation level went up.  They had the so called therapist blame Dean for making Sam upset and actually had her say that Jack was terrified of him.  In an episode that was supposed to specifically be about grief, only Jack's and Sam's were given any focus.  Dean's was ignored completely expect to lay the blame game on him. 

We had the writers actually put the blame for Jack going even on Dean, by literally having Sam say the words.  Jody was completely dismissive of Dean's trauma and advice and acted like Dean was trying to boss Patience around. 

Then they had Dean apologize for specifically being a dick and just had Sam accept it as his due.  Nothing from Sam about pushing Dean before he was ready.

21 minutes ago, bearcatfan said:

I just found it odd that some Dean fans are trying to convince people that he's being a jerk rather than trying to explain to this who think he's a jerk why he's acting that way. 

 

IMO, this storyline was handled extremely poorly.  It came across as Saint Sam vs Monster Dean and nothing in the writing suggested I was supposed to see it otherwise because I feel this is exactly how the writers wanted to present it.

It isn't just Dean fans.  I remembered the night the grief ep aired, and I saw so called "unbiased' reporters saying Dean needed to be punched in the throat.

IMO, a well written storyline should have presented both view points equally and not go so extreme.  Both characters are far past this back and white approach. 

Edited November 29, 2017 by ILoveReading

[Aeryn13]

Quote

and it isn't as black and white as "mean Dean" and "child Jack". 

To me the writing and presentation of those scenes was exactly as black and white as that. Which is why I found it so annoying. And the culmination in episode 4 with the mouthpiece therapist sucked ass. 

Thankfully, it was over afterwards so brief enough of an "arc" but while it was happening, it was the level of annoying and stupid I`ve come to expect from this show. If I want to see a sympathetic rendition of grief from this show, I can put in early Season 2 DVDs. But I would most certainly not choose Season 13.  

Quote

Dean flat out told Sam he had trouble looking at Jack.  Sam's response was to shove Jack even further down Dean's throat and act confused as to why Dean's irritation level went up. 

To me, that was actually the worst because at no point did the narrative ever call THAT out as wrong, stupid, aggravating, pointless, unhelpful or anything negative. Yes, Dean got to rant once and even as it was happening, I was afraid it was just a set-up to knock him down for it. Which the show delivered like clockwork. Urgh. 

Edited November 29, 2017 by Aeryn13

[catrox14]

2 minutes ago, bearcatfan said:

I just found it odd that some Dean fans are trying to convince people that he's being a jerk rather than trying to explain to this who think he's a jerk why he's acting that wa

That's not really true at least in my case. Both things are existing at the same time. Dean IS acting like a jerk because he's grieving. The issue is that the behavior is being considered too extreme towards Jack who is being presented as a child. I'm not going to pretend that doesn't exist in the narrative just because I love Dean a ridiculous amount. It is what it is (and I hate it).

[ILoveReading]

4 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

That's not really true at least in my case. Both things are existing at the same time. Dean IS acting like a jerk because he's grieving. The issue is that the behavior is being considered too extreme towards Jack who is being presented as a child. I'm not going to pretend that doesn't exist in the narrative just because I love Dean a ridiculous amount. It is what it is (and I hate it).

It's pretty bad when the writer that handled Dean's grief with the most sympathy was Buck/Lemming something is very wrong with the writing.

I believe that the grief ep and Advanced Thanatology should have been flipped.  Seeing Dean's head space and given a fist hand account of just how much he was struggling would have put his actions in the grief ep in a whole new perspective.  Given that Dean just had a new burden dumped on his shoulders in addition to missing Cas, would have made Dean's bone wariness and his anger much more understandable.

It would also have put Sam in a better light because becasue it would have shown that he listened and heard Dean when he said he couldn't look at Jack.  Because unfortnately, it looks like Sam was rewarding Dean for good behavior  rather than showing genuine compassion to what he was going through.  Sam was only nice to Dean after Dean gave into Sam's demands.

Edited November 29, 2017 by ILoveReading

[gonzosgirrl]

Most of the Dean fans I know *do* understand his actions, and personally, IDGAF that it was a child, because he is not a child, he's the spawn of Satan. And Dean's attitude soften appropriately as the situation revealed itself. But the general reactions I have read/heard outside of the Dean fan circle are negative towards him over it. They just are. I don't know how one can genuinely find it 'surprising' when a) Sam literally blamed Dean for Jack being messed up, and Dean literally called himself a dick for his behavior. That's not inference, those are the actual words Dabb put in their mouths. Not to mention having a 'therapist' berate him for how he was acting, literally saying this 'child' was terrified of him.

And as I said before, I hate Dabb most of all for making me have conversations like this. He is the ultimate troll. I'm sure the anti-Dean fans are giggling with glee. 

 

And if we're comparing to S8 and Sam's 'grief' and not looking for Dean, etc - guess who also got to be the dick in the narrative that time? Hint: it was Dean.

Edited November 29, 2017 by gonzosgirrl

[shoetingstar]

37 minutes ago, Aeryn13 said:

To me the writing and presentation of those scenes was exactly as black and white as that. Which is why I found it so annoying. And the culmination in episode 4 with the mouthpiece therapist sucked ass. 

Thankfully, it was over afterwards so brief enough of an "arc" but while it was happening, it was the level of annoying and stupid I`ve come to expect from this show. If I want to see a sympathetic rendition of grief from this show, I can put in early Season 2 DVDs. But I would most certainly not choose Season 13.  

To me, that was actually the worst because at no point did the narrative ever call THAT out as wrong, stupid, aggravating, pointless, unhelpful or anything negative. Yes, Dean got to rant once and even as it was happening, I was afraid it was just a set-up to knock him down for it. Which the show delivered like clockwork. Urgh. 

