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

[DeeDee79]

1 hour ago, catrox14 said:

Then why didn't Sam just say exactly that? What is the point of him bringing up John at all other than as a shitty manipulation and the writers trying to say that Dean is as a bad as John.  It's there for a reason.  Sam IMO was putting himself in Jack's shoes and IMO projecting his stuff onto Dean. I also think Sam feels like garbage because he doesn't know how to handle a "child" and wanted Dean to do it. JMHO

So. so true!!

[AwesomO4000]

3 hours ago, catrox14 said:

The show set a precedence in s2 for vampires and other monsters to not be evil. Whether you like that or not is a whole other kettle of fish and it's aligned with Sam and his potential dark side. That theme has been hammered home time and time again when it comes to Sam's potential darkness via Lenore, Madison, the other psychic kids, Amy Pond, all the way to s13 with Jack. It's a theme attached to Sam from the get go of the show. Why should only good monsters be aligned with Sam in that narrative structure?  Why should Benny be evil when other vampires in the show tied to Sam were not? Should they have made Benny evil because he's aligned with Dean and so that Sam was blameless in not trusting Benny? 

Benny was far more important to Dean's character development than Sam which might be why it seems so harsh to Sam.  Benny was 100% about Dean and Castiel. IMO, Sam wasn't jealous of Benny at all. IMO Sam was projecting his guilty conscience onto Benny. I don't think it really would have mattered if Benny was human, werewolf or what have you, it was what Benny symbolized which was loyalty which Dean believed Sam did not show him nor Kevin.

For me though, the precedent didn't necessarily hold, because time and again - until recently (Carver years) -  the not being a "monster" was temporary. Lenore succumbed and went bad again as did the rest of her nest. Amy Pond went bad. Madison chose to die rather than go bad. The guy in "Metamorphosis" went bad, despite his trying not to. In my opinion, the show set up the potential for monsters not to go bad since season 2, but through season 7, they eventually all failed without exception (at least that I remember). At least the monsters did. Jesse was an exception, but I'm not sure he qualifies as a monster per se.

I didn't think Benny should have been evil, per se, but in my opinion, he eventually should have more been shown to be losing the battle eventually. Truthfully for me that would've made a more interesting story if Benny really wanted to be good because of his loyalty to Dean, but that he inevitably felt like he couldn't. And for me it doesn't have anything to do with wanting only "good" monsters associated with Sam - who also has most of the evil characters associated with him (like Ruby and Lucifer) - because all of those "good" monsters associated with Sam did eventually lose the battle. All of them.

So for me, it isn't that I wanted Benny to be evil because he was associated with Dean. It's that I thought it was somewhat annoying that Benny was the only monster (to that point) in the entire show's history who didn't go bad. And that to enhance the drama, the show had to make Sam behave in a way he really hadn't before (not look for Dean and abandon Kevin) and make Sam look bad in order to make Benny look good in comparison. In other words, in my opinion, that Sam had to feel guilty and project it on Benny never should have been a thing anyway, because Sam not looking for Dean and abandoning Kevin was out of character to begin with (less than half a season earlier we had "Time After Time..." for comparison), and then not giving any plausible background or explanation for his behavior made it all worse. For me, this was a thing sometimes with Carver (as showrunner) and the characters he created. And the more I felt the narrative pushing loyal, good Benny being unjustly persecuted by mean, intolerant Sam, the more I felt manipulated and wanted to reject it. I felt a similar manipulation thing with Gadreel with the same kind of mean Sam and poor, misunderstood Gadreel narrative. And Carver wanted to do the same thing again with his character Cole (i.e. make him just a misunderstood and sympathetic character) in that case at the expense of Dean.

Edited January 31, 2018 by AwesomO4000

[DeeDee79]

14 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

So for me, it isn't that I wanted Benny to be evil because he was associated with Dean. It's that I thought it was somewhat annoying that Benny was the only monster (to that point) in the entire show's history who didn't go bad. And that to enhance the drama, the show had to make Sam behave in a way he really hadn't before (not look for Dean and abandon Kevin) and make Sam look bad in order to make Benny look good in comparison.

So the gist of what you are stating is that if Sam had been written to be open minded as he usually is you wouldn't have had a problem with Benny being & staying good?

Edited January 31, 2018 by DeeDee79

[Katy M]

13 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

I didn't think Benny should have been evil, per se,

I probably shouldn't have used the word evil.  I just meant following his vampiric nature.  Like bears aren't evil, but I'm not going to let one move in my house.  

[DeeDee79]

6 minutes ago, Katy M said:

I probably shouldn't have used the word evil.  I just meant following his vampiric nature.  Like bears aren't evil, but I'm not going to let one move in my house.  

Wasn't that supposed to be a part of his story line? I think I remember reading that he was supposed to admit to falling off the wagon in Taxi Driver but the scene got cut.

[Wayward Son]

5 minutes ago, DeeDee79 said:

Wasn't that supposed to be a part of his story line? I think I remember reading that he was supposed to admit to falling off the wagon in Taxi Driver but the scene got cut.

There was indeed a scene like that as I watched it recently. I think @catrox14 posted a YouTube video of it in the episode thread for Taxi Driver. 

[DeeDee79]

1 minute ago, Wayward Son said:

There was indeed a scene like that as I watched it recently. I think @catrox14 posted a YouTube video of it in the episode thread for Taxi Driver. 

I knew that I heard that somewhere. Thanks!

[gonzosgirrl]

59 minutes ago, companionenvy said:

Grief is messy, but that doesn't give you a free pass when another person is involved. I also don't think it is unreasonable of Sam to expect Dean to have enough maturity and self-awareness, at this point, to  a) recognize what he is doing and try his best not to take his grief out on Jack and b) get his act together enough to deal with the situation at hand, which would include at minimum acknowledging Jack's presence and treating him civilly. The bunker is a big place, but frankly, I don't think it would be reasonable or necessary for Sam to go out of his way to keep Jack and Dean apart. The bunker may be big enough to hide, but the onus is not on Sam to go out of his way to ensure that Jack avoids Dean. It would be normal for Jack to join the brothers for meals, or read and watch TV while they're in the living room, or talk to them about cases. In fact, it would be damaging to Jack -- or anyone in his situation, really -- to have one of the two other people with whom you share your living space treating you like a pariah. If Dean sometimes needs to excuse himself and be alone when it becomes too much, no problem, but IMO, rearranging their lives so that Dean doesn't have to deal with Jack's existence is not a reasonable expectation.  It isn't like Sam was asking Dean to teach Jack about the birds and the bees or expecting him to read him bedtime stories after nightly heart-to-hearts.  I don't think Sam was really acting like a father figure to Jack in any but the most nominal sense, let alone asking Dean to do so.

