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

[Lemuria]

6 minutes ago, Wayward Son said:

After season 4 Dean’s part in unleashing the apocalypse is forgotten and all the blame lies with Sam for killing Lilith.

As it should, IMO.  When Dean went to Hell, he had no idea that it was part of a plan to free Lucifer.  He knew nothing about the seals.  He had no idea that he was being treated "special" while in Hell, in an all-out push to break him.  

Sam, OTOH, knew for an entire year what was going on.  He was warned about his path by his brother, two angels, a psychic who died helping the brothers, and Chuck, and while Sam didn't know Chuck was God, he did believe that Chuck was at least a prophet of God.  Yet, the only one he choose to believe was his demon BFF and screw buddy, someone who had spent the entire previous year lying to him and he knew she had lied.  But she was saying what he wanted to hear, how special and powerful and important he was.

So, yes, I think Sam shoulders the lion's share of the blame for releasing Lucifer.

[Wayward Son]

8 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

And it should be noted that Dean took the  blame for Kevin's death. He literally said it was on him. That's why he left to find a way to kill Gadreel and Metatron.  Dean literally called himself poison and he ended up with the Mark of Cain.

*Gadreel and Metatron

And good for Dean he could acknowledge that. Though the points he gained were quickly lost again when he said he’d do the same thing again because apparently Kevin’s sacrifice was worthwhile as long as he had Sam at his side. Admittedly, Sam would later be as bad when he led Lester to make a crossroads deal in order to get intel on Demon Dean. One of the main reasons these days I watch the show in spite of the Sam n Dean bond because it’s pretty toxic imo. 

 

5 minutes ago, ILoveReading said:

When this happened there was no such thing as a good demon, or even a beige one.  Sam and Dean at this point had even barely seen any good monsters.  Anyone would have  been suspicious.

And Sam would have had the right to be suspicious of Benny, but the show ensured that suspicion was presented in the worst light possible. For all they knew Benny could have been the kill of another hunter.  IMO if the show were interested in maintaining balance and not making Dean look good Benny would have been evil. Sam’s major supernatural ally Dean didn’t trust was evil (Ruby), Cas’ dubious supernatural alliance the brothers didn’t trust (Crowley) turned out to be a disaster, and Dean’s major supernatural ally not trusted by the others should have been evil too. But heaven forbid this show allow the all knowing Dean Winchester to make the error of common mortals. 

 

1 minute ago, Lemuria said:

As it should, IMO.  When Dean went to Hell, he had no idea that it was part of a plan to free Lucifer.  He knew nothing about the seals.  He had no idea that he was being treated "special" while in Hell, in an all-out push to break him.  

Sam, OTOH, knew for an entire year what was going on.  He was warned about his path by his brother, two angels, a psychic who died helping the brothers, and Chuck, and while Sam didn't know Chuck was God, he did believe that Chuck was at least a prophet of God.  Yet, the only one he choose to believe was his demon BFF and screw buddy, someone who had spent the entire previous year lying to him and he knew she had lied.  But she was saying what he wanted to hear, how special and powerful and important he was.

So, yes, I think Sam shoulders the lion's share of the blame for releasing Lucifer.

And that’s my point exactly. On the rare occasion Gary Stu Dean makes a mistake they ensure it is followed up by another character making a bigger and much less sympathetic mistake. We can’t have people thinking Sam is anymore right about something than Dean now can we? 

[catrox14]

1 hour ago, Wayward Son said:

That is why when he takes an instant disliking to Ruby, for nothing more than the fact she’s a demon, or disapproves of Castiel’s plan to defeat Raphael, their only plan to defeat him, she turns out to be evil and Cas unleashes the biggest of the bad.

 don't know why that is considered a bad thing for Dean to not want Sam to be cavorting with demons who generally were not trustworthy, had killed their mother, and who Dean had just spent 40 years in Hell with. Castiel also told Dean to tell Sam to stop. Cas and Dean asking Sam to stop palling with a demon.  

[catrox14]

4 minutes ago, Wayward Son said:

And good for Dean he could acknowledge that. Though the points he gained were quickly lost again when he said he’d do the same thing again because apparently Kevin’s sacrifice was worthwhile as long as he had Sam at his side. Admittedly, Sam would later be as bad when he led Lester to make a crossroads deal in order to get intel on Demon Dean. One of the main reasons these days I watch the show in spite of the Sam n Dean bond because it’s pretty toxic imo

So, Dean acknowledges that he fucked up. That he shouldn't have lied about things. That he took responsibility for his actions and that doesn't matter because he didn't say he wouldn't save Sam's life in the same situation?

Why do you think Sam made the choice to live in the church? Why do you think Sam did a 180 in his dreamscape, given it seems that you think that's what happened?  Why is Death real in your interpretation but not Dean or Bobby? I'm not being snarky. I'm trying to follow why you think Sam had agency. 

[Aeryn13]

Quote

We can’t have people thinking Sam is anymore right about something than Dean now can we? 

I think we`re supposed to think that all the time when Sam makes speeches and gives moral lectures about how they have to save people and yada yada to a Dean who`s reaction is played like it`s the first time he hears this stuff and would have never figured it out on his own. Because yup, Dean is just a killer at heart (when he isn`t an incompetent clown) and Sam is the epitome of all that is good and true.

And when he is sad than of course the audience is invited to be sad with him. Dean needs to handle his feelings in ways Sam approves of and then he gets a cookie for a good performance. This is why I hate it when they hand Dean the useless emo stuff each Season, it never leads to anything good for the character. 

Sam is very welcome to that stuff, if I didn`t fear that because it is Sam, it has to have a mytharc resolution. Last Season being wrong about the MOL lead to General Winchester speechifying to his adoring troops. I can only dread what could happen should he be wrong about Rowena. He`ll probably get to defeat Michael and Lucifer singlehandedly - again.

Dean`s mistakes don`t yield big story consequences because that would actually be a good thing for the character, as it would give him a story. Killing Death? I wanted that to mean something. I don`t think he got away with no consequences because his consequence was the worst fictional one: a juicy set-up got ditched.   

[catrox14]

24 minutes ago, ILoveReading said:

Dean breaking the first seal that he didn't know existed under decades of torture doesn't compare to Sam being a dumbass who was lead around by his penis.

LOL I'm suddenly picturing a  cartoon version of Sam with Ruby literally holding onto his penis in one hand and her stupid purse in the other as they run out down the street with Dean and Cas in the Impala chasing after them LOL And I find it highly amusing.  

[ILoveReading]

1 minute ago, Wayward Son said:

And Sam would have had the right to be suspicious of Benny, but the show ensured that suspicion was presented in the worst light possible. For all they knew Benny could have been the kill of another hunter.

So Benny should have been evil just so Sam could be right?  What does it matter if Sam was wrong anyway.  He still got his own way when he demanded Dean dump Benny.   His actions with Benny and Dean in Citizen Fang were all swept under the rug.  So its not just Dean who gets free passes.

Dean acknowledged that Benny might be victim to another hunter.  he even told Sam as much.  That was when Sam threatened to be the one.  (But in the end he kept his hands clean by siccing Martin on Benny.  At least Dean did his own dirty work with Amy).

Dean actually gave Ruby multiple chances, and thanked her twice.  it was Sam's idea to get the angels and demons in one room to fight it out.  Dean went along with Ruby being a big part of this plan. He even told Sam to make his own choices with Ruby, just stop lying.