 

31 minutes ago, ILoveReading said:

It's pretty bad when the writer that handled Dean's grief with the most sympathy was Buck/Lemming something is very wrong with the writing.

I believe that the grief ep and Advanced Thanatology should have been flipped.  Seeing Dean's head space and given a fist hand account of just how much he was struggling would have put his actions in the grief ep in a whole new perspective.  Given that Dean just had a new burden dumped on his shoulders in addition to missing Cas, would have made Dean's bone wariness and his anger much more understandable.

It would also have put Sam in a better light because becasue it would have shown that he listened and heard Dean when he said he couldn't look at Jack.  Because unfortnately, it looks like Sam was rewarding Dean for good behavior  rather than showing genuine compassion to what he was going through.  Sam was only nice to Dean after Dean gave into Sam's demands.

Anyone who kindly pays attention to my posts know I'm constantly frustrated with the show's writing. But for once, I feel like there's something more going on with the Dean Backlash. It feels like a good portion of the audience is short-sighted or just took a chance to pounce. Why can't Jack be likable AND potentially evil spawn of Lucifer? Why can't Dean be acting like a complete jerk yet also be a man grieving from Double LOSS of Cas and his Mom? Yes, Sam is being supportive to Jack but he also admitted to wanting to use him for a purpose. Is that more noble than wanting to steer clear of him? 

It feels like people are taking advantage of the shows writing limitations to dig in their heels and not want to see all sides of full picture. Yes, the writing could do a better job but I'm kind of disappointed in the audience this time. Dean is normally protective of those in their charge, particularly kids. The show has made it clear why he was different with Jack. 1-He's Lucifer's son - this should not be so quickly discounted. 2-He fears his powers and the effects it had on Cas, i.e. leading to Cas' death; 3-He thinks the kid may know more than he initially lead them to believe (he was pretty aware in the womb), and 4-He's at the end of rope from not being able to save the people he loves. Why is it SO hard to get at this point?

[gonzosgirrl]

24 minutes ago, shoetingstar said:

 

Anyone who kindly pays attention to my posts know I'm constantly frustrated with the show's writing. But for once, I feel like there's something more going on with the Dean Backlash. It feels like a good portion of the audience is short-sighted or just took a chance to pounce. Why can't Jack be likable AND potentially evil spawn of Lucifer? Why can't Dean be acting like a complete jerk yet also be a man grieving from Double LOSS of Cas and his Mom? Yes, Sam is being supportive to Jack but he also admitted to wanting to use him for a purpose. Is that more noble than wanting to steer clear of him? 

It feels like people are taking advantage of the shows writing limitations to dig in their heels and not want to see all sides of full picture. Yes, the writing could do a better job but I'm kind of disappointed in the audience this time. Dean is normally protective of those in their charge, particularly kids. The show has made it clear why he was different with Jack. 1-He's Lucifer's son - this should not be so quickly discounted. 2-He fears his powers and the effects it had on Cas, i.e. leading to Cas' death; 3-He thinks the kid may know more than he initially lead them to believe (he was pretty aware in the womb), and 4-He's at the end of rope from not being able to save the people he loves. Why is it SO hard to get at this point?

I think this says it all. I don't even know how many times I've seen some variation of, "See? I told you he is a jerk."  I don't believe for a minute they don't see the nuances.

[ILoveReading]

27 minutes ago, shoetingstar said:

Why is it SO hard to get at this point?

Because I don;t feel this was the point the writers were trying to make. 

[Wayward Son]

45 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

And if we're comparing to S8 and Sam's 'grief' and not looking for Dean, etc - guess who also got to be the dick in the narrative that time? Hint: it was Dean.

Not according to the narrative ever since and for that reason, at this moment in time, I don’t find the comparison apt. As late as season 11 (possibly later, but I’m only as far as 11 on my series rewatch) we have characters making digs about Sam “running off and hitting a dog” or Sam himself professing  that not looking for Dean was the worst thing he’s ever done. That’s hardly the show presenting Dean as a dick during season 8. If we get to season 16 (if the show even lasts that long) and there are character making digs like “remember that time you were abusive towards poor Jack?” And we have Dean proclaiming how his behaviour towards Jack was the worst thing he’s ever done then I’ll agree with you Dean has been presented just as bad here. 

Edited November 30, 2017 by Wayward Son

[shoetingstar]

7 minutes ago, ILoveReading said:

Because I don;t feel this was the point the writers were trying to make. 

What point do you think the writers were trying to make?

[ILoveReading]

8 minutes ago, shoetingstar said:

What point do you think the writers were trying to make?

As I mentioned earlier, St. Sam vs Mean bossy bully Dean.

IMO, everything in the narrative supported this.  From people literally blaming Dean, showing him no sympathy, from writing Jack as the biggest woobie in history and failing to present any evidence that Jack might go darkside and completing ignoring he's the son of Satan argument. They also completely ignored Dean's grief in an episode about grief. 

Honestly at this point, Deans' dark side is scarier than Jack's 

Edited November 30, 2017 by ILoveReading

[gonzosgirrl]

14 minutes ago, Wayward Son said:

Not according to the narrative ever since and for that reason, at this moment in time, I don’t find the comparison apt. As late as season 11 (possibly later, but I’m only as far as 11 on my series rewatch) we have characters making digs about Sam “running off and hitting a dog” or Sam himself professing  that not looking for Dean was the worst thing he’s ever done. That’s hardly the show presenting Dean as a dick during season 8. If we get to season 16 (if the show even lasts that long) and there are character making digs like “remember that time you were abusive towards poor Jack?” And we have Dean proclaiming how his behaviour towards Jack was the worst thing he’s ever done then I’ll agree with you Dean has been presented just as bad here. 