I think this disregards the fact that his mother and best friend's deaths were still being measured in hours when he said and did the harshest things. So yeah, apart from his lifetime of experience with monsters making his immediate reaction to the spawn of Satan reasonable at the least, he deserved to have his grief manifest in whatever way it happened. And he tried to avoid Jack, he wanted to, and Sam persisted. So that's on Sam, IMO. And when some time had passed and Jack's nature revealed itself, Dean adjusted accordingly.

[companionenvy]

19 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

For me though, the precedent didn't necessarily hold, because time and again - until recently (Carver years) -  the not being a "monster" was temporary. Lenore succumbed and went bad again as did the rest of her nest. Amy Pond went bad. Madison chose to die rather than go bad. The guy in "Metamorphosis" went bad, despite his trying not to. In my opinion, the show set up the potential for monsters not to go bad since season 2, but through season 7, they eventually all failed without exception (at least that I remember). At least the monsters did. Jesse was an exception, but I'm not sure he qualifies as a monster per se.

This is a really interesting point, but I'm not sure that it amounts to a consistent "monsters can't be good" philosophy on the part of the pre-Carver show. Since Lenore and the nest didn't "go bad" until S6, I think Kripke believed that at least certain monsters could choose to be good.

Even under Gamble, Lenore is an interesting case. I don't actually see what happened to Lenore as evidence that monsters can't be good, because Eve was essentially forcing the vampires to behave as they did. To me, that makes it more akin to possession than to proof that no monster can ever be trusted as a matter of philosophy. 

So, I don't think Benny is so out there. What bugged me about the Benny plot was more or less (but to a greater extent) what bugged me about Dean being a jerk to Jack, which was that it turned Sam into an ass and I'm not interested in stirring up brother drama by one of them acting petty and arguably OOC. I'm fine with Sam and Dean having real, substantive causes of conflict, as they have on a number of occasions, but having Sam, who has always believed in giving monsters a chance, on the Benny hate train for seemingly no reason except jealousy an misplaced guilt makes him look pretty infantile. It bothers me more than Dean's behavior to Jack only because, while I think that was excessively immature for Dean, it doesn't actively violate something that had previously been a defining character beat, whereas Sam had before and since Benny always been more willing to give monsters the benefit of the doubt. If there had been any indication that Sam was responding to his experience with Ruby, that would be one thing, but as there isn't, it doesn't work for me. 

[catrox14]

37 minutes ago, companionenvy said:

Grief is messy, but that doesn't give you a free pass when another person is involved. I also don't think it is unreasonable of Sam to expect Dean to have enough maturity and self-awareness, at this point, to  a) recognize what he is doing and try his best not to take his grief out on Jack and b) get his act together enough to deal with the situation at hand, which would include at minimum acknowledging Jack's presence and treating him civilly.

TBF, Dean has never lost his BF and his mother at the same time. 

It was HOURS after Cas was murdered in front of Dean that Sam was demanding Dean participate in "parenting"/using Jack to open a rift. Dean was highly self aware of his emotions WRT to Jack. He blamed him for Cas' death. He told Sam exactly that.  He knew he didn't want to look at Jack so he went on the case with Missouri. Dean essentially gave up his home to the entity that he believes responsible for his BF's death. 

IMO, Sam had no business demanding Dean, who was clearly broken by grief to play parent to Jack. IMO it was insensitive and unkind. If it was 6 months later, maybe. But it wasn't even 6 days. 

17 minutes ago, DeeDee79 said:

Wasn't that supposed to be a part of his story line? I think I remember reading that he was supposed to admit to falling off the wagon in Taxi Driver but the scene got cut.

If it was never aired though so IMO that can't be used to measure Benny's relative evilness.

[AwesomO4000]

1 minute ago, DeeDee79 said:

So the gist of what you are stating is that if Sam had been written to be open minded as he usually is you wouldn't have had a problem with Benny being & staying good?

That is sort of a trick question, because if Sam had been his usual open-minded self - if the history of the show is anything to go by - Benny probably would have gone bad just like all of the rest of the monsters that Sam believed could change. I would been completely shocked if Benny had been good because Sam believed he could be.

And that is actually part of the scenario that I would have preferred: Sam be his usual hopeful self and support Dean and Benny, and Benny want to be good - much like the guy from "Metamorphosis" - but ultimately find himself slipping. Benny would've struggled with it, maybe had a close call, but then decide to warn Dean. There would have been some real - and in my opinion organic conflict - for Dean, because now what does Dean do? In Purgatory Dean knew he could trust Benny, and he wants Benny to be here and his friend and continue to have that bond and trust, but Benny is suffering, because it's not in his nature to not be a vampire. It would be hard for Dean - and wouldn't that have been interesting that Dean might actually selfishly want something for himself for once - hallelujah and about freakin' time.

And then instead of Dean having to "sacrifice" Benny for Sam, Benny could have offered to go back to purgatory to save Sam to make it up to Dean... Dean could've been torn - and yup, I totally would have liked to see Dean actually torn about sacrificing Benny for Sam instead of it being a given, even with Benny being iffy, because he lived with this man / vampire for a looong time. It would make sense to me that even with the possibility of things going wrong that Dean wouldn't want to just turn off that bond because of the potential for bad, and because oh, yeah Sam, Sam, Sam. This would have been actual character progression in my opinion. Maybe Sam would know Benny was struggling and still hope Benny could get better and trust Dean to make the right choice in the end (like he used to do in the past, before Carver's reign). Dean then ultimately agrees to let Benny go to save Sam, not just because of Sam, but also for Benny, too. Everyone behaves like themselves and there's still the appropriate conflict and angst without having to make anyone act crappily or out of character to make it happen. Sam is Sam, Dean is Dean, Benny is a vampire who still wants to fight his nature but can't but still ends up doing the right thing.

The way it did happen instead seemed to weave the cheap conflict narrative of "crappy Sam makes Dean give up his friend because of his jealousy / guilt / whatever." I like my scenario much better.

[DeeDee79]

8 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

TBF, Dean has never lost his BF and his mother at the same time. 