Sam was my way or the highway.  Dump Benny or I'll dump you. 

So IMO, Ruby and Benny aren't even in the same ballpark. 

Sam has given the benefit of the doubt to Monsters for even less.  He was willing to trust Lenore on her word, he let Kate go with nothing more than a video of her promising to be good.  He let Amy go despite the fact that she was actively killing people.   She knew exactly how to treat her son when he got sick on dead brains.  Which means there is a high probability it happened before and will happen again.  So no, anyone could see through her "im done.' He stood up for the pish taco despite not knowing her.   There was the rugarou from Metamorphosis.  

All monsters Sam believe on nothing more, then "I'm good I swear.  I love nougat.'   

By the time Benny came around they had much more experience with good monsters.   Plus, Dean trusted Benny because he saved Cas.  If Benny really was evil, he could have ripped Deans throat out when they hugged and left Dean in a ditch.  No one would have noticed and since Sam walked away he wouldn't have noticed.  There was no one else to care.   It wasn't five minutes that Dean grew to trust Benny.  It was fighting side by side for a year. 

Benny earned Dean's trust.  He did nothing to earn Sam's distrust.  if Benny came between the brothers its because Sam put him there.  If Kevin's blood is on Dean's hands then Martin's is on Sam's.  Sam was either jealous or projecting his own issues of failure onto Benny.  But Sam acted like he did nothing wrong.  

[Wayward Son]

3 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

Why do you think Sam made the choice to live in the church? Why do you think Sam did a 180 in his dreamscape, given it seems that you think that's what happened?  Why is Death real in your interpretation but not Dean or Bobby? I'm not being snarky. I'm trying to follow why you think Sam had agency. 

I’m going to reply to this in All Episodes because my conclusions about what is real and wasn’t relates to other incidents and isn’t about bitch vs jerk. 

[AwesomO4000]

55 minutes ago, Lemuria said:

No, Kevin died because Metatron wanted Kevin dead, something neither Dean nor Sam knew.  Since we saw that Kevin actually went off on his own to get away--such as his trip to Branson--he was going to end up dead no matter what. 

Okay, I'll give you that much. Let's say Kevin had less chance of being dead if Dean hadn't lied. However, ironically, I guess that kind of proves my other point...

Dean gets to lie and pretty much nothing bad happens. I therefore don't believe the premise that when the brothers lie to each other, it is always presented as a bad thing and that bad things happen as a result. Recently - post Gamble  - that mainly only happens when Sam lies, in my opinion.

[Wayward Son]

35 minutes ago, ILoveReading said:

So Benny should have been evil just so Sam could be right? 

Yep. It might sound petty to you, and heck maybe it is, but IMO for balance making Benny evil would have been the fair thing to do. Sam’s ally Ruby was evil, Castiel’s alliance with Crowley ended in utter disaster, how come Dean gets to be right when the others aren’t? How come Dean’s objections got to be reasonable (since he was right and all) but Sam’s were shown as negative. 

 

Im not talking at a textual level I’m talking at a meta level. Why should Dean have been the only ones the writers allowed to be right about their dubious supernatural ally? Why wasn’t he presented as badly as Sam and Cas had been previously portrayed? Other than apparently Dean’s too precious to make the mistakes of the mere mortals around him. 

[catrox14]

4 minutes ago, Wayward Son said:

Im not talking at a textual level I’m talking at a meta level. Why should Dean have been the only ones the writers allowed to be right about their dubious supernatural ally? Why wasn’t he presented as badly as Sam and Cas had been previously portrayed? Other than apparently Dean’s too precious to make the mistakes of the mere mortals around him.

But that's not actually true at all. Not even on a meta or textual level.

Dean trusted Crowley for unknown reasons and he ended up with the Mark and became Killy McStabberson and ultimately a demon. How does that make Dean right? He didn't kill Metatron nor Gadreel who was his goal. He kills at least 15 human beings even if they are bad guys it's a line in this show that the boys aren't supposed to cross. Human on human murder is verboten.  I mean I don't know about you but that's pretty damn bad.  I realize the show never acknowledges that any more than it acknowledged nor punished Sam for his activities when he was Soulless, that doesn't mean that Dean was right at all nor didn't suffer damage to his reputation.

Dean was wrong about selling his soul for Sam because it resulted in him torturing other souls in Hell and him breaking the first seal without which the apocalypse doesn't start.

[Wayward Son]

Just now, catrox14 said:

But that's not actually true at all. Not even on a meta or textual level.

Dean trusted Crowley for unknown reasons and he ended up with the Mark and became Killy McStabberson and ultimately a demon. How does that make Dean right? He didn't kill Metatron nor Gadreel who was his goal. He kills at least 15 human beings even if they are bad guys it's a line in this show that the boys aren't supposed to cross. Human on human murder is verboten.  I mean I don't know about you but that's pretty damn bad.  I realize the show never acknowledges that any more than it acknowledged nor punished Sam for his activities when he was Soulless, that doesn't mean that Dean was right at all nor didn't suffer damage to his reputation.

Dean was wrong about selling his soul for Sam because it resulted in him torturing other souls in Hell and him breaking the first seal without which the apocalypse doesn't start.

I was referring to Dean trusting Benny specifically which I see as closer to Sam and Ruby than Dean and Crowley but YMMV. And as I explained earlier both scenarios you referenced were followed by Sam doing much worse in a far less sympathetic light. So I stand by my belief that Dean is the Gary Stu of this show. He’s either right, or on the rare occasion he is wrong this is later overshadowed by someone else making a far worse mistake than he did. 

 

As I said IMO for balance Benny should have been evil and utterly hoodwinked Dean in the way Ruby hoodwinked Sam. It would have kept the brothers balanced with both having made stupid mistakes. Instead Sam’s the idiot who ran off with a demon in scenario one and Sam’s the petty jealous jerk who was so mean to Dean’s vampire friend in scenario 2. 

[catrox14]

Crowley/Dean is almost identical to Ruby and Sam minus the sex, well theoretically minus the sex (some think Dean and Crowley hooked up. I don't know TBH LOL I refuse to believe it).

Dean was seeking to kill Gadreel for killing Kevin and when he couldn't do that he followed the carrot that Crowley brought which was Abaddon, who Dean had killed once before but made the mistake of putting back together,  and she threatened him in 9.2. Dean also did not kill Crowley as Sam had expected. He said "I would have stabbed him in the face" when he found out Dean hadn't killed him.  Sam was pissed about it.

Sam was seeking a way to save Dean and when he couldn't get that Ruby showed up dangling the carrot of killing Lilith because she held Dean's deal. Then it changed to killing her would stop Lucifer from rising which was exactly the opposite. 

 

Ruby's goal was letting Lucifer out of his Cage and she used Sam to do that. She told Sam that Lucifer would reward him and they would be next to Lucifer together.

Crowley's goal was the death of Abaddon and having demon!Dean run Hell with him. He got Dean to kill Abaddon and because Dean refused to listen to Sam or Cas about the Mark of Cain and prowling around with Crowley. Dean went into battle without Sam and that was shown to be a bad decision because he got dead, Metatron was alive and Dean became a demon.   

I get that you wanted Benny to be bad to make Sam's behavior better in s8 but Sam and Ruby was Dean and Crowley and Dean got the comeuppance you wanted for him letting Gadreel possess Sam.