Yes, I guess we can talk about this after we see if it is addressed down the road. There were a couple of digs over the seasons, but it took years for Sam to even acknowledge he was wrong, and he never did apologize for it. On the other hand, Sam called Dean out on his behaviour (S8) and threatened to walk. Dean apologized to him (tacit agreement) and swallowed it. That's the show choosing a side, IMO. Same thing now - every actual word spoken on screen thus far condemns Dean's behaviour, while legitimizing Sam's. Even when he acknowledged that part of his motivation was to use Jack, they had Jack react with understanding.

[shoetingstar]

1 hour ago, ILoveReading said:

As I mentioned earlier, St. Sam vs Mean bossy bully Dean.

But Dean explained his position and also calling out Sam's true reason for trying to draw out jack's powers...Although I will give you that calling Jack a "freak" was probably too much for some to overcome. If they really wanted Dean to look bad, have him act that way without his recent loss. I don't think they have to do much for some people that see Dean as the mean bossy bully no matter what.

My real problem with this whole thing is how Jack is being portrayed. They are missing the compelling storytelling mark by not showing him as multi-faceted. Right now he's just this defenseless (lol) puppy that's being rejected. We needed some scenes of him doing something, anything questionable to balance the fact that he has potential to go Dark. This "I may hurt you - so I will leave" conflict is BS. They are either scared to show him make an "intentional" bad choice mistake, because they think it sacrifices him as a character, or don't know how to do so. 

However, even I like him, and like Dean I was resistant- so why would they care? I do not want to defend him from the big bad Dean Monster, because I believe in Dean's intentions, if that makes a difference.

Edited November 30, 2017 by shoetingstar

[ILoveReading]

37 minutes ago, shoetingstar said:

But Dean explained his position and also calling out Sam's true reason for trying to draw out jack's powers...

IMO, it makes no difference if Dean explains his position if it falls on deaf ears.  Sam's reaction to Dean's confession of was to push Jack on Dean even harder.  That completely invalidates Dean's position.

Then there was a long uninterrupted scene of Sam getting to explain his position and Jack being a pefect mix of sympathy and understanding about where Sam was coming from. 

So there was really no change either way from Dean's "truth bombs.'  The audience was just left with the status quo.  Nothing changed. 

37 minutes ago, shoetingstar said:

My real problem with this whole thing is how Jack is being portrayed. They are missing the compelling storytelling mark by not showing him as multi-faceted. Right now he's just this defenseless (lol) puppy that's being rejected. We needed some scenes of him doing something, anything questionable to balance the fact that he has potential to go Dark. This "I may hurt you - so I will leave" conflict is BS. They are either scared to show him make an "intentional" bad choice mistake, because they think it sacrifices him as a character, or don't know how to do so. 

This is I do agree with fully.  My biggest criticism of the writing is that your either a mustache twirling villain or a Saintly McSainterton.  No characters really have layers.  (Yockey seeming to be the one person with potential in this area).

37 minutes ago, shoetingstar said:

However, even I like him, and like Dean I was resistant- so why would they care? I do not want to defend him from the big bad Dean Monster, because I believe in Dean's intentions, if that makes a difference.

I like that Dean was resistant too because its a more organic reation then, Sam had.  But sadly I think the writing left a lot to be desired becasue the whole thing came across as one big Sam and Jack vs Dean. 

Edited November 30, 2017 by ILoveReading

[AwesomO4000]

4 hours ago, ILoveReading said:

IMO, it makes no difference if Dean explains his position if it falls on deaf ears.  Sam's reaction to Dean's confession of was to push Jack on Dean even harder.  That completely invalidates Dean's position.

Maybe Sam needs Dean to see his side some in order to work through his own grief? (Sam seems to be really invested in this Jack-can-be-redeemed thing... To make something good come out of the bad.) So maybe just giving in to what Dean wants in the grieving process (again) would invalidate Sam's position? In my opinion, generally what Sam wants when it comes to grieving is often diminished and/or considered a burden on Dean. Even in season 2 - which was cited above as a good example of showing grieving - the conclusion was pretty much "So Sam needs / wants to talk about how he's feeling and his guilt at John's loss? Well, too bad, because Dean would rather ignore him, deflect and bash in his car. So suck it up Sam. I guess your feelings and need to talk and get some feedback / sympathy / support / etc. from your brother don't matter and won't ever be addressed. But you told Dean he was right, so I guess that's all that was needed from you here. You can go handle your grief on your own now, right?" Sam's need for contact with his brother was somewhat invalidated there, in my opinion.

For me, Dean getting sympathy from Missouri and Billie this season was more than Sam got in season 2 when he was trying to work through John's death. And now that Sam is being a little less than entirely sympathetic to Dean here in the grieving process, he's being called out for it. Whereas in season 2, many of the comments were "why can't Sam leave poor Dean alone to grieve?" rather than maybe asking why when Sam was practically begging for Dean to say something, anything after his big confession, maybe even for Dean to just look at him, Dean gave Sam literally nothing, but somehow that was entirely acceptable...

Basically I'm saying both brothers don't necessarily support each other in the best possible way when they are grieving, so this is nothing new.

5 hours ago, gonzosgirrl said:

Dean apologized to him (tacit agreement) and swallowed it. That's the show choosing a side, IMO.

I disagree, because the show had Bobby call Sam out for not looking for Dean and gave Sam no defense, which is the opposite of choosing Sam's side. The show also had Benny being entirely good and not the least bit shady looking for the most part. I never had any question whatsoever that Benny would go bad. I even predicted from the beginning that he would end up saving Sam somehow so that Sam would see the error of his ways... meaning Sam was wrong to make Dean give Benny up since even Sam agreed that it was right for Dean to "leave the door open" by burying Benny's bones instead of burning them. So again - in my opinion - not choosing Sam's side. So far, I found Benny to be more of a woobie type character than Jack, and that's because...