It was HOURS after Cas was murdered in front of Dean that Sam was demanding Dean participate in "parenting"/using Jack to open a rift. Dean was highly self aware of his emotions WRT to Jack. He blamed him for Cas' death. He told Sam exactly that.  He knew he didn't want to look at Jack so he went on the case with Missouri. Dean essentially gave up his home to the entity that he believes responsible for his BF's death. 

IMO, Sam had no business demanding Dean, who was clearly broken by grief to play parent to Jack. IMO it was insensitive and unkind. If it was 6 months later, maybe. But it wasn't even 6 days. 

I agree completely. I hate that Dean's grief was more or less overlooked because he was ( understandably ) cold to Jack. From my viewpoint Sam didn't seem to take Cas's demise as hard as Dean did & that coupled with his hope that Mary could be rescued showed ( me at least ) that his reaction to all that had transpired wasn't weighing him down the same way that it did for Dean. This is not to say that Sam didn't deserve sympathy for what happened but Dean was very obviously grieving and his desire to keep Jack at a distance made sense to me.

[DeeDee79]

7 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

That is sort of a trick question, because if Sam had been his usual open-minded self - if the history of the show is anything to go by - Benny probably would have gone bad just like all of the rest of the monsters that Sam believed could change. I would been completely shocked if Benny had been good because Sam believed he could be.

This a pretty pessimistic viewpoint. Not to beat a dead horse & bring up Lenore ( yet again ) but Sam believed that she was good and she stayed good. Eve's influence in season 6 was clearly out of her control and the fact that she asked to be killed because she had given in to the bloodlust shows me that Sam's judgement isn't always wrong "just cause". If anything I get more annoyed with the monsters that they give a pass when their history with them shows that they are no good. Meg being at the top of that list.

[catrox14]

4 minutes ago, DeeDee79 said:

I agree completely. I hate that Dean's grief was more or less overlooked because he was ( understandably ) cold to Jack. From my viewpoint Sam didn't seem to take Cas's demise as hard as Dean did & that coupled with his hope that Mary could be rescued showed ( me at least ) that his reaction to all that had transpired wasn't weighing him down the same way that it did for Dean. This is not to say that Sam didn't deserve sympathy for what happened but Dean was very obviously grieving and his desire to keep Jack at a distance made sense to me.

I've kind of seen Dean's grief as being a bit like a spouse who lost their spouse during childbirth. Many of those parents have a difficult time being with the child because they see it as the reason their spouse is dead. It's unfair and harsh but none the less a thing that happens.  It's not a great analogy but I find it to be similar. 

[DeeDee79]

2 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

I've kind of seen Dean's grief as being a bit like a spouse who lost their spouse during childbirth. Many of those parents have a difficult time being with the child because they see it as the reason their spouse is dead. It's unfair and harsh but none the less a thing that happens.  It's not a great analogy but I find it to be similar. 

This is actually pretty good considering that Dean stated that he couldn't bring himself to even look at Jack because of what had happened to Cas.

[AwesomO4000]

7 minutes ago, DeeDee79 said:

This a pretty pessimistic viewpoint. Not to beat a dead horse & bring up Lenore ( yet again ) but Sam believed that she was good and she stayed good. Eve's influence in season 6 was clearly out of her control and the fact that she asked to be killed because she had given in to the bloodlust shows me that Sam's judgement isn't always wrong "just cause". If anything I get more annoyed with the monsters that they give a pass when their history with them shows that they are no good. Meg being at the top of that list.

No, this is fair, (I should have said just because Sam believed he could be - because in this verse believing is not always enough) but I counter with the fact that the show in a way used to be pretty pessimistic on this subject. And that is what I meant by I would've been shocked... not because necessarily it was Sam per se, but because that is how the show used to be. Yes, Lenore was "pushed," but as Dean said with the situation with Amy, there is always the possibility of something coming along in Supernatural-verse to ruin all of the good intentions. Amy Pond might truly have meant that she was done, but as Dean said, what if her son got sick again? If it wasn't Eve, there might've been something else... some other big bad that would come along and influence Lenore to slip up. The guy in "Metamorphosis" had every intention of not going bad... until a hunter came along and threatened his wife. In that respect even the Phoenix was an example. Again he also tried to live not being a monster... but something can always happen, and people killing his wife made him turn. So it's not necessarily a Sam thing - except that Sam tends (usually) to be the more optimistic, so he's usually the one to get burned - so much as a show thing, in my opinion.

As for Sam's judgement - I agree. I miss the days when I didn't have to question Sam's judgement and instincts so often, because he did used to be right more often than not. Sadly for a while there, generally if Sam thought "X" the show tended to make it "Y," and in general I think it was mostly for conflict purposes rather than what actually should have happened. And again, I generally blame Carver for this kind of crap. I never really had a  problem with stuff like that until he took over. I generally have few complaints with seasons 1 through 7 (well, except for season 4 - I had a few issues there, but season 5 brought me back).

I actually think that it is a change for the good this year that Jack might not be evil. For me that will be a refreshing change of pace recently that Sam's belief might be justified.

And Meg... geesh, I agree. I generally don't have too many complaints concerning Gamble's turn as showrunner, but it annoyed the crap out of me that Dean trusted Meg to take care of Castiel ... And that that didn't come back to bite him in the ass - to me - was Dean luck, because Meg... and demon... and did you guys forget what she did to Sam while in Sam's body? And even worse? Season 8 where Sam has a heart to heart with Meg about Amelia... good gravy that was just all sorts of wrong and ridiculous, in my opinion. Just no.

[DeeDee79]

5 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

So it's not necessarily a Sam thing - except that Sam tends (usually) to be the more optimistic, so he's usually the one to get burned - so much as a show thing, in my opinion.

His optimism isn't a bad thing, though. Dean IMO tends to bit more cynical due to the hunting life and all of the hits that they've taken. The fact that Sam still wants to see good where history has shown that it will likely be bad is a nice balance. Where would the show be if both brothers were burnt and cynical when faced with every problem?

 

7 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

And Meg... geesh, I agree. I generally don't have too many complaints concerning Gamble's turn as showrunner, but it annoyed the crap out of me that Dean trusted Meg to take care of Castiel ... And that that didn't come back to bite him in the ass - to me - was Dean luck, because Meg... and demon... and did you guys forget what she did to Sam while in Sam's body? And even worse? Season 8 where Sam has a heart to heart with Meg about Amelia... good gravy that was just all sorts of wrong and ridiculous, in my opinion. Just no.

It annoyed the crap out of me that Dean, Sam & Cas all trusted and were willing to work with Meg. After all that she did to the Winchesters as a whole ( John as well as Sam & Dean ) her antics continued and she only softened when she took a liking to Castiel. I enjoyed Rachel Miner's portrayal but that was total BS.