Edited February 3, 2018 by catrox14

[Wayward Son]

4 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

Crowley/Dean is almost identical to Ruby and Sam minus the sex, well theoretically minus the sex (some think Dean and Crowley hooked up. I don't know TBH LOL I refuse to believe it).

Dean was seeking to kill Gadreel for killing Kevin and when he couldn't do that he followed the carrot that Crowley brought which was Abaddon, who Dean had killed once before but made the mistake of putting back together,  and she threatened him in 9.2. Dean also did not kill Crowley as Sam had expected. He said "I would have stabbed him in the face" when he found out Dean hadn't killed him.  Sam was pissed about it.

Sam was seeking a way to save Dean and when he couldn't get that Ruby showed up dangling the carrot of killing Lilith because she held Dean's deal. Then it changed to killing her would stop Lucifer from rising which was exactly the opposite. 

 

Ruby's goal was letting Lucifer out of his Cage and she used Sam to do that. She told Sam that Lucifer would reward him and they would be next to Lucifer together.

Crowley's goal was the death of Abaddon and having demon!Dean run Hell with him. He got Dean to kill Abaddon and because Dean refused to listen to Sam or Cas about the Mark of Cain and prowling around with Crowley. Dean went into battle without Sam and that was shown to be a bad decision because he got dead, Metatron was alive and Dean became a demon.   

I get that you wanted Benny to be bad to make Sam's behavior better in s8 but Sam and Ruby was Dean and Crowley and Dean got the comeuppance you wanted for him letting Gadreel possess Sam.

Well they did have their night with the triplets. Who knows how much direct interaction that involved ;) :p 

IMO narratively Crowley wasn’t presented in the same way as Ruby. Ruby was presented as out and out evil and a completely manipulative bitch. Crowley on the other hand was treated as a frenemy, someone with his own agenda but a weird care for the brothers. Then his time on the show got to end with him making a big noble sacrifice. IMO, most likely due to Crowley’s longevity, he wasnt presented in the same way Ruby was. Dean was also portrayed as going into the whole thing with his eyes wide open while Sam was an idiot who fell completely for Ruby’s lies. 

[ILoveReading]

24 minutes ago, Wayward Son said:

So I stand by my belief that Dean is the Gary Stu of this show. He’s either right, or on the rare occasion he is wrong this is later overshadowed by someone else making a far worse mistake than he did. 

But didn't Sam get his balance with Jack?  Sam was right about  him and had to apologize to both Sam and Jack about it. 

It would be great if this show has balance.  It doesn't  (unless its Sam, then we get situations created just to Sam can do the same things Dean did- Cain/yellow eyed demon that Sam killed with Micahael's lance).  It there was balance Alistair would have been raised rather than Lucifer so the show could give equal time to exploring Dean's hell.   Does it make Sam a Gary Stu that we're back to Lucifer and Sam gets what is this a 5th to confront him?  While Dean only had one and Sam got to kill him.  WHere is that balance?

Benny was a vampire. At this time we'd seen good monsters.    He's was a friend of Dean's.  He was introduced as a friend.  Ruby and Crowley were introduced as enemies.   I don't see how it compares personally.  I feel like that is trying to compare someone who does drugs to someone running an entire drug cartel.  You (general you) expect the drug king pin to be evil,, but you have a 50/50  of a drug user chance of him being a junkie or just someone who smokes weed on weekend.  If anything the only person Benny really compared to was Lenore.  Another vampire.    IMO, making Dean wrong just so Sam can be right makes Sam just as big as a Gary stu. 

Also what good has being right ever done for Dean.   He's might as well be talking to a brick wall for all people listen to him.. 

Dean may have been right about Ruby, but Sam got the last word in when the show ignored the fact that Ruby was Sam's puppet master when Sam announced she didn't treat him like a kid brother and refused to allow Dean to point this out.  He just apologized for not trusting Sam three different times and ultimately had to prove that he really did trust Sam.   Sam was the one who lied for a year, shouldn't it have been on Sam to prove he could be trusted.    Who really cares if Dean was right about Ruby when the narrative framed him for being wrong because textually Dean trying to warn Sam about Ruby was what drove Sam into Ruby's arms.  Then suddenly the never seen before or heard from again Lucifer needing demon blood, and it turns out Ruby was just really trying to get Sam ready to host Lucifer (noble intentions).  Talk about whitewashing. 

That in my opinion if far more Gary Stu treatment then Dean being right about demons being evil.  That kind of seems like a no brainer.  Not some special Gary Stu trait.

[ahrtee]

1 hour ago, AwesomO4000 said:

Dean gets to lie and pretty much nothing bad happens. I therefore don't believe the premise that when the brothers lie to each other, it is always presented as a bad thing and that bad things happen as a result. Recently - post Gamble  - that mainly only happens when Sam lies, in my opinion.

You've said this any number of times and people have disagreed (and given examples to the contrary) any number of times.  I know it's your opinion, but I wish it hasn't been stated as an absolute (as in your first sentence) so many times.  I'm not going to give examples to show my (differing) opinion, because it's been said way too many times already, and I know there's no point discussing it further.  Agree to disagree.  

[catrox14]

Just now, Wayward Son said:

MO narratively Crowley wasn’t presented in the same way as Ruby. Ruby was presented as out and out evil and a completely manipulative bitch. Crowley on the other hand was treated as a frenemy, someone with his own agenda but a weird care for the brothers. Then his time on the show got to end with him making a big noble sacrifice. IMO, most likely due to Crowley’s longevity, he wasnt presented in the same way Ruby was. Dean was also portrayed as going into the whole thing with his eyes wide open while Sam was an idiot who fell completely for Ruby’s lies. 

Crowley is the ultimate manipulative bitch.  He has fucked over the Winchesters equally if not more than Ruby over and over and over again.  He killed Sarah which was why Sam was pissed that Dean hadn't killed him when he had the chance. 

Say what?  Dean didn't go into anything with his eyes wide open. He was drunk when Crowley found him at the bar and then made the offer to find the First Blade. Dean went along with that plan to track down the First Blade and then asked no questions of Cain about what the Mark would do to him before he took it on.

Crowley's end result doesn't negate what he did when he manipulated Dean in s9.  Ruby could come back in s13 and have a redemption arc and that doesn't negate what she did in s3 and s4. They both manipulated their targets into doing their dirty work. The only difference is that Crowley underestimated demon!Dean. He thought he could control him and he couldn't so he sold him out to Sam. 

[catrox14]

18 minutes ago, Wayward Son said:

Well they did have their night with the triplets. Who knows how much direct interaction that involved ;) :p 

Heh. That happened after Dean was a demon. Not during the run up with Crowley facilitating him becoming a demon.

[Wayward Son]

4 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

Heh. That happened after Dean was a demon. Not during the run up with Crowley facilitating him becoming a demon.

Oh I know that. You were referring to some people believing Dean and Crowley had sex. I’ve only read people speculating Demon Dean and Crowley had sex during their time together so I assumed that’s what you were referring to. My apologies if it wasn’t. I’ve just never read fan spec that Dean and Crowley slept together prior to his demonisation at the end of season 9. 