I'm just not seeing the show portraying Jack as this innocent puppy like others are. A few times he's fairly purposely hurt people in self defense, he's accidentally hurt people, and now he's actually killed someone. That's actually more than we saw Benny do. Benny only killed someone in self defense... and he was an actual monster. Yes, Jack has the "innocent" sort-of-a-kid thing going on, but this is Supernatural. More times than not, the supernaturally charged kid is actually evil and/or dangerous. Whether it's a life-force-sucking monster, a creepy ghost kid, a ghoul, or a zombie kid. Even cute, little, human kid Missy (from "The Benders") was actually a threat. Ditto Tod from "Wishful Thinking." Just because right now Jack's motives appear to be "good" - and even that could end badly - his declaration that he can't really feel much is disconcerting in my opinion and things could very much turn bad. What if someone - like Lucifer - comes along and convinces Jack he can "feel" if only he uses his powers for evil? Can we be sure Jack will say "no" to that? We already saw how easily Asmodeus manipulated him... and I don't think that was necessarily a throwaway. I think somehow someone is going to propose something to Jack that he can't refuse and/or won't be able to identify as wrong and things may go badly. And in the end, no matter how fluffy-puppy Jack looks now, the potential for him to be dangerous is there. And that potential - for me - does not make him a non-threat. Frankenstein's monster was pretty much "innocent" too, but that didn't negate that he ended up being dangerous and killing a little girl.

And to me, much like with Frankenstein's monster, if the narrative is insinuating a "look at little puppy Jack" vibe, it's because that'll make it all the more dramatic when things go horribly wrong, not because they are trying to show that Dean is just a meanie. Others' miles may vary.

[Wayward Son]

11 hours ago, gonzosgirrl said:

Yes, I guess we can talk about this after we see if it is addressed down the road. There were a couple of digs over the seasons, but it took years for Sam to even acknowledge he was wrong, and he never did apologize for it. On the other hand, Sam called Dean out on his behaviour (S8) and threatened to walk. Dean apologized to him (tacit agreement) and swallowed it. That's the show choosing a side, IMO. Same thing now - every actual word spoken on screen thus far condemns Dean's behaviour, while legitimizing Sam's. Even when he acknowledged that part of his motivation was to use Jack, they had Jack react with understanding.

@AwesomO4000 answered this wonderfully so I’m just going to add a few quick things rather than just repeat what they said.

 

A key difference between season 8 Sam and season 13 Dean is the fact that they a) made it quite clear Dean was grieving for Mary and Cas as he believed they were dead and b) gave Dean clear reasons for feeling the way he did about Jack.

 

In regards to point a. I haven’t seen anyone, on the show or in fandom, try to deny the fact that Dean is grieving for Mary and Castiel. He explicitly said on several occasions that he believed they were dead. In contrast to this many of the fandom don’t consider Sam’s behaviour in season 8 as a result of grief. When discussing the events fans all too often use terms like “abandon” or “didn’t bother to look” which imply that they believe Sam purposely left Dean to rot in purgatory rather than he believed Dean was dead and decided not to try and resurrect him. You yourself, in the post I originally quoted, expressed it as Sam’s “grief”, which forgive me if I’m wrong, through the use of quotation marks around the word grief, implies that you don’t overly believe Sam was grieving between seasons 7 and 8 either. 

 

In regards to point B the show has told us Dean has the following reasons for being in Initally wary of Jack. 

 

1) He’s the son of Lucifer

2) He believed Jack manipulated Castiel to his death by sending visions of paradise and can’t even look at him as a result. 

3) He’s wary of Jack’s power, which had already been used to hurt people and ultimately kill someone. In contrast to this Benny only killed once in self-defence and that was a scenario Sam set up. 

 

On the other hand, the show gave Sam no concrete reasons for “not looking for Dean”, leaving Kevin to Crowley and having major trust issues with Benny. The latter primarily portrayed as mean Sam is jealous of Benny and his bond with Dean. The Sam fans in the fandom had to work hard to analyse the episodes and find reasons for Sam’s behaviour themselves, which of course means it’s all too easy for non Sam fans to just assume the worst of him and assume it was abandonment rather than a decision to let what’s dead stay dead. 

Edited November 30, 2017 by Wayward Son

[ILoveReading]

7 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:

Maybe Sam needs Dean to see his side some in order to work through his own grief? (Sam seems to be really invested in this Jack-can-be-redeemed thing... To make something good come out of the bad.) So maybe just giving in to what Dean wants in the grieving process (again) would invalidate Sam's position?

 

If Sam wants to work with Jack, or needs to, to help him process his grief, then there is nothing stopping him.   Dean not accepting Jack doesn't invalidate this.   Because Sam doesn't need Dean's approval or permission. 

It's why I rolled my eyes when Sam said Dean was acting like John when he was the one adopting a my way or the highway approach.   There is a lot of compromises between lets kill Jack, and you must accept him. 

Something like, "Dean, I get it.  But working with Jack is helping me so all I'm asking is that you be civil to him.  I'll take full responsibility."

A reasonable request under the circumstances.   So I disagree that Sam backing off invalidates Sam's position

7 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:

The show also had Benny being entirely good and not the least bit shady looking for the most part. I never had any question whatsoever that Benny would go bad. I even predicted from the beginning that he would end up saving Sam somehow so that Sam would see the error of his ways... meaning Sam was wrong to make Dean give Benny up since even Sam agreed that it was right for Dean to "leave the door open" by burying Benny's bones instead of burning them. So again - in my opinion - not choosing Sam's side. So far, I found Benny to be more of a woobie type character than Jack, and that's because...