[AwesomO4000]

1 minute ago, DeeDee79 said:

His optimism isn't a bad thing, though.

Oh I agree! I love optimistic Sam! And forgiving Sam. One of my very favorite scenes from the show combines these things. It was at the beginning of season 7 where Sam goes out to pray to purgatory soul addled Castiel because he believes that deep down Castiel is still one of them and that maybe he can reach him.

And I think this is one of the reasons season 8 and 9 annoyed me so much. It got rid of optimistic Sam (in regards to Benny) and forgiving Sam (after finding out about Gadreel) and replaced him with someone more cynical and less tolerant, and we didn't get him back - in my opinion - until season 10 and (more so) 11.

9 minutes ago, DeeDee79 said:

The fact that Sam still wants to see good where history has shown that it will likely be bad is a nice balance.

I agree again which is why this current all of a sudden cynical, depressed Sam is bugging the crap out of me. Are we going to get a really optimistic Dean to balance it out? Not that that might not be nice, but it would be kinda weird and something I'd have to get used to... while also missing optimistic Sam.

[DeeDee79]

1 minute ago, AwesomO4000 said:

I agree again which is why this current all of a sudden cynical, depressed Sam is bugging the crap out of me. Are we going to get a really optimistic Dean to balance it out? Not that that might not be nice, but it would be kinda weird and something I'd have to get used to... while also missing optimistic Sam.

That would be an interesting twist! Though I suspect that maudlin Sam will only last until they're reunited with Mary. Then it will be full on Winchester angst as they will then likely be hit full on with Ketch, Asmodeus, and whatever nefarious plan Lucifer has for Jack. I think that I'd prefer to stick with moody Winchesters instead :)

[ILoveReading]

13 hours ago, companionenvy said:

Grief is messy, but that doesn't give you a free pass when another person is involved. I also don't think it is unreasonable of Sam to expect Dean to have enough maturity and self-awareness, at this point, to  a) recognize what he is doing and try his best not to take his grief out on Jack and b) get his act together enough to deal with the situation at hand, which would include at minimum acknowledging Jack's presence and treating him civilly. The bunker is a big place, but frankly, I don't think it would be reasonable or necessary for Sam to go out of his way to keep Jack and Dean apart. The bunker may be big enough to hide, but the onus is not on Sam to go out of his way to ensure that Jack avoids Dean. It would be normal for Jack to join the brothers for meals, or read and watch TV while they're in the living room, or talk to them about cases. In fact, it would be damaging to Jack -- or anyone in his situation, really -- to have one of the two other people with whom you share your living space treating you like a pariah. If Dean sometimes needs to excuse himself and be alone when it becomes too much, no problem, but IMO, rearranging their lives so that Dean doesn't have to deal with Jack's existence is not a reasonable expectation.  It isn't like Sam was asking Dean to teach Jack about the birds and the bees or expecting him to read him bedtime stories after nightly heart-to-hearts.  I don't think Sam was really acting like a father figure to Jack in any but the most nominal sense, let alone asking Dean to do so.

And remember, Sam had a lot of cause to be grieving, too. Whatever pass Dean gets has to cut both ways. 

This has to go both ways.  I see lots of Dean, should have respected Jack, and Sam's position but why was nobody respecting Deans.   At that point in time he wasn't mentally capable of doing what Sam was asking.  That had nothing to do with maturity.    What was so wrong here about Sam giving Dean a little bit of space.  Because it was literally only hours after 3 major losses.  (Yes, I'm including Crowley here since Dean did). 

I would think that Sam might have had the emotional maturity to recognize was that space was what Dean needed the most. 

Dean didn't expect Sam to keep them apart.  He tried to remove himself from the situation.  Sam actually tried to tell Dean he couldn't leave.   That's Sam trying to control Dean.   I don't think Dean was expecting Sam to rearrange anything.  He agreed to bring Jack to the bunker.  No rearranging was necessary since Dean could easily escape on a hunt.    If Sam backed off it stands to reason Dean would too.

Sam did expect Dean to help him with Jack.  Even if it wasn't sandwiches and bedtime stories he wanted Dean's help.  Something Dean was not prepared for at that time.

I never said Dean got a pass for how he treated Jack, but Sam very much escalted the situation.  He didn't treat Dean any better than Dean treated Jack.

Edited January 31, 2018 by ILoveReading

[Myrelle]

17 hours ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

So if I'm understanding you correctly, it's only S v D or D v S emotional catharsis speeches that count. 

Not only, but they are a part of what qualifies as a big win to me-and it can only be counted as a win if it doesn't feel like one is being schooled by the other on how they should feel about anything, and the other gets nothing to say. That's where the writers have fallen down the worst to me as regards the brothers and as far as balance is concerned, at this point in the story.

As I stated, I think Carver at least tried to balance out the myth-arc wins in s9b-11, and while they weren't perfect seasons, I appreciated his effort in an area that no showrunner before him was willing to take on. And he succeeded for me, for the most part. After 11,  I was actually glad that the show hadn't ended earlier-which was a big turnaround for me. But then 12 happened and it went back to the same shit, only worse, because now the writing is worse than it's ever been AND the guest acting has been sub par, for the most part(a huge! difference from s9-11, IMO) and we lost Crowley/MS for Lucifer/MP. Worst exchange ever.

Quote

So I think Sam was equally guilty of acting like an asshat, just in a different way, and his actions seemed very similar to how John treated Dean.

 I hated the way John was brought up this year and if that's all it's going to be then I'd count that as a big Sam win, too-because no growth for Dean from that, and in spite of Sam's know-it-all attitude and mentality on some things, he is just plain wrong about so much where it concerns Dean and John. But again, I'm not sure that the writers on this show even see that.

And I also agree that Dean's refusal to parent Jack-and that IS what Sam was asking of him, IMO-had nothing to do with Dean being "immature" about it; it was about Dean's grief and Dean's boundaries where it concerns his feelings and those feelings being over-ridden yet again, but by his brother this time and in a very similar manner to how John used to do it-every part of it. And that should be pointed out, in-show, IMO; but somehow, I don't think that it ever will be. Not on this show and not with these writers.

Edited January 31, 2018 by Myrelle

[Pondlass1]

23 hours ago, gonzosgirrl said:

I think Dean is adopted. He's nothing like Mary (thank Chuck) and very little like John. Sam, however, is very much his parents' child.