Edited February 3, 2018 by Wayward Son

[MysteryGuest]

5 hours ago, Wayward Son said:

What Dean should have done was laid out the facts for Sam in clear and unambiguous language. “Sammy you’re dying and the doctors say your running out of time. I’ve managed to make a deal with an angel where he’ll possess you until your better. This will also heal him too as he needs to recover from the fall”. There you go Dean has told Sam everything. If Sam agreed great Gadreel possesses him and any consequences are on Sam for agreeing to it. If Sam says no then yes he should let Sam die as it is up to Sam whether he’d want to risk letting Gadeel gain control. If Dean had no way of talking to Sam within his mindscape then his decision to make a decision on Sam’s part  would be acceptable, but he did have that opportunity and chose to actively manipulate Sam with vaguary and half truths. 

I'm sorry, but I just don't understand this constant debate.  To be so angry at the character of Dean for having Sam possessed by Gadreel makes no sense to me.  There was no way in hell that the show was going to allow Sam to die, so that choice was never on the table.  But for good drama, they could have Dean trick Sam into a decision, then compound his sin by keeping the truth from Sam.  Have the added drama of Dean's struggle not to come clean to Sam because of Gadreel's insistence that if he left, Sam would die.  And the final icing on the cake is that Gadreel kills Kevin, Dean totally blames himself, and Sam says some really shitty things to him about his need to save him.  I'm just not seeing this as any sort of win for Dean.  And even if there are issues of consent here, I'm not sure what point those who are advocating for Sam to be allowed to choose death are trying to make?  You're angry because Sam didn't get to die?  You're angry the show didn't end right then?  I honestly don't understand this.  

[catrox14]

3 minutes ago, Wayward Son said:

Oh I know that. You were referring to some people believing Dean and Crowley had sex. I’ve only read people speculating Demon Dean and Crowley had sex during their time together so I assumed that’s what you were referring to. My apologies if it wasn’t. I’ve just never read fan spec that Dean and Crowley slept together prior to his demonisation at the end of season 9. 

I've read spec that Dean and Crowley hooked up in s9 during Mother's Little Helper when Crowley was teasing Dean about being his mistress.  My point was that the only thing missing from the Crowley/Dean parallel to Ruby/Sam was actual sex. LOL

[DeeDee79]

9 minutes ago, MysteryGuest said:

I'm sorry, but I just don't understand this constant debate.  To be so angry at the character of Dean for having Sam possessed by Gadreel makes no sense to me.  There was no way in hell that the show was going to allow Sam to die, so that choice was never on the table.  But for good drama, they could have Dean trick Sam into a decision, then compound his sin by keeping the truth from Sam.  Have the added drama of Dean's struggle not to come clean to Sam because of Gadreel's insistence that if he left, Sam would die.  And the final icing on the cake is that Gadreel kills Kevin, Dean totally blames himself, and Sam says some really shitty things to him about his need to save him.  I'm just not seeing this as any sort of win for Dean.  And even if there are issues of consent here, I'm not sure what point those who are advocating for Sam to be allowed to choose death are trying to make?  You're angry because Sam didn't get to die?  You're angry the show didn't end right then?  I honestly don't understand this.  

I don't quite get it either. Dean was punished by Sam and by fandom as a whole for his actions. Even Dean fans were disappointed by his actions.

[MysteryGuest]

3 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

I've read spec that Dean and Crowley hooked up in s9 during Mother's Little Helper when Crowley was teasing Dean about being his mistress.  My point was that the only thing missing from the Crowley/Dean parallel to Ruby/Sam was actual sex. LOL

No, please, just no.  I know that fan fiction has everyone having sex with everyone, but just no.  I can buy that Crowley and Demon Dean might have shared some triplets, but that's as far as I'm willing to go here.  Ewww.

[Wayward Son]

4 minutes ago, MysteryGuest said:

I'm sorry, but I just don't understand this constant debate.  To be so angry at the character of Dean for having Sam possessed by Gadreel makes no sense to me.  There was no way in hell that the show was going to allow Sam to die, so that choice was never on the table.  But for good drama, they could have Dean trick Sam into a decision, then compound his sin by keeping the truth from Sam.  Have the added drama of Dean's struggle not to come clean to Sam because of Gadreel's insistence that if he left, Sam would die.  And the final icing on the cake is that Gadreel kills Kevin, Dean totally blames himself, and Sam says some really shitty things to him about his need to save him.  I'm just not seeing this as any sort of win for Dean.  And even if there are issues of consent here, I'm not sure what point those who are advocating for Sam to be allowed to choose death are trying to make?  You're angry because Sam didn't get to die?  You're angry the show didn't end right then?  I honestly don't understand this.  

I really dont understand how fans seem unable to comprehend the fact there were more options available to the writers than a) Sam dies or B) Dean plays a key part in the supernatural rape of Sam. There wasn’t. There was a third option I already mentioned in posts. Dean could have chose to tell Sam everything saving him would involve. We could have seen Dean struggle with the possibility of Sam saying no, but realising it was Sam’s right to choose. Sam could have said yes much to Dean’s surprise perhaps convinced by seeing how distraught Dean was by the possibility of losing him. The episode has the same end result - Sam is possessed by Gadreel, but hey Dean wasn’t complicit in Supernatural rape as it was something Sam consented to. The first half of season 9 could have largely played out the same only an emphasis on both brothers growing increasingly uncomfortable with each occasion Gadreel surfaces and takes over. Since I think the whole ejection thing was a retcon introduced for this storyline they could have made that a lie which would be revealed when Sam does try to eject him. It ultimately culminates with Samreel killing Kevin and Dean using some other method to free him. If they needed it to lead to the MOC arc they still could have had Dean feel guilty about persuading Sam in the first place. I actually wouldn’t have blamed Dean in this setting, but it’s in character for Dean to take the blame for things not his fault. 

 

Other fans are welcome to excuse a form of supernatural rape, but I don’t and never will. And I don’t think “but it had to happen or the show would end” is a valid excuse either. The writers had more options available to them and chose to go with this one and I’ll judge the characters accordingly. 

 

9 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

I've read spec that Dean and Crowley hooked up in s9 during Mother's Little Helper when Crowley was teasing Dean about being his mistress.  My point was that the only thing missing from the Crowley/Dean parallel to Ruby/Sam was actual sex. LOL

Thanks for the clarification. I hadnt actually read that one. Personally I don’t think that happened, but to each their own. I mean that in general I know you don’t believe it. I could see things happening during demon dean, particularly their night with the triplets, but that’s about it :) 

[Reganne]

2 hours ago, ILoveReading said:

2 hours ago, Lemuria said:

As it should, IMO.  When Dean went to Hell, he had no idea that it was part of a plan to free Lucifer.  He knew nothing about the seals.  He had no idea that he was being treated "special" while in Hell, in an all-out push to break him.  

Sam, OTOH, knew for an entire year what was going on.  He was warned about his path by his brother, two angels, a psychic who died helping the brothers, and Chuck, and while Sam didn't know Chuck was God, he did believe that Chuck was at least a prophet of God.  Yet, the only one he choose to believe was his demon BFF and screw buddy, someone who had spent the entire previous year lying to him and he knew she had lied.  But she was saying what he wanted to hear, how special and powerful and important he was.

So, yes, I think Sam shoulders the lion's share of the blame for releasing Lucifer.

 

Dean breaking the first seal that he didn't know existed under decades of torture doesn't compare to Sam being a dumbass who was lead around by his penis.

 

I have to disagree with this, because it was Dean making a deal with a demon that got him in that situation in the first place despite the fact that he knew it was wrong, criticized others for doing it and knew how it felt to have someone make a deal with a demon for him.  So, yes Dean should shoulder a huge part of the blame..... alongside Sam for the apocalypse, but he doesn't.