I feel zero sympathy for Sam over the Benny situation.  Because Sam was never held accountable for any of his actions.   They were all swept under the rug

I disagree Benny is a bigger woobie then Jack.  Dean met Benny in purgatory.  It's a place where monsters go when they die.  In the past, Benny was a vampire who ran with a gang who killed people.  He might have attempted to go straight because he fell in love, but that doesn't change his sketchy past.

If I look at purgatory like a jail sentence, then Benny paid for his mistakes just like a gang member would.  When he got out he attempted to stay straight and build a life for himself.  It was Sam's actions that destroyed that but again was never called out on his mistakes.  Instead Sam issued an ultimatum (I'm starting to sense a pattern here), dump Benny or I dump you.  Sam got his own way.  They writers even had Charlie tell Dean he ruined Sam's life. 

After Benny saved Sam, we got a half hearted, "he's okay I guess."  The framing of that scene came across to me as Dean asking Sam's permission if it was okay not to burn Benny's bones, rather than Sam admitting Dean was right. 

As a Dean fan I spent the entire Benny storyline hoping he wouldn't go bad.  So I was happy when he didn't.   So IMO, it wasn't obvious. 

Benny had a past where the show keeps telling us that Jack is a blank slate.  They even told us if he goes bad its because of Dean.  Those are words they literally had Sam say.  As for Jack, he's never deliberately hurt someone.  Benny had in the past.  Jack has only done things in self defense or by accident. 

As for Jack not feeling anything, its another tell that doesn't match the show.  Jack clearly felt guilt over what he did to the guard.  He was hurt when he felt Sam was using him.  He's confused.  He misses his mom.  He's scared of Dean.   He's afraid he might hurt someone.  Those are all feelings.  IMO, its more that Jack doesn't understand what feelings are rather than him not having them.   He clearly not only feels, but feels deeply.

In the past, Benny was actually a full fledged vampire who tried to change.  Why is it, according to Sam, Jack deserves a chance but Benny didn't?  Could it be because Jack reminds Sam of Sam? 

5 hours ago, Wayward Son said:

In regards to point B the show has told us Dean has the following reasons for being in Initally wary of Jack. 

 

1) He’s the son of Lucifer

2) He believed Jack manipulated Castiel to his death by sending visions of paradise and can’t even look at him as a result. 

3) He’s wary of Jack’s power, which had already been used to hurt people and ultimately kill someone. In contrast to this Benny only killed once in self-defence and that was a scenario Sam set up. 

1.  Something the show is ignoring and dealing with by elevating Kelly to saint like status and clearly sending the message that Jack favors Kelly.  Something they literally had Cas say.  Further supported by Donatello saying that there was no evil vibes coming from Jack.

2. The manipulation and brainwashing is also being ignored.  When Dean brought this up, it was dealt with by Sam doubling down on the 'you must accept Jack, Dean" mantra.  Dean's revelation was followed up by the so called "grief" ep. 

3.  Jack has only used his powers in self defense, to defend Sam and Dean, and to try and help.  His killing of the guard was purely accidental.  Monsters don't feel guilt the way Jack did.  Sam ultimately was rewarded for his treatment of Benny since he got his own way.  

So while these are good reasons to be wary of Jack, none of them of these points are supported by what we've been shown on screen. 

Now if the show is running a long con and Jack was evil all along then kudos to the writers for surprising me.  Because I get the writers love woobie, Jack vibe.  Even if he does go bad its not another Dean's right, Sam's wrong scenario since the show already laid the blame at Dean's feet and we also had Dean defending Jack this last ep so he's snowed Dean now too. 

Quote

The Sam fans in the fandom had to work hard to analyse the episodes and find reasons for Sam’s behaviour themselves, which of course means it’s all too easy for non Sam fans to just assume the worst of him and assume it was abandonment rather than a decision to let what’s dead stay dead. 

This is exactly what I find the Dean fandom has to do with this Jack stuff.  They have to analyse the episodes to find reasons to justify Deans' stance on Jack going evil because Jack is really just a precious cinnamon roll who loves nougat and must be protected at all costs.  IMO, its all too easy for non Dean fans to just assume the worst of Dean and call him abusive, and say he needs to be punched in the throat.

Edited November 30, 2017 by ILoveReading

[Pondlass1]

The Jack character has been introduced to appeal to younger demographics.  He won't go bad - maybe confused sexy evil for an episode or two but that will be it.  I agree they're missing an opportunity to make things a lot more interesting because the baddies we have so far this season are all one-note mustache twirling caricatures. 

[ILoveReading]

This is part of the reason why I like Ketch.  He's an unapologetic, unremorseful, sociopath. 

Please show, don't redeem him.

Ketch is a bigger monster than Jack.

[Pondlass1]

They'll let Ketch go full on monster I'm sure. There's no reason to redeem him.  I wonder why they brought the actor back? Obviously wasn't expecting to or they'd not have killed him off.  I follow him on twitter and I get the impression he got along with everyone one set and has a depreciating sense of humour.  He could be interesting so long as he doesn't start twirling that mustache and pulling out BMOL gizmos from his trousers.  

I guess this should be in the Unpopular Thoughts thread, but I was never keen on hyper Kevin. Hope he stays in the rift and we continue with soulless Donatello.   And, as much as I've grown to adore Rowena, I don't want her back either although I know she will be.  Introducing witches was the death toll to TVD imo.  Thing is - they just do some hocus pocus and writers have a way out of sticky script situations.  It just dilutes the unease and trepidation that was there in earlier seasons before they had all these magic advantages.

I just want less Saturday morning kids' adventure show and more Supernatural tragedy and dark gritty saving the world from monsters.

[ILoveReading]

12 minutes ago, Pondlass1 said:

They'll let Ketch go full on monster I'm sure. There's no reason to redeem him.  I wonder why they brought the actor back? Obviously wasn't expecting to or they'd not have killed him off.  I follow him on twitter and I get the impression he got along with everyone one set and has a depreciating sense of humour.  He could be interesting so long as he doesn't start twirling that mustache and pulling out BMOL gizmos from his trousers.  