Dean is not from Mary's loins.  He can't be? They're going to have to do a lot of speed-writing to restore Mary.   I expect her character to be super whitewashed during the latter part of season 13 and she'll not only be super hunter mom, but super-duper best mom ever and save her boys' lives while she dies in the process.  It's how she'll go out I'm sure of it (unless she's transferred to the WS show).  

But Dean and John?  I dunno.  I see similar traits.  Had Dean been raised in an apple pie life, married his love, had two sons ... only to have his wife die horribly at the hands of a monster... I think Dean would've lost it just like John.  He'd have set out on a similar path, researching, gathering weapons, bent on revenge, not seeing anything beyond blood red vengeance.  Dean boils quickly, just like John.

Would he have raised his sons to be yes-sir soldiers and dragged them from one flea bitten motel to the next?  Would he have denied them proper schooling, a secure stable home, protection from the knowledge that the world is filled with monsters?

I don't think so.  In the same circumstance Dean would've become a bent on revenge hunter, but a loner out in the field.  His sons would be in a safe place and visited often. 

I've often wished for a spin off of those early days with the young boys and John travelling the back roads.  There's so much meat there.  But they'd never find the ideal actors so it could never work (for me, anyway)/

Edited January 31, 2018 by Pondlass1

[ILoveReading]

22 minutes ago, Pondlass1 said:

But Dean and John?  I dunno.  I see similar traits.  Had Dean been raised in an apple pie life, married his love, had two sons ... only to have his wife die horribly at the hands of a monster... I think Dean would've lost it just like John.  He'd have set out on a similar path, researching, gathering weapons, bent on revenge, not seeing anything beyond blood red vengeance.  Dean boils quickly, just like John.

I'm not sure I agree. Mostly because revenge has never been Dean's primary motivation for hunting.

Paraphrasing "If killing that thing means you getting yourself killing, I hope we never find it."  Dean was begged Sam not to shoot the YED and kill their father.  He wanted revenge on Dick, but after Bobby came back, he seemed more focused on Bobby then he did Dick.  (Although that could be the result of the writers dropping yet another Dean storyline.")  When he was moving Lisa and Ben around, it seemed to me it was more about being concerned for their safety then chasing hunts.

Because of this its really hard to say exactly how Dean would have reacted.   I could honestly see it going either way.    I do think a strong argument can be made for both sides with Dean.    But with Sam, I have no problem seeing the John route.   Yes, Dean has similarities with John, like music, cars, leather jackets and a quick temper but past the surface I don't think Dean takes after either parent.  That's why I agree with @gonzosgirrl  He was either adopted or switched at birth. 

.  I wish the writers had taken advantage of the AU possibilities and used it to explore different scenarios.  I'd have sold my soul to Crowley for an AU ep where John died in that fire instead of Mary.

Edited January 31, 2018 by ILoveReading

[RulerofallIsurvey]

Quote

Either choice is cliched which is why this stupid SL should have never seen the light of day. Well, that's just ONE of the MANY reasons it should have stayed on the writers white board with a big fat NEVER EVER DO THIS and a circle with a line through it. 

Granted.  But I think if the story line was going to be done (and it was going to be done whether or not any of us wanted it) going the route they did (not automatically EVUL at least) is the more interesting.

Quote

So the gist of what you are stating is that if Sam had been written to be open minded as he usually is you wouldn't have had a problem with Benny being & staying good?

I know this question wasn't directed to me, but for me...basically, yeah.  If Sam had been written as what I would consider more in character (which is to give a monster - especially one for whom Dean vouched) a chance, it wouldn't bother me at all if Benny stayed good. 

I know it didn't air, and I'm not sure where cut scenes technically fall into others' 'cannon', but for me, knowing that scene was filmed where Benny did fall off the wagon changed my head space on the Benny situation.  I just wish they'd actually shown it on the show.

Quote

But with Sam, I have no problem seeing the John route. 

So you really think Sam would have raised his sons to be yes-sir soldiers, dragged them from one flea bitten motel to the next, denied them proper schooling, a secure stable home,  and protection from the knowledge that the world is filled with monsters?

[RulerofallIsurvey]

Quote

Not only, but they are a part of what qualifies as a big win to me-and it can only be counted as a win if it doesn't feel like one is being schooled by the other on how they should feel about anything, and the other gets nothing to say. That's where the writers have fallen down the worst to me as regards the brothers and as far as balance is concerned, at this point in the story.

I am so sorry, but I still don't understand.  Because, given the criteria bolded, then how does Dean's speech to Mary not qualify as a win for him?  In that scene, Dean wasn't being schooled by the other on how he should feel while he got nothing to say.  The only difference is that it's not S v D or D v S.  But if S v D or D v S are not the only emotionally catharsis speeches that count, then this one should, shouldn't it?  I'm not saying that it's the same as when Sam unloaded on Dean.  Because I think for you there would need to be a Dean unloading on Sam speech while not under the influence of anything supernatural for that, right?  And that's probably what many want, but that's not what I'm trying to get at here or in anyway say that the D v M speech should make up for the lack of D v S speech for you.  I just don't understand why the D v M speech doesn't count as a general 'win' for Dean.

Quote

 I hated the way John was brought up this year and if that's all it's going to be then I'd count that as a big Sam win,

I guess I don't understand what constitutes a 'win' for either Sam or Dean for you.  Imo, this had nothing to do with defeating any bad guys or getting any kills and was just a remark thrown out during an argument.  So, if you've got the time some time and desire, I'd like to hear your solid definition of a 'win'.  And if you could put it in real simple language which I can understand, cause I can be pretty dense, I'd appreciate that! :)

[catrox14]

19 minutes ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

I know it didn't air, and I'm not sure where cut scenes technically fall into others' 'cannon', but for me, knowing that scene was filmed where Benny did fall off the wagon changed my head space on the Benny situation.  I just wish they'd actually shown it on the show.

But they didn't include it in the show which tells me they didn't want Benny to be off the wagon. They didn't imply with the rest of Benny's arc either.

However, I will happily accept that cut scenes can be used to frame characters and SL off screen, which means I have my canon Destiel given the cut scene of Castiel and Crowley  arguing over who is Dean's real boyfriend (and Drowley shippers get their canon Drowley). 

[RulerofallIsurvey]

Quote

But they didn't include it in the show which tells me they didn't want Benny to be off the wagon. They didn't imply with the rest of Benny's arc either.