 

If we want to get into the gist of things, Sam also didn't know that he would start the apocalypse with what he was doing.  He thought he would be using his powers for good.  At that point in time, he thought that the end would justify the means.  He thought he would be stopping the apocalypse... not starting it.  And to be fair, it didn't do Dean any good to listen to the angels considering the fact that they were also in on wanting to free Lucifer for their own reasons.  Not to mention the fact that Sam was already on demon blood by the point he was warned about his path by the angels and Dean which could have affected his judgement or make him feel the need for more. Ruby targeted him when he was at his lowest, thereby making it easier to manipulate him.  This is one of the reasons why I wished the show would have delved more into Sam's head space during season 4.... so the audience could have got a little more of an idea of what Sam had been going through.  I'm actually quite pleased with how they're dealing with Sam in the more recent episodes of season 13 compared to what they did in season 4.  Especially the last one.

[catrox14]

3 minutes ago, Wayward Son said:

Other fans are welcome to excuse a form of supernatural rape, but I don’t and never will. And I don’t think “but it had to happen or the show would end” is a valid excuse either. The writers had more options available to them and chose to go with this one and I’ll judge the characters accordingly.

 

Okay, if you think it's 'rape',  what exactly do you think the show should do to Dean to make up for this? Are you pissed at viewers who disagree with it being 'supernatural rape' (strong words)? Are you pissed at the writers for not punishing Dean in a way that would make you feel better about? I'm not being snarky. I'm legitimately trying to understand what you want to see happen.

[ILoveReading]

1 minute ago, Reganne said:

I have to disagree with this, because it was Dean making a deal with a demon that got him in that situation in the first place despite the fact that he knew it was wrong, criticized others for doing it and knew how it felt to have someone make a deal with a demon for him.  So, yes Dean should shoulder a huge part of the blame..... alongside Sam for the apocalypse, but he doesn't.

When Dean made a deal with the demon he had no idea demons wanted this because it was part of an apocalypse or that seals existed.

Dean knew deals were wrong, he told Mary the understood why she did it.

Sam could have told Ruby to get lost.  There was proof she was up to no good, she was disappointed about not getting to watch Dean burn.  Sam should have questioned why she had a sudden change of heart. 

Even if Sam started using his powers for good it doesn't change the fact that he was was still a junkie under the control of his dealer.  There were signs all over the place pointing to the fact that Ruby was playing them like a fiddle.  Sam ignored them.

IMO, there is a big difference between ignoring warning signs and not knowing they exist.

So Dean has some responsibility

but the majority lies with Sam. 

[Wayward Son]

7 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

 

Okay, if you think it's 'rape',  what exactly do you think the show should do to Dean to make up for this? Are you pissed at viewers who disagree with it being 'supernatural rape' (strong words)? Are you pissed at the writers for not punishing Dean in a way that would make you feel better about? I'm not being snarky. I'm legitimately trying to understand what you want to see happen.

I wanted Dean to admit that what he did was wrong, that he crossed a line he shouldn’t have and would never do it again. That doesn’t mean he’ll never try to save Sam’s life, but he won’t rob Sam’s agency to do so. Dean is perfectly capable of having limits where Sam’s life is concerned, remember “Id rather let him die than see my brother become a monster” back in Lucifer Rising? I don’t think they should have done this storyline in the first place, but if they really had to then it should have ended with non-con being a new line Dean won’t cross. 

 

Unfortunately they didn’t go that route and had Dean proudly proclaim he’d do the same thing again even though it cost Kevin his life. I’m never going to get what I needed to feel closure re this storyline and therefore I highly doubt I’ll ever forgive Dean and stop it tainting my overall view of the character. It’s unfortunate, but it is what it is. 

Edited February 3, 2018 by Wayward Son

[Lemuria]

1 minute ago, Reganne said:

I have to disagree with this, because it was Dean making a deal with a demon that got him in that situation in the first place despite the fact that he knew it was wrong, criticized others for doing it and knew how it felt to have someone make a deal with a demon for him.  So, yes Dean should shoulder a huge part of the blame..... alongside Sam for the apocalypse, but he doesn't.

We will have to agree to disagree:  yes, Dean made the deal but the only thing he thought was at risk was his own soul.  We have no indication that, if he knew that the entire world was at stake, he would have taken the same action.

I also disagree about Sam:  he was warned his path was the wrong one, and by more than just the angels (as I'd noted earlier).  These angels, BTW, had no idea that they were not genuinely fighting to keep Lucifer in, so their warnings were meant seriously.  The point is, Sam chose to slavishly follow a demon who had already lied to and misled him, because he liked what he was hearing.  

[MysteryGuest]

13 minutes ago, Wayward Son said:

Unfortunately they didn’t go that route and had Dean proudly proclaim he’d do the same thing again even though it cost Kevin his life. I’m never going to get what I needed to feel closure re this storyline and therefore I highly doubt I’ll ever forgive Dean and stop it tainting my overall view of the character. It’s unfortunate, but it is what it is. 

My point is that your beef should be with the writers, and not with the character.  If I didn't look at things that way, I would never have been able to "forgive" Sam's behavior in season 8.  The writers did his character a major disservice that season, just as they did with Dean's character and his decision to have Sam possessed.  I try not to let those bad writing decisions effect how I feel about the characters.  I know it's not easy.  But after watching 13 seasons of this show, I have my own opinions about both characters and their personality traits.  Both brothers are flawed, as most people are.  But when their actions are completely out-of-character, or just incredibly stupid, I have to side-eye the writers.  Because for me, if I really started to dislike one of the brothers, I don't think I'd be able to watch anymore.  Dean may be my favorite, but if I thought that Sam was just an asshole, it would absolutely ruin the show for me.  Just my opinion.

[Wayward Son]

4 minutes ago, MysteryGuest said:

My point is that your beef should be with the writers, and not with the character.  If I didn't look at things that way, I would never have been able to "forgive" Sam's behavior in season 8.  The writers did his character a major disservice that season, just as they did with Dean's character and his decision to have Sam possessed.  I try not to let those bad writing decisions effect how I feel about the characters.  I know it's not easy.  But after watching 13 seasons of this show, I have my own opinions about both characters and their personality traits.  Both brothers are flawed, as most people are.  But when their actions are completely out-of-character, or just incredibly stupid, I have to side-eye the writers.  Because for me, if I really started to dislike one of the brothers, I don't think I'd be able to watch anymore.  Dean may be my favorite, but if I thought that Sam was just an asshole, it would absolutely ruin the show for me.  Just my opinion.

Fair enough although to be fair I’m not the only one who dislikes one of the brothers. I’m not going to resort to naming names since they aren’t currently in this conversation, but I can think of at least two users who don’t attempt to hide their utter disdain for the character of Sam and I don’t see them being criticised for not liking Sam. 

And to be fair at least those of you who condemn Sam in season 8 got to see Sam admit what he did was wrong and that he should have looked for Dean. I never got Dean telling Sam he was wrong to play a key role in the supernatural form of rape of Sam. 

[Reganne]

31 minutes ago, Lemuria said:

We will have to agree to disagree:  yes, Dean made the deal but the only thing he thought was at risk was his own soul.  We have no indication that, if he knew that the entire world was at stake, he would have taken the same action.