I guess this should be in the Unpopular Thoughts thread, but I was never keen on hyper Kevin. Hope he stays in the rift and we continue with soulless Donatello.   And, as much as I've grown to adore Rowena, I don't want her back either although I know she will be.  Introducing witches was the death toll to TVD imo.  Thing is - they just do some hocus pocus and writers have a way out of sticky script situations.  It just dilutes the unease and trepidation that was there in earlier seasons before they had all these magic advantages.

I just want less Saturday morning kids' adventure show and more Supernatural tragedy and dark gritty saving the world from monsters.

One of my biggest complaints about the writing is that monsters aren't monsters anymore.  They're all just misunderstood woobie's who have hearts of gold.   Even Lucifer is just misunderstood and daddy didn't love him enough. 

[gonzosgirrl]

1 hour ago, ILoveReading said:

 

If Sam wants to work with Jack, or needs to, to help him process his grief, then there is nothing stopping him.   Dean not accepting Jack doesn't invalidate this.   Because Sam doesn't need Dean's approval or permission. 

It's why I rolled my eyes when Sam said Dean was acting like John when he was the one adopting a my way or the highway approach.   There is a lot of compromises between lets kill Jack, and you must accept him. 

Something like, "Dean, I get it.  But working with Jack is helping me so all I'm asking is that you be civil to him.  I'll take full responsibility."

A reasonable request under the circumstances.   So I disagree that Sam backing off invalidates Sam's position

I feel zero sympathy for Sam over the Benny situation.  Because Sam was never held accountable for any of his actions.   They were all swept under the rug

I disagree Benny is a bigger woobie then Jack.  Dean met Benny in purgatory.  It's a place where monsters go when they die.  In the past, Benny was a vampire who ran with a gang who killed people.  He might have attempted to go straight because he fell in love, but that doesn't change his sketchy past.

If I look at purgatory like a jail sentence, then Benny paid for his mistakes just like a gang member would.  When he got out he attempted to stay straight and build a life for himself.  It was Sam's actions that destroyed that but again was never called out on his mistakes.  Instead Sam issued an ultimatum (I'm starting to sense a pattern here), dump Benny or I dump you.  Sam got his own way.  They writers even had Charlie tell Dean he ruined Sam's life. 

After Benny saved Sam, we got a half hearted, "he's okay I guess."  The framing of that scene came across to me as Dean asking Sam's permission if it was okay not to burn Benny's bones, rather than Sam admitting Dean was right. 

As a Dean fan I spent the entire Benny storyline hoping he wouldn't go bad.  So I was happy when he didn't.   So IMO, it wasn't obvious. 

Benny had a past where the show keeps telling us that Jack is a blank slate.  They even told us if he goes bad its because of Dean.  Those are words they literally had Sam say.  As for Jack, he's never deliberately hurt someone.  Benny had in the past.  Jack has only done things in self defense or by accident. 

As for Jack not feeling anything, its another tell that doesn't match the show.  Jack clearly felt guilt over what he did to the guard.  He was hurt when he felt Sam was using him.  He's confused.  He misses his mom.  He's scared of Dean.   He's afraid he might hurt someone.  Those are all feelings.  IMO, its more that Jack doesn't understand what feelings are rather than him not having them.   He clearly not only feels, but feels deeply.

In the past, Benny was actually a full fledged vampire who tried to change.  Why is it, according to Sam, Jack deserves a chance but Benny didn't?  Could it be because Jack reminds Sam of Sam? 

1.  Something the show is ignoring and dealing with by elevating Kelly to saint like status and clearly sending the message that Jack favors Kelly.  Something they literally had Cas say.  Further supported by Donatello saying that there was no evil vibes coming from Jack.

2. The manipulation and brainwashing is also being ignored.  When Dean brought this up, it was dealt with by Sam doubling down on the 'you must accept Jack, Dean" mantra.  Dean's revelation was followed up by the so called "grief" ep. 

3.  Jack has only used his powers in self defense, to defend Sam and Dean, and to try and help.  His killing of the guard was purely accidental.  Monsters don't feel guilt the way Jack did.  Sam ultimately was rewarded for his treatment of Benny since he got his own way.  

So while these are good reasons to be wary of Jack, none of them of these points are supported by what we've been shown on screen. 

Now if the show is running a long con and Jack was evil all along then kudos to the writers for surprising me.  Because I get the writers love woobie, Jack vibe.  Even if he does go bad its not another Dean's right, Sam's wrong scenario since the show already laid the blame at Dean's feet and we also had Dean defending Jack this last ep so he's snowed Dean now too. 

This is exactly what I find the Dean fandom has to do with this Jack stuff.  They have to analyse the episodes to find reasons to justify Deans' stance on Jack going evil because Jack is really just a precious cinnamon roll who loves nougat and must be protected at all costs.  IMO, its all too easy for non Dean fans to just assume the worst of Dean and call him abusive, and say he needs to be punched in the throat.

I ♥ this post (heart, in case the code barfs, lol). I co-sign every word.

[AwesomO4000]

5 hours ago, ILoveReading said:

If Sam wants to work with Jack, or needs to, to help him process his grief, then there is nothing stopping him.   Dean not accepting Jack doesn't invalidate this.   Because Sam doesn't need Dean's approval or permission. 

It's why I rolled my eyes when Sam said Dean was acting like John when he was the one adopting a my way or the highway approach.   There is a lot of compromises between lets kill Jack, and you must accept him. 

Something like, "Dean, I get it.  But working with Jack is helping me so all I'm asking is that you be civil to him.  I'll take full responsibility."