I'm not entirely sure that's altogether accurate.  From what I understand, cut scenes can end up  cut scenes for many reasons, not just that they didn't want Benny to be off the wagon.  You could be right.  On the other hand, the episode could have run long and maybe there was other dialogue in that scene that was redundant, so they didn't think cutting that changed the storyline drastically.  I mean, without knowing Carver's direct thoughts on the matter (has it ever been said in a commentary somewhere?) maybe they thought they'd implied that Benny had fallen off the wagon elsewhere.  It wouldn't be the first time they thought they'd shown one thing and the viewers saw something different. 

[gonzosgirrl]

5 minutes ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

I'm not entirely sure that's altogether accurate.  From what I understand, cut scenes can end up  cut scenes for many reasons, not just that they didn't want Benny to be off the wagon.  You could be right.  On the other hand, the episode could have run long and maybe there was other dialogue in that scene that was redundant, so they didn't think cutting that changed the storyline drastically.  I mean, without knowing Carver's direct thoughts on the matter (has it ever been said in a commentary somewhere?) maybe they thought they'd implied that Benny had fallen off the wagon elsewhere.  It wouldn't be the first time they thought they'd shown one thing and the viewers saw something different. 

Naw. This would be the only reference to it, implied* or otherwise. It's too big a game-changer for the character to be cut for time, IMO of course. That says to me they didn't want the character changed.

*I'd be happy to eat crow if anyone can come up with a scene that implies this.

[catrox14]

8 minutes ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

I'm not entirely sure that's altogether accurate.  From what I understand, cut scenes can end up  cut scenes for many reasons, not just that they didn't want Benny to be off the wagon. 

They can be cut for any number of reasons time, not conveying what they want to convey, conveyed more than they wanted to convey, doesn't suit the tone of the episode, doesn't work for whatever reasons. There are things in scripts that are never filmed, things that are changed in the script before filming. I take what is on screen textually and even the subtext which is open to intepretation but guided by things on screen, and come to my conclusions. I don't include anything not shown on screen. 

Again, I find it interesting there seems to be a new trend around these parts that if something wasn't NOT shown on screen then it can possibly be considered as having happened off screen and can be considered canon story telling? Is that what I'm getting here.

[ahrtee]

I'm not going to comment on this discussion, but I have a question (or maybe a request?) 

I notice that when @RulerofallIsurvey has quoted a post lately, it doesn't give the source.  Generally when I use a quote, the name of the person quoted comes up automatically, so I don't know why it doesn't here.  But when someone is quoting just a portion of a longer post, I usually like to be able to go back and look up the original post in context to make sure I'm understanding what's being discussed.  

So my question/request:  why aren't the names showing up in those posts, and can you try to show them in future posts?  It's not a biggie, but it would make me happy.  

[RulerofallIsurvey]

Quote

Naw. This would be the only reference to it, implied* or otherwise.

tbh, I don't remember all those episodes well enough to say one way or the other.

Quote

Again, I find it interesting there seems to be a new trend around these parts that if something wasn't NOT shown on screen then it can possibly be considered as having happened off screen and can be considered canon story telling? Is that what I'm getting here.

Well, I don't know.  On the one hand, imo there are obviously things that happen off screen which should be considered cannon - Sam and Dean driving to and fro for example.  Rarely do they show even part of the car trip: they're at the bunker and magically the next scene they're three states away.  Chuck didn't zap them there, so I think it'd be safe to consider that canonically they drove, right?  On the other hand, what's considered cannon off screen could get pretty wild and whacky, I'd imagine, since it'd depend only on everyone's imagination.   Then there's the deleted scenes, which to me ought to hold some weight at least, but maybe not quite as much as something mentioned on the show but not shown.  Basically...I'm just making it up as I go along! :)

[RulerofallIsurvey]

The reason I haven't been using the built in 'quote this' function when a portion of the text is highlighted or the 'quote post' at the bottom of the post is that there have been a couple instances in the past when I quoted others - for an example of what I wanted to talk about - but the person being quoted felt that I was 'calling them out' when that wasn't my intention.   I'm just trying to avoid a that.  :)

[Bobcatkitten]

I think taking a deleted scene that completely changes a storyline and making it cannon is over the line for me. 

[ahrtee]

9 minutes ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

The reason I haven't been using the built in 'quote this' function when a portion of the text is highlighted or the 'quote post' at the bottom of the post is that there have been a couple instances in the past when I quoted others - for an example of what I wanted to talk about - but the person being quoted felt that I was 'calling them out' when that wasn't my intention.   I'm just trying to avoid a that.  :)

OK, I can understand that.  But I also prefer to know when I'm being quoted, and without the name you don't get notified.  I don't know which is better, but it seems most people use the names.  *shrugs*

[catrox14]

19 minutes ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

tbh, I don't remember all those episodes well enough to say one way or the other.

Well, I don't know.  On the one hand, imo there are obviously things that happen off screen which should be considered cannon - Sam and Dean driving to and fro for example.  Rarely do they show even part of the car trip: they're at the bunker and magically the next scene they're three states away.  Chuck didn't zap them there, so I think it'd be safe to consider that canonically they drove, right?  On the other hand, what's considered cannon off screen could get pretty wild and whacky, I'd imagine, since it'd depend only on everyone's imagination.   Then there's the deleted scenes, which to me ought to hold some weight at least, but maybe not quite as much as something mentioned on the show but not shown.  Basically...I'm just making it up as I go along! :)

There are establishing shots showing the Impala on the road, which clearly implies that they are going somewhere. Then it's combined with dialogue that says, "Hey this weird thing happened in Bumble Fuck, Idaho" then it can be reasonably presumed they drove there. It's also known that Dean has a fear of flying thus him flying would be unlikely unless they are going overseas and it's mentioned.

That's a very different thing than taking a deleted scene like Benny going off the wagon or Crowley and Castiel fighting about being Dean's boyfriend in The Executioner's Song and interpreting that as canonical evidence of either thing being what was intended to be interpreted by the audience that was never aired in the episode on screen. I do think the deleted boyfriend argument scene has more merit for canon Destiel and Drowley when it's combined with 8 years of other things happening in the show with Dean and Castiel as well as the canon conversation that Dean and Crowley had a fling with triplets and then male triplets are shown on screen but no female triplets in the episode that talks about hooking up with triplets.  I don't think that counts as canon textual Destiel or canon Drowley despite my reading it as subtext. 

[Myrelle]

1 hour ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

I guess I don't understand what constitutes a 'win' for either Sam or Dean for you.  Imo, this had nothing to do with defeating any bad guys or getting any kills and was just a remark thrown out during an argument.  So, if you've got the time some time and desire, I'd like to hear your solid definition of a 'win'.