I also disagree about Sam:  he was warned his path was the wrong one, and by more than just the angels (as I'd noted earlier).  These angels, BTW, had no idea that they were not genuinely fighting to keep Lucifer in, so their warnings were meant seriously.  The point is, Sam chose to slavishly follow a demon who had already lied to and misled him, because he liked what he was hearing.  

We will have to agree to disagree.  If Sam knew that killing Lilith would bring Lucifer to earth, he wouldn't have done it either.  Also, by the time Sam got those warnings, he was already knee deep in demon blood.  Who knows if he would have been able to stop at that point or not.  Those warnings came too late IMO as some of the damage was done.  If the angels were supposedly so worried about what Sam was doing, they should have sent angels to Sam instead of letting Ruby get to him first.  They knew about Azazel and what they did to Sam and the other psychic kids, but did nothing to try to intervene until one of them was already hopped up on demon blood.

Edited February 3, 2018 by Reganne

[DeeDee79]

2 minutes ago, Wayward Son said:

Fair enough although to be fair I’m not the only one who dislikes one of the brothers. I’m not going to resort to naming names since they aren’t currently in this conversation, but I can think of at least two users who don’t attempt to hide their utter disdain for the character of Sam and I don’t see them being criticised for not liking Sam. 

And to be fair at least those of you who condemn Sam in season 8 got to see Sam admit what he did was wrong and that he should have looked for Dean. I never got Dean telling Sam he was wrong to play a key role in the supernatural form of rape of Sam. 

There have been posts with users jumping on other users for bitching about Sam just as there are users that criticize Dean haters. Whether or not you agree it does happen.

[Wayward Son]

6 minutes ago, DeeDee79 said:

There have been posts with users jumping on other users for bitching about Sam just as there are users that criticize Dean haters. Whether or not you agree it does happen.

I haven’t seen any such posts, which isn’t surprising since this site unfortunately is becoming more and more Dean centric. 

[ahrtee]

Just now, Wayward Son said:

I haven’t seen any such posts, which isn’t surprising since this site unfortunately is becoming more and more Dean centric. 

As has been said before, everything is in the eyes of the beholder.  Those who look for Sam hate will find it, just like those who see Dean hate.  I don't see it as more pro-one or the other (though I see a *lot* more bitterness than friendly discussions than ever before.)  Maybe we should split the forum into two separate-but-equal ones so that no one will have to read a negative opinion of their favorite?  (BTW, that's //sarcasm//, though it might be a good idea.  It would certainly reduce the number of bitterness and BvJ posts.) 

19 minutes ago, Wayward Son said:

I’m not going to resort to naming names since they aren’t currently in this conversation, but I can think of at least two users who don’t attempt to hide their utter disdain for the character of Sam and I don’t see them being criticised for not liking Sam. 

BTW, I believe naming names in order to point fingers is not allowed, whether or not they're part of the discussion.  You can check with the mods.  

[DeeDee79]

11 minutes ago, Wayward Son said:

I haven’t seen any such posts, which isn’t surprising since this site unfortunately is becoming more and more Dean centric. 

Or you've chosen to overlook them which is fine.

[MysteryGuest]

28 minutes ago, Wayward Son said:

Fair enough although to be fair I’m not the only one who dislikes one of the brothers. I’m not going to resort to naming names since they aren’t currently in this conversation, but I can think of at least two users who don’t attempt to hide their utter disdain for the character of Sam and I don’t see them being criticised for not liking Sam. 

And to be fair at least those of you who condemn Sam in season 8 got to see Sam admit what he did was wrong and that he should have looked for Dean. I never got Dean telling Sam he was wrong to play a key role in the supernatural form of rape of Sam. 

You're absolutely right, you're not the only one.  And I didn't mean to come across like I was calling you out.  I was just trying to explain how I manage to get past some of the character assassinations.  For the record, I thought having Sam apologize to Dean for season 8 was bullshit, since "real" Sam would never have been such a dick in the first place.  And Dean may not have apologized to Sam for what he did, but there is no question that he felt guilt about it every single day it went on, so he knew that it was crossing a line.  But at the end of the day, Dean Winchester is going to save his brother, right or wrong.  And Sam has proven that he will do the same thing, consequences be damned.  I just can't get mad at them over that, because that's who they are, and it's why I watch the show.

[catrox14]

1 hour ago, Wayward Son said:

I wanted Dean to admit that what he did was wrong, that he crossed a line he shouldn’t have and would never do it again. That doesn’t mean he’ll never try to save Sam’s life, but he won’t rob Sam’s agency to do so. Dean is perfectly capable of having limits where Sam’s life is concerned, remember “Id rather let him die than see my brother become a monster” back in Lucifer Rising? I don’t think they should have done this storyline in the first place, but if they really had to then it should have ended with non-con being a new line Dean won’t cross. 

 

Unfortunately they didn’t go that route and had Dean proudly proclaim he’d do the same thing again even though it cost Kevin his life. I’m never going to get what I needed to feel closure re this storyline and therefore I highly doubt I’ll ever forgive Dean and stop it tainting my overall view of the character. It’s unfortunate, but it is what it is. 

So this goes back to concept of blame the writers or blame the characters.

[Wayward Son]

12 minutes ago, MysteryGuest said:

You're absolutely right, you're not the only one.  And I didn't mean to come across like I was calling you out.  I was just trying to explain how I manage to get past some of the character assassinations.  For the record, I thought having Sam apologize to Dean for season 8 was bullshit, since "real" Sam would never have been such a dick in the first place.  And Dean may not have apologized to Sam for what he did, but there is no question that he felt guilt about it every single day it went on, so he knew that it was crossing a line.  But at the end of the day, Dean Winchester is going to save his brother, right or wrong.  And Sam has proven that he will do the same thing, consequences be damned.  I just can't get mad at them over that, because that's who they are, and it's why I watch the show.

You’re entitled to watch the show for your own reasons. I however did not sign up to watch a show where I feel sick to the pit of my stomach and utterly repulsed because they decided glorifying and condoning a supernatural variant of rape is acceptable. 

10 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

So this goes back to concept of blame the writers or blame the characters.

To a certain extent both. Thanks to the writers Dean is a person who would commit Supernatural rape if they deemed it necessary and according to many in here this is IC behaviour for him so I think Dean deserves my hate for what he did here. 

[MysteryGuest]

1 minute ago, Wayward Son said:

You’re entitled to watch the show for your own reasons. I however did not sign up to watch a show where I feel sick to the pit of my stomach and utterly repulsed because they decided glorifying and condoning a supernatural variant of rape is acceptable. 

We all watch for our own reasons, and are entitled to our own opinions.  I personally don't think that Sam's possession by Gadreel was tantamount to rape, so I just don't feel the outrage you do.  I don't even think Sam feels that way.  Had Kevin not been killed, I think Sam would have been superficially pissed at Dean for tricking him, but I don't think it would have been a huge thing between them.  These guys have both been possessed by all sorts of things at one time or another.  This was at least an angel, and had things gone the way they should have, it would have been a win for both Sam and Gadreel.  But as usual, things went very wrong.  IMO, it was Sam's own guilt about Kevin's death that made it so awful for him, even though he was completely innocent of any wrongdoing, not the possession itself.  

[catrox14]

2 minutes ago, Wayward Son said:

To a certain extent both. Thanks to the writers Dean is a person who would commit Supernatural rape if they deemed it necessary and according to many in here this is IC behaviour for him so I think Dean deserves my hate for what he did here. 