A reasonable request under the circumstances.   So I disagree that Sam backing off invalidates Sam's position

That would be assuming that Sam is thinking rationally about Jack rather than emotionally - which come on, he isn't. And no Sam doesn't need Dean's permission or approval to work with Jack per se, but it might make him feel better. I get Dean's position too, since he explained it quite well, but in my opinion, it's kind of like when Sam wanted to go visit Mary's grave and bury John's dog tags with her. No, Sam didn't need Dean's permission or approval, but it might have been nice if Dean had said "I get it" or even "I get that you need this" rather than "This is stupid." Support goes both ways, and in my opinion, just because Dean doesn't agree with something Sam needs - even if he has a good reason to disagree - doesn't mean it's not insensitive of him to tell Sam who doesn't agree with him that Sam's stance is stupid or wrong and act like it's a total inconvenience.

As you said: there is a lot of compromise between "let's kill Jack" and "you must accept him," so why is it all on Sam to propose all of the compromising? Why couldn't Dean propose the compromise?

Even when Sam proposed bringing Jack back to the bunker, Dean made sure to mention that the reason why he agreed wasn't because he really agreed, but because then Jack would be contained... in other words still communicating to Sam that he thought what Sam wanted was mainly stupid and an inconvenience. Sure, in Dean's eyes this is pretty much true, but that doesn't mean it's not potentially insensitive for him to project that all over the place rather than try to compromise. Maybe if Dean hadn't been so passive aggressive (and aggressive), Sam wouldn't have pushed so much in the opposite direction. I don't know.

5 hours ago, ILoveReading said:

I feel zero sympathy for Sam over the Benny situation.  Because Sam was never held accountable for any of his actions.   They were all swept under the rug

Never said I felt sorry for Sam over it either. I just  thought it was crap writing by Carver. Dean was never held accountable for most of his actions in season 9 and 10 either, because they too were mainly swept under the rug ("See! Gadreel was really misunderstood and was redeemed") or the blame was shifted to Sam (Amara), so this isn't something Carver didn't use with both brothers.

5 hours ago, ILoveReading said:

The framing of that scene came across to me as Dean asking Sam's permission if it was okay not to burn Benny's bones, rather than Sam admitting Dean was right. 

Not to me, because Dean had already done it and was explaining why he did it to Sam, and daring Sam to disagree... which Sam didn't, thereby confirming Dean's decision not to burn Benny's bones. To me, that's much different than Dean asking Sam for permission. It's Dean making a decision and Sam backing up that decision.

5 hours ago, ILoveReading said:

Benny had a past where the show keeps telling us that Jack is a blank slate.

But see to me this is almost even more cliche and maybe woobie isn't the word, but "noble?" It's one thing for a neophyte to need nurturing, but to screw up the chances of a monster who is trying to go straight... to me that's even worse, and that's what they had Sam do. And yet still Benny overcame Sam's sabotage. So much - to me - hooker with a heart of gold. Bleh.

5 hours ago, ILoveReading said:

In the past, Benny was actually a full fledged vampire who tried to change.  Why is it, according to Sam, Jack deserves a chance but Benny didn't?  Could it be because Jack reminds Sam of Sam? 

But why wouldn't Benny also remind Sam of Sam? Someone who's done bad in the past due to circumstances beyond his control and is now trying to do right and overcome that evil inside himself? Why would Sam sympathize with Lenore for example and not Benny? As I've said, in my opinion, Carver's characterization of Sam in season 8 made little sense, and he made no attempt to explain it or in any way make it sympathetic - in my opinion.

6 hours ago, ILoveReading said:

Even if he does go bad its not another Dean's right, Sam's wrong scenario since the show already laid the blame at Dean's feet and we also had Dean defending Jack this last ep so he's snowed Dean now too. 

Well, if Dean is "snowed" and supporting Jack now, he can't also be making Jack bad by being mean to him, in my opinion. If Jack goes bad, it will look more like Sam talked Dean into it - with all of the Sam not compromising and forcing Jack down Dean's throat and such - and if it gets blamed on either brother, I think it will be Sam. Just my opinion on that.

But hopefully it won't get "blamed" on either of them.

[gonzosgirrl]

Tonight's episode (13x08) highlights my biggest beef with Sam (as written).  Demon says 'Sam, you're the smart one', implying Dean is not. Sam stares, accepts it and says nothing. Demon says to Dean, "if you're brother is too stupid to do his part, that's on him". Dean immediately turns on said demon, ready to defend his brother.

I don't need a big exposition from Sam on how not-dumb Dean is, but damnit, could he not at least look a little annoyed that a dirtbag demon is insulting his brother right to his face?

[AwesomO4000]

29 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

Tonight's episode (13x08) highlights my biggest beef with Sam (as written).  Demon says 'Sam, you're the smart one', implying Dean is not. Sam stares, accepts it and says nothing. Demon says to Dean, "if you're brother is too stupid to do his part, that's on him". Dean immediately turns on said demon, ready to defend his brother.

I don't need a big exposition from Sam on how not-dumb Dean is, but damnit, could he not at least look a little annoyed that a dirtbag demon is insulting his brother right to his face?

The situations were different in my opinion. The first was a negotiation. Both need to keep their cool, and playing into the demon goading during the negotiation, in my opinion, would play right into what he wants. Personally I agree with what @catrox14 was saying some would say over on the spoilers thread: Sam and Dean are both so over the demon taunts for the most part. And I am also of the opinion that many demons - including Bart, here - actually think Dean is the smarter*** one (as Crowley generally projected also) and Bart calling Sam "the smarter one" was him trying to butter Sam up. Sam wasn't taking the bait. Because, to me, it seemed that to Bart "smart" actually was meaning "will do what I want" and not actually "smart." Because "smart" actually had little to do with the current negotiation - need and desperation were more the mitigating factors - so Bart's comment - again to me - obviously wasn't meant as an actual compliment to Sam at all. Bart obviously thought he was much smarter than both Sam and Dean (so much for his knowing Sam and Dean's history).