I think I'm understanding your confusion and don't have time for the long version right now, but for me a "big win" as regards either brother and comparing those type of wins between only those two characters in a vs. way, involves(to me)-big kills and big saves(yes like Dean saving Sam's soul from hell and Sam saving Dean from demonhood), but I also count those emotional and cathartic scenes that both brothers(and only both brothers-no one else) are actively involved in and present for as part and parcel of a "win" for either character-IOW, the big disagreements they've had over the years and yes, I try to stick to only the ones that they've had where neither one is under a supernatural influence(even though I DO believe that what comes out in both of them under a supernatural influence goes directly back to each one's characterization, just the darker/darkest aspects of them)-examples-the discussion/argument over drinking the demon blood in Metamorphosis, the "discussion" in Fallen Idols over trust and partnership from the early days and from these latter days, Sam's speech in the church scene in Sacrifice, and yes, I'd almost forgotten about it, but the Purge nonsense, too-all big Sam "wins" because it was Sam's viewpoint that was validated better, IMO-but only and strictly within the framework of the writing and in no other way. The only way Dean was able to even just hold his own in those examples is through JA's portrayal of Dean and his acting within the scene-because the  actual words in the script offered Dean very little opportunity for rebuttal, and in some cases-none at all. I don't feel that the writers have gifted Dean with these types of wins half as often as they've gifted them to Sam-not even from the beginning(I hate the episode Hunted for this reason-to name a very early one) and when the writers do this, it leaves me with such a sour/bitter taste in my mouth every single time; and more so in these latter days, because it's been going on for so long.

[RulerofallIsurvey]

Re: the deleted scene with Benny: I was very careful to say that the deleted scene changed my head space, not what I consider canon.  That is, it changed the way I think about the entire Benny situation.  And that works for me.   And if it makes what I think is a pretty unpalatable story line a little better, I really don't see the harm in that.   It's not like there's universal agreement on what was actually shown on screen all the time anyway, right?  That is, even certain aired scenes are interpreted differently by different people, so I don't see any difference between that phenomena and this for me. 

On what is or is not seen being canon: There aren't always establishing shots of the impala or the guys in the impala or dialogue for every trip they take.  Of course I believe they drive.  But couldn't an argument be made that if it's a) only canon if it's actually shown and b) for a trip they've made where the establishing shots aren't shown, then c)maybe they didn't drive?   It might be kind of ridiculous on the one hand, but on the other hand, based solely on the first two criteria, I think it would have some merit.

I also don't understand how one deleted scene could possibly be considered canon or at least subtext, while another could not ever no way never be considered canon or subtext.  Isn't that what personal opinion is all about? 

[gonzosgirrl]

2 hours ago, ahrtee said:

I don't know which is better, but it seems most people use the names.

I don't know if this is new since the update, or if it has always been this way and I never noticed, but I know now: If you don't want to quote a whole long post, or want to quote multiple things in the post separately, if you highlight the text you want a button pops up that says "Quote this" and it will only quote the highlighted, but show the quote-ee's name. That's what I've done here. I love this feature! I'm using Firefox - no idea about other browsers or mobile devices.

[ahrtee]

48 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

I don't know if this is new since the update, or if it has always been this way and I never noticed, but I know now: If you don't want to quote a whole long post, or want to quote multiple things in the post separately, if you highlight the text you want a button pops up that says "Quote this" and it will only quote the highlighted, but show the quote-ee's name. That's what I've done here. I love this feature! I'm using Firefox - no idea about other browsers or mobile devices.

It's been that way as long as I've been posting.  Yes, I love that feature...much better than quoting a whole long post (and then deleting the unwanted sections afterwards).  I use Chrome and it works there.  

Edited January 31, 2018 by ahrtee
extra word deleted.

[catrox14]

4 minutes ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

On what is or is not seen being canon: There aren't always establishing shots of the impala or the guys in the impala or dialogue for every trip they take.  Of course I believe they drive.  But couldn't an argument be made that if it's a) only canon if it's actually shown and b) for a trip they've made where the establishing shots aren't shown, then c)maybe they didn't drive?   It might be kind of ridiculous on the one hand, but on the other hand, based solely on the first two criteria, I think it would have some merit.

There have been enough establishing shots of the Impala on the road, at their destination, or Dean discussing that he drives everywhere, that there is an established pattern leading to a reasonable presumption that they drive to a destination unless otherwise noted. And despite my particular headcanon that has no basis in canon, there is NO FTL drive in Baby's trunk thus they do not actually time travel or go through wormholes, or have super speed capabilities

I appreciate you clarifying that it helped YOU personally establish your own headcanon. I took you to be saying that the show intended it to be seen that way because it was a deleted scene. So thanks for clarifying that point.

My point is that if we take every deleted scene that isn't showm on screen to be part of canon then all bets are off.

[gonzosgirrl]

1 minute ago, catrox14 said:

There have been enough establishing shots of the Impala on the road, at their destination, or Dean discussing that he drives everywhere, that there is an established pattern leading to a reasonable presumption that they drive to a destination unless otherwise noted. And despite my particular headcanon that has no basis in canon, there is NO FTL drive in Baby's trunk thus they do not actually time travel or go through wormholes, or have super speed capabilities

Heheh.

The thing is, if you don't have the DVDs or access to the deleted scenes, you would never have any inkling that such a scene existed, therefore no reason to presume. We do see them get from one place to another on screen, and often we see the Impala at their current location, Occam's Razor let's us presume they drove there. And even if we don't see the car, established history says they drove. No such history or reason to believe exists with the Benny scene.

[ahrtee]

1 minute ago, catrox14 said:

My point is that if we take every deleted scene that isn't showm on screen to be part of canon then all bets are off.

Two sides to this:  Obviously, if it was written and filmed, someone intended it to be canon, and if it had made it onto the screen, it *would* be canon.  

However, we have no way of knowing why it was deleted--it could just be for time, or it could be that someone (writer, director, or even one of the stars) objected to something that they thought either didn't fit with canon, went in a wrong direction, or was not something they wanted to show.  So in the absence of any definite proof, I'd say we can consider it canon-adjacent, something that *could have* happened.  And there's nothing wrong with using it as your personal headcanon, but IMO we can't reference it something the show actually intended.   