Well, that's a matter of whether the viewers agree with your personal interpretation that Dean is essentially a rapist. I mean that's what you're saying. So you hate Dean more because some disagree with your personal interpretation that Dean is a rapist?

I'm sure you can understand why many don't make that leap and that doesn't make them (me) a rape apologist. Nor does it mean the show was intending for that action to be seen as rape.  IMO they were intending to make it more akin to the idea that Dean violated a DNR order more than committing supernatural rape against his own brother. 

I can't imagine why if Dean promised to never commit supernatural rape again that would help. Shouldn't he be punished for that action in some way? 

[DeeDee79]

9 minutes ago, Wayward Son said:

You’re entitled to watch the show for your own reasons. I however did not sign up to watch a show where I feel sick to the pit of my stomach and utterly repulsed because they decided glorifying and condoning a supernatural variant of rape is acceptable.

Just curious: based on this statement do you get any enjoyment out of watching? You've mentioned before that the show disrespects Castiel and Misha and given your disdain for Dean/Jensen I'm wondering what keeps your interest.

[ahrtee]

7 minutes ago, Wayward Son said:

You’re entitled to watch the show for your own reasons. I however did not sign up to watch a show where I feel sick to the pit of my stomach and utterly repulsed because they decided glorifying and condoning a supernatural variant of rape is acceptable. 

No one "signs up" to watch a show.  They watch while they get some enjoyment out of it.  Once they stop getting enjoyment (and I assume "feeling sick to the pit of your stomach and utterly repulsed" means that you're no longer enjoying it) they usually stop.  We did have a discussion earlier about "hate watching," and how it seems counterproductive to keep watching something you hate just to tell others how much you hate it.  JMO.

[Whimsy]

OFFICIAL MOD NOTE- 

we locked the thread overnight due to the fact that some posters continued to debate and argue their opinions even after we posted a mod note telling posters to stop doing that. Continually saying “agree to disagree” and then going on to post paragraphs arguing your opinion is still debating. Warnings will be issued and the thread will be locked for longer if this behavior continues. 

[Wayward Son]

Since I don't want to be warned I am not interested in restarting the debate from yesterday, but I want to quickly answer a question I was asked yesterday in a non argumentative way.

 

18 hours ago, DeeDee79 said:

Just curious: based on this statement do you get any enjoyment out of watching? You've mentioned before that the show disrespects Castiel and Misha and given your disdain for Dean/Jensen I'm wondering what keeps your interest.

 

18 hours ago, ahrtee said:

No one "signs up" to watch a show.  They watch while they get some enjoyment out of it.  Once they stop getting enjoyment (and I assume "feeling sick to the pit of your stomach and utterly repulsed" means that you're no longer enjoying it) they usually stop.  We did have a discussion earlier about "hate watching," and how it seems counterproductive to keep watching something you hate just to tell others how much you hate it.  JMO.

While I am not particularly pleased with Dabb's overall lowering of Castiel to a bumbling idiot who always messes up I can usually find parts of Misha's performance to enjoy and appreciate. I credit Misha's acting ability for allowing me to continue enjoying the character despite the terrible writing so that's one plus to watching. I also find myself appreciating the wide array of secondary character the show has provided us in recent seasons such as Jack, Jody, Crowley (at least until his death I mean), Donna so the episodes they star in are always a delight to me also. I enjoy the overall lore of Supernatural and the unique feel of the shows verse. I can usually enjoy the character of Sam when they focus on him as a hunter rather than (IMO) the more toxic aspects of his relationship with Dean. I can even on a very, very, very rare occasion enjoy a Dean moment. 

 

When I was talking about feeling sick to the pit of my stomach I was referring to back when season 9 aired rather than the show as a whole, and as I explained in the Small Talk thread I actually did stop watching for 2.5 years due to my issues with this storyline and to a lesser extent season eight. Thankfully, while I've had my complaints about the writing since season 9 (the current handling of Castiel for instance) there has been nothing in season 10 + that has truly offended me as a viewer the way the possession storyline did so I'm enjoying the show a lot more now than I did back when the possession storyline was the key storyline of the season. 

Edited February 3, 2018 by Wayward Son

[trxr4kids]

I'm not trying to flog a dead horse but how else am I supposed to justify my internet search history ( they come in purple, people! ) I prefer black but I digress ; ) . 

*flogs away* In S8 Sam's off putting/offensive behavior is generally attributed to (in the tiny segment of fandom I engage in)

A) mental breakdown

B) being portrayed as OOC

C) outright character assasination

Meanwhile, Dean's S9 off putting/offensive behavior is generally attributed to :

A) Selfishness

B) Control issues

C) Dean's a Dick, the show even said so, repeatedly, it's totally fine!

Same show runner, different fan backlash. MO is that Carver was pissed his maturity/breaking the co dependence sl went over like a lead balloon in S8 because he just didn't get it and so in S9 he was like fine, you want it, you got it and fuck you for not getting my vision!

[DeeDee79]

6 hours ago, trxr4kids said:

I'm not trying to flog a dead horse but how else am I supposed to justify my internet search history ( they come in purple, people! ) I prefer black but I digress ; ) . 

*flogs away* In S8 Sam's off putting/offensive behavior is generally attributed to (in the tiny segment of fandom I engage in)

A) mental breakdown

B) being portrayed as OOC

C) outright character assasination

Meanwhile, Dean's S9 off putting/offensive behavior is generally attributed to :

A) Selfishness

B) Control issues

C) Dean's a Dick, the show even said so, repeatedly, it's totally fine!

Same show runner, different fan backlash. MO is that Carver was pissed his maturity/breaking the co dependence sl went over like a lead balloon in S8 because he just didn't get it and so in S9 he was like fine, you want it, you got it and fuck you for not getting my vision!

True indeed!

[Wayward Son]

12 hours ago, trxr4kids said:

I'm not trying to flog a dead horse but how else am I supposed to justify my internet search history ( they come in purple, people! ) I prefer black but I digress ; ) . 

*flogs away* In S8 Sam's off putting/offensive behavior is generally attributed to (in the tiny segment of fandom I engage in)

A) mental breakdown

B) being portrayed as OOC

C) outright character assasination

Meanwhile, Dean's S9 off putting/offensive behavior is generally attributed to :

A) Selfishness

B) Control issues

C) Dean's a Dick, the show even said so, repeatedly, it's totally fine!

Same show runner, different fan backlash. MO is that Carver was pissed his maturity/breaking the co dependence sl went over like a lead balloon in S8 because he just didn't get it and so in S9 he was like fine, you want it, you got it and fuck you for not getting my vision!

In the interest of not restarting the argument from the other evening I am going to try and not reply to you at a textual level i.e. my views on the characters, but at a meta level i.e. what I think the writers had in mind when they formed this storyline. 

 

IMO, based on how things played out on screen, Jeremy Carver never intended to break the co-dependence and in fact wanted to make it clear to viewers who complained about it that it would forever be a part of this show. When he first became showrunner Jeremy mentioned that he had a three year plan which would have covered seasons 8, 9 and 10. IMO this plan was to analyse the co-dependence and ultimately conclude that for all its faults that was the best way for the brothers relationship to be.