However later, Bart sowed his true colors in calling Sam the dumb one - which I'm thinking he thought all along and that "smart" actually in his mind meant gullible - and so Dean took exception to that... and I'm thinking that Dean was insulted for both of their sakes, because in his mind, Sam not being able to come through with his part would somehow also be a reflection on Dean too, since Dean is the leader of their team.

But then again to me it is obvious that Sam thinks Dean is smart and has good instincts, otherwise his following Dean's lead would make no sense to me.
 

*** Smarter where it counts. Most demons don't care about book type knowledge. They care about the type of knowledge that will get them killed... which generally = Dean.

[gonzosgirrl]

Meh. I don't care what the situation was. The demon implied Dean was stupid and Sam went with it. It wasn't Bart who said what I quoted above it was the other heist demon, and Dean was ready to shoot him in the face for suggesting Sam might be stupid enough to get himself killed. All the mitigating factors in the world don't change that for me.

I did very much enjoy the broment between them at the end of the episode. It was the first one I believed all season.

[companionenvy]

I think the situations are different too, but for another reason. 

Stunt demon wasn't just calling Sam stupid, he was joking about Sam's potential death in the middle of a case. Bart made his comment while everyone was sitting safely in a restaurant. And personality-wise, Dean is the brother who is more likely to react to that kind of dig in the heat of the moment. 

Either way, I see nothing unusual or sinister in the fact that Sam didn't jump to Dean's defense over a mild barb by a demon. In fact, I think it would have been odd writing had he reacted as if the comment had any importance.

Sam went to Stanford, and is the more book-research inclined of the brothers. To a lot of people, that would be enough to default to "you're the brainy one." Bart was using it in the context of indicating that Sam would be more capable of taking the lead on translating a spell written in ancient language, which is accurate. Being a demon, he turns it into a knock on Dean. It was a meaningless jibe, and I'm sure both brothers took it as such.

[AwesomO4000]

55 minutes ago, companionenvy said:

Bart was using it in the context of indicating that Sam would be more capable of taking the lead on translating a spell written in ancient language, which is accurate.

Good point. I forgot for a moment about the ancient language part of it, but that would make sense. Your point about joking about Sam's death also makes sense, because yeah, Dean wouldn't take too well to that kind of "joke."

I agree about it being a meaningless jibe that the brothers wouldn't see fit to respond to. As I said above, that would be just rising to the demon's bait, and Sam and Dean are too seasoned for that.

[gonzosgirrl]

Actually I took Bart's comment to mean San was smart enough to see the Big picture and take the deal, where Dean was all demon bad, Dean smash! 

Mileage clearly vary on that, but fact remains, Sam once again let it slide. Dean didn't.

[Aeryn13]

Quote

Actually I took Bart's comment to mean San was smart enough to see the Big picture and take the deal, where Dean was all demon bad, Dean smash! 

Yes, me too. 100 % this. 

And I don`t care that there always seems to be one convenient excuse or another why noone defends Dean against the multitude of "haha, you are so stupid" digs. Not good enough. Before this show is over, I would like to see Sam do it at least once. It happens often enough that Dean gets those digs, one of those thousand situations might have no convenient excuse, no? Lets say a dig about Dean when he isn`t present maybe?

That Dean does it when it`s not reprocicated? That`s one of the things I liked about the short time we got with Demon!Dean. He wasn`t the guy who would drive down a one-way street and never stop.   

[catrox14]

I can see that maybe it was Sam's possible death that bothered Dean in 13.8 vs a jab at Sam's intellect. That doesn't change for me that I've never seen Sam defend Dean's intellect to anyone. Not even Lucifer. If there are occasions I'm forgetting please remind me. Because it seems really odd to me that Sam wouldn't do that and yet...that's what I recollect not happening.

He did defend Dean to Lucifer about rescuing Sam from the Cage in s11 but that didn't seem to have much to do with Dean's intellect vs his willingness to fight for Sam's life even against the Devil himself which is factual. (I took issue with the phrasing in the episode).

Sam has told Dean he's a genius to Dean's face which seemed to come primarily when IMO Sam was buttering up Dean to let Sam do something, like the trials. Sometimes I think Sam doesn't really think Dean is as smart as he is but even if Sam DID agree with an enemy that Dean was not the smart one, Sam could at least stand shoulder to shoulder against those slings and barbs.

I mean he doesn't have to say, "Don't say that to my brother" or throw down over it. It's more that he could at least be offended on Dean's behalf by throwing a side-eye or CSBF (Classic Sam Bitch Face) at the offender. I don't much remember him doing that either over the course of the show. 

[companionenvy]

1 hour ago, gonzosgirrl said:

Sam once again let it slide. Dean didn't.

Whatever exactly Bart meant, the situations still wouldn't be precisely comparable, and neither are Sam and Dean. I'm not sure that the fact that Dean takes a demon's bait and Sam didn't is a poor reflection on Sam. 

[Aeryn13]

Quote

That doesn't change for me that I've never seen Sam defend Dean's intellect to anyone. 

I don`t remember it either. Quite frankly, I believe he pegs himself the "smart one", too because, the writers do as well, simple as that. Because that`s how it is with more than one person, each group has a designated "smart one" and no two people can apply for the position. *rolls eyes*  And fandom takes its cues from the writers that way, too. Normally I would ask the writers if they consider themselves the "smart one" of their group but anyone who applies the Highlander way of thinking "there can be only one" to intellect obviously isn`t a smart anyone so that answers that question.

Edited December 1, 2017 by Aeryn13