Things that weren't shown at all (even in deleted scenes) are different, but there are some things that I think we have to take as "given" even if they're not shown:  the fact that they drive (especially if, as @gonzosgirrl mentioned, the car is shown in the new location.)  The fact that they eat, sleep, and use the bathroom.  Just because they don't show them every time doesn't mean that they don't do those things off camera too.   

[RulerofallIsurvey]

Quote

There have been enough establishing shots of the Impala on the road, at their destination, or Dean discussing that he drives everywhere, that there is an established pattern leading to a reasonable presumption that they drive to a destination unless otherwise noted.

Well, not to beat a dead horse, but a reasonable presumption isn't exactly the same thing as strict canon, is it?  That's all I'm saying.

On that subject:

Quote

The thing is, if you don't have the DVDs or access to the deleted scenes, you would never have any inkling that such a scene existed, therefore no reason to presume. We do see them get from one place to another on screen, and often we see the Impala at their current location, Occam's Razor let's us presume they drove there. And even if we don't see the car, established history says they drove. No such history or reason to believe exists with the Benny scene.

True.  But if you're going to Occam's Razor the Benny situation, wouldn't the simplest and most logical conclusion be that Benny would fall off the wagon and kill humans for blood instead of jumping through an untold number of hoops to get his hands on bagged blood?  Because that's what vampires do.

Quote

My point is that if we take every deleted scene that isn't showm on screen to be part of canon then all bets are off.

Well, yeah.  I think I said that already when I said it could get wild and whacky. 

[catrox14]

9 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

Heheh.

The thing is, if you don't have the DVDs or access to the deleted scenes, you would never have any inkling that such a scene existed, therefore no reason to presume. We do see them get from one place to another on screen, and often we see the Impala at their current location, Occam's Razor let's us presume they drove there. And even if we don't see the car, established history says they drove. No such history or reason to believe exists with the Benny scene.

Even  with knowing the deleted scenes were written and/or filmed, but not included in the final product that made it to air, IMO it's included as part of the entertainment value of the DVD.  I fully apply that deleted 'boyfriend' scene to my Destiel headcanon, and oh, if I thought I could use it to support canon Destiel, I absolutely would LOL but I can't so I don't.

[ahrtee]

6 minutes ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

True.  But if you're going to Occam's Razor the Benny situation, wouldn't the simplest and most logical conclusion be that Benny would fall off the wagon and kill humans for blood instead of jumping through an untold number of hoops to get his hands on bagged blood?  Because that's what vampires do.

Except you're stereotyping there.  In all the time we saw Benny on screen, we *never* saw him kill a human for blood.  And we have no way to know about *all* vampires, because we've only seen the ones who have been caught killing.  Maybe there are whole communities living on bought (or donated) blood (like the werewolf families living on animal hearts), and we just don't know it because they've been under the hunters' radar.  You're profiling an entire race based on the evil ones we've seen! :)  

[gonzosgirrl]

17 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

Even  with knowing the deleted scenes were written and/or filmed, but not included in the final product that made it to air, IMO it's included as part of the entertainment value of the DVD.  I fully apply that deleted 'boyfriend' scene to my Destiel headcanon, and oh, if I thought I could use it to support canon Destiel, I absolutely would LOL but I can't so I don't.

Right. I'm saying that they wouldn't intend something to be canon that only a limited number of people would even know about.  And without that scene, there is no reason to suspect that Benny faltered. And I say no reason because there are plenty of lines that assert the opposite, along with Dean's continue faith in him (telling Sam he buried the body again) and Sam being good with that. ETA: that scene would've been totally out of place had Benny told Dean he'd fed off a human.

So yeah, I think Occam's Razor does apply. He said he would be good. We saw him being good. He was willing to die still being good (albeit tired and probably tempted), so assuming he was good is the logical thing.

Edited January 31, 2018 by gonzosgirrl

[catrox14]

Just now, gonzosgirrl said:

Right. I'm saying that they wouldn't intend something to be canon that only a limited number of people would even know about.  And without that scene, there is no reason to suspect that Benny faltered. And I say no reason because there are plenty of lines that assert the opposite, along with Dean's continue faith in him (telling Sam he buried the body again) and Sam being good with that.

Yup. I agree with this and with @ahrtee's comment below.

 

9 minutes ago, ahrtee said:

Except you're stereotyping there.  In all the time we saw Benny on screen, we *never* saw him kill a human for blood.  And we have no way to know about *all* vampires, because we've only seen the ones who have been caught killing.  Maybe there are whole communities living on bought (or donated) blood (like the werewolf families living on animal hearts), and we just don't know it because they've been under the hunters' radar.  You're profiling an entire race based on the evil ones we've seen! :)  

[RulerofallIsurvey]

1 hour ago, Myrelle said:

I think I'm understanding your confusion and don't have time for the long version right now,

Thank for the explanation/definition.  I think I do understand a little bit better now.  Would you then consider what DemonDean said to Sam a win for Dean?  The reason I ask is because at first I think you said you usually stick to emotional cathartic scenes where neither one is under a supernatural influence, but then you listed several Sam wins where Sam was under a supernatural (or soulless) influence. 

[RulerofallIsurvey]

1 hour ago, ahrtee said:

Two sides to this:  Obviously, if it was written and filmed, someone intended it to be canon, and if it had made it onto the screen, it *would* be canon.  

However, we have no way of knowing why it was deleted--it could just be for time, or it could be that someone (writer, director, or even one of the stars) objected to something that they thought either didn't fit with canon, went in a wrong direction, or was not something they wanted to show.  So in the absence of any definite proof, I'd say we can consider it canon-adjacent, something that *could have* happened.  And there's nothing wrong with using it as your personal headcanon, but IMO we can't reference it something the show actually intended.   

Things that weren't shown at all (even in deleted scenes) are different, but there are some things that I think we have to take as "given" even if they're not shown:  the fact that they drive (especially if, as @gonzosgirrl mentioned, the car is shown in the new location.)  The fact that they eat, sleep, and use the bathroom.  Just because they don't show them every time doesn't mean that they don't do those things off camera too.   

I agree with this.  But then, it's pretty much what I've been saying.  ;)

1 hour ago, ahrtee said:

 You're profiling an entire race based on the evil ones we've seen! :)  

Isn't that pretty much what hunters do?

[ILoveReading]

3 minutes ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

Isn't that pretty much what hunters do?

Maybe some, like the British men of Letters, but a monster usually comes on Sam and Dean's radar because it leaves behind a trail of bodies. If it promises to be good, they usually leave it alive.

Edited January 31, 2018 by ILoveReading