 

Season 8: In this season we see Sam attempt to break away from the co-dependence. He is left to assume Dean and Castiel were dead at the hands of the explosion following Dean's death and made the decision to try and move on with his life rather than resort to something drastic such as a deal to bring Dean back. IMO Sam's decision to quit hunting after Dean's death was not OOC in and of itself. He was always portrayed as the one less enthused with hunting and even now when he has embraced it he mentions he hunts because his family are hunters. So I could buy Sam leaving the life in a scenario where his family are no longer around to live it with him. However, IMO Carver's agenda of portraying this as a bad thing to do was shown in how the situation played out. Sam didn't give up hunting in a reasonable manner. He literally ran off and left Kevin and others like him to their fate without a backward glance. The writers made sure to show us this when we heard all the voice messages Kevin had left throughout the year. and that is the part of the equation I consider to be OOC and arguably character assassination. IMO without an in story explanation such as a mental breakdown this is not how Sam would have handled quitting hunting. He would have made sure to first save Kevin and then give his phone to another trusted hunter such as Garth. That way Sam was out of the life, but Kevin and others like him were still getting the help they needed. In addition to this, a large focus of the season lay with Dean's hurt over Sam 'abandoning him for a girl' (again a way of making Sam look as bad as possible) and ultimately the season ends with Sam admitting he was wrong to 'abandon Dean'. So season one of three examined an attempt to leave co-dependence behind and ultimately concluded this was very, very wrong.

 

Season 9: This is the season where they turn to look at the co-dependence itself through a storyline which IMO demonstrates the darkest aspect of the co-dependence. Here the writers wanted us to see Dean save Sam's life in such a way that Sam is robbed of his basic autonomy and right to self-determination. Dean thought that Sam would rather die than allow possession and therefore took the choice out of Sam's hands as he couldn't face the idea of a world without Sam. The purpose of this was to show the audience that they weren't unaware of the problematic aspects of the brothers bond and looking at it through rose tinted glasses. In the first half of the season we got to see the negative impact of Dean's decision. It put him into a position where he needed to tell Sam further lies to cover up the first and keep him safe, Dean was made increasingly uncomfortable as Gadreel asserted more and more control until ultimately he killed Kevin using Sam's body. Then Sam learnt about what Dean did and ultimately he expressed this anger during an angry speech at the end of the Purge. However, this is when the writers agenda began to truly show. Rather than allowing Sam to keep his anger to the matter at hand (Dean lied to him, Dean took his personal autonomy and saved him for Dean's sake rather than Sam) they downplayed his legitimate points by adding in the ridiculous blanket statement that Dean only does stuff when it doesn't hurt him. And while it could be strongly argued Dean did act in his own best interests in that particular scenario it certainly isn't the case always and makes Sam come off hateful rather than legitimately angry. Dean certainly wasn't protecting himself from harm when he condemned himself to save Sam from hell and of course Dean puts himself into danger every time they go on a hunt. IMO making Sam's words unnecessarily harsh was a deliberate choice and shown in how they ended the scene. Rather than the camera following Sam into the hallway and showing his conflict as he realised he went too far in his anger the episode ends with a look at how devastated his mean words made Dean feel. Then Season 9 deals with continued conflict between the brothers until Sam is the one facing a scenario where his brother is willing and ready to do so. Here we are told Sam lied about not being willing to do to Dean what Dean did to him invalidating his legitimate complaints further and making him a hypocrite. Ultimately, season 9 concludes with the writers and characters basically saying "yes, this is messy. Yes it can lead to other people getting hurt as collateral damage, but this is how the brothers are and they aren't going to change! They tried the whole letting go thing and it didn't work". 

 

Season 10: With Sam now fully back on board the co-dependence train it is time for him to show us that in action. The season opens with him forcing a cure on Dean against his will (personally I don't see the two as the same, but the writers want us to IMO) just as Dean forced a possession on Sam against his will. Furthermore, we see Sam wantonly causing collateral damage by leading Lester to a crossroads demon. Sam's main arc of the season then is saving Dean from the mark of Cain at all costs, and against Dean's wishes, to make up for what the narrative presented as a mistake in season 8. He succeeds in doing so at a terrible cross which leads us into season 11 where the brothers suddenly start getting along better than they had in years now they've both realised their co-dependency is a part of who they are and they've accepted that about themselves and the other. 

[catrox14]

I really think Carver wanted to break the co dependency. I think he put Dean through the Mark of Cain arc as a way to 1) give Dean and Jensen something more than supporting Sam.   2) Give Crowley a SL as much as anything and tie Crowley to Dean.  3) Give Sam something to do since Dean was getting an emotional and mytharc SL.

Now I think much of what happened with Carver and the back half of  s8, was that he responded to fan backlash. I think he would have known by Trial and Error that the Sam/Amelia arc wasn't working so he reversed course. I will forever be of the mind that the trials were more logical for Dean to have completed than Sam.  Now all that said, I wonder if in s7, Dabb was possibly going to take over as showrunner back then but they brought in Carver because he had showrunning experience with Being Human. 

And then there is the eternal Bob Singer and who knows what kind of control he has in the end. I mean for all the shit we give Kripke, Gamble, Carver and Dabb the one constant is Bob Singer.  

He might be the true showrunner who has more to say about SL than anyone really.  He may be a producer who kills SL for the drama. He might be the one that trolls fandom and says, "Okay let's rile them up and we will kill off one character for the DRAMA and then reverse course for MORE DRAMA".  

Isn't he the one who says that write things and then have to figure out how to get out of it, like with demon!Dean? He was tapped by the network back when the show started to help Kripke keep his budgets under control, but he also has influenced creative things as well.

I find it really curious that s11., Singer was not listed as the EP with Carver. It was only Carver. Yet I think Carver was moving out of SPN at least midway through s11 if not sooner. Yes he did write the finale, but I read somewhere that in shared writer's rooms they help each other write things and may even finish a script but don't put their names on it.  

I dunno, all I know is that maybe all our discussions about character assassination vs "true character behavior" is just a result of an Executive Producer who's mind is still trapped in the 80s and thinks character death or character assassination is DRAMA DRAMA DRAMA!!!

I think I might just take the position now that Bob Singer is to blame for all the shitty things in the show LOL.

Edited February 5, 2018 by catrox14

[Myrelle]

33 minutes ago, Wayward Son said:

And while it could be strongly argued Dean did act in his own best interests in that particular scenario it certainly isn't the case always and makes Sam come off hateful rather than legitimately angry.

People can be hateful when they're angry-legitimately or otherwise. And Sam can be as hateful of a character(more so, even) to some, as Dean apparently is to others.

But we're talking about fictional characters here, and people can and will feel about them however they want to or are able to; and no one's feelings are "wrong" in that regard. Not IMO, anyway. 

And those feelings are likely just shaped by one's own real life experiences and so we are invited to explore and question things about ourselves through these fictional characters. Love, hate, loss, betrayals etc., everything life has to offer; how we(and they) deal with all of these things. And we are invited to ask ourselves are we good/okay with the way we are and how we react to what life gives/brings/sends us. Are we good/okay with how we handle those things and with what we say or even think about things that tend to anger us or make us feel bad or sad or unhappy or even happy, too; or is change necessary in some of those reactive thoughts and feelings and words and actions. We are invited to also ask ourselves where those thoughts and feelings and words and actions originated, and if they are deeply ingrained in us-why and how.

That's the way I tend to look at most characters in a fictional work-especially works in which the characters' childhoods have been made as available to us as The Winchesters have been and who move me to feeling any kind of a real, true, and strong emotion.