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

[BoxManLocke]

3 hours ago, SueB said:

Not spoilery comment in the spoilers thread that I wanted to respond to.  

This is kinda the perfect thread to deal with this conundrum: whose Supernatural is it?  Kripke? Singer? Gambel/Carver/Dabb? J2? After 13 years only J2 and like one dude in the crew have been there since the start.  Singer came on for EP1.2 Wendigo.  No writer has been there since the Pilot. There are fans who have seen every episode since the Pilot, live, who are still in the fandom.  There are a ton who caught up and joined along the way.  

I've been doing a little research on this and will post more later, but for now I'll leave you with the anecdote that gave me an "a-ha!" today.

- I watched "The Things They Carried" on TNT.  Although I remembered it was a Jenny Kline episode, I didn't need to know that to figure it out.  It starts off with really gruesome death MOTW episode with a bug-like squirmy worm-thing baddy.  So Kline.  And watching it immediately after "The Executioner's Song", written by Berens, it was clear Klein's episode was complete within the Supernatural ouvra (body of work) while having a significantly different story and emphasis.  If you can ignore the presence of Travis Aaron Wade (trigger warning!), it's actually a very good MOTW that ties well to the season mytharc.  But this was "Klein's Supernatural".  THIS is what she wanted to bring to the show.  This was an example of how she saw the show.  Not that she doesn't also love the other stuff, but this is the aspect that is her passion.

Which gave me my aha: "Supernatural", while obviously a television horror show in the generic, but is exceptionally difficult to define in the specific because it's an amalgam of  literally dozens of minds.  And if you are okay with that ambiguity, then "my Supernatural" is much more amorphous.  If you really connected with the show when you first picked it up (from Pilot to somewhere in S13) but now have grown dissatisfied, then perhaps it's a reflection of who was in charge or who was dominating the writing at the time you picked up the show.  Maybe those people have moved on.  Or the show has focused less on the elements that drew you and more on some other elements.  

I'm not saying anyone's opinion is wrong or not ... whatever... I'm saying that by it's approach over the last 13 years, Supernatural developed into a show that is rarely going to please nearly everyone.  It's just too variable because of who has been on the creative team and how much they've allowed everyone to play.  

And I think that's Bob Singer's influence.  (More later).

 

You're absolutely right, and me using the "My Supernatural" formula was cliché and way too broad a term to really mean anything.

 

I guess my ideal version of the show would be its first four seasons, but that doesn't really make sense in the context of my previous post. I've been perfectly able to adapt every time the show has evolved. Until now, that is.

 

Perhaps the show has changed once more and left me behind this time. We'll see. That's why I said if they kept certain characters (couch Lucifer cough) for season 14 I might as well give up as its their long term choice.

 

Maybe the lack of focus in the main storyline and the lack of character arcs for S & D is Dabb's vision and I'm just an old fart yelling at clouds, but I keep hoping that it isn't and they'll find some way to right the ship.

[AwesomO4000]

Brought over from spoiler threads. No Spoilers here:

4 hours ago, Castiels Cat said:

[Snip] The way the writing is going I  expect them to out Dean as the BDH of this story  Having Chuck be God and having God tell Dean that he changed the story in season 5 by going to Stull pretty much makes Dean the pivotal person that stopped the Apocalypse because without Dean Sam would not have jumped in the pit.

3 hours ago, Castiels Cat said:

[Snip] Err. He possessed John in a field. I think the isdue was consent. Dean had made his choice so Michael moved on to Adam.  Or rather Kripke didn't want Dean to steal Sam's light... he finally realized he had written his hero as the proverbial antichrist and the brother as the Messiah so he returned the brother to the sidekick role, created a faux Antichrist... and voila!  Problem solved!

I find these two things somewhat contradictory myself, so I'm not sure what your point here is except to imply that Sam is the antichrist... which I guess for this universe isn't a bad thing... because Jesse, the antichrist, I think, was one of the most decent non and/or semi-human characters this show ever had. As Dean said, that kid was awesome.

Quote

 

Just like AU Michael is the Macguffin. And Lucifer is a loser baby...

 

In my interpretation of the AU - that it is like the Universe Proper except with a different choice that changed the timeline - AU Michael is less a MacGuffin and more of a warning. For me, the AU shows what Michael might have done had he been given the chance to kill Lucifer as he had set out to do.

Quote

Michael disappears and Angels start killing each other. The constant in the angelic storyline is that they have no fcking clue what they are doing.once Michael is no longer in the picture

The angels were also killing each other when Michael was around, because they disagreed even then with what to do with the apocalypse. Uriel and his faction were killing other angels - until Anna stopped him. And she was rewarded for her trouble by being arrested, locked away, and tortured.

The angels didn't have much of a clue what they were doing either back when Michael was in the picture, in my opinion, but part of that was because I'm pretty sure that Michael purposely kept the truth about the big picture from the other angels. And it almost had to be Michael... because as Zachariah told Dean, the seals wouldn't have been breaking unless the bosses - Michael and Raphael - wanted them to be breaking. Archangels easily beat demons, so they could've stopped the seals from breaking.

So unless the plan was for the angels to be killing each other and not to be keeping the seals from breaking, I don't think the angels ever really knew what they were doing then either... with the exception of the management type angels. I think those with a specific "office-type" job just did their job and kept to it - kind of like Joshua tending the garden. But I think they'd likely do that whether or not Michael was there, so...

[OnceSane]

Please take all spoiler talk (and speculation about spoilers) to the appropriate thread.  Until it airs on-screen, it is a spoiler.  Thanks!

[Reganne]

34 minutes ago, Aeryn13 said:

It was big kills for Sam last Season, a Prince of Hell, the Alpha Vamp, the Alpha Hellhound. That`s what made it so noticeable. And Dean who had been gaga over the Colt never killed a single thing with it last Season, he only stupidly asked Sam to repair it. 

I agree that Sam gets a lot less focus like that this year. Meanwhile Dean gets more badassery for the second half of this Season. Though he hasn`t really taken out something big. I`m not sure the Gog and Magog things were supposed to count since that was such a comedy aside. 

Neither of the brothers have taken out something big this year. The Col. Sanders kill went justifiably to Gabriel. Beyond that, everything was small fries.

I also agree that Sam doesn`t have a storyline this year. Nor do Dean, so far. He may get one in the Finale but I would hardly count it for this Season. 

Last Season, neither brother really had a storyline. Sam participated somewhat in the BMOL and get a BDH leader moment out of it and Dean was unlucky enough to have occasional tiffs with Mary whom the writers clearly thought was right and justified as an independent badass and Dean was the clingy, entitled little boy with unreasonably expectations. 

The last time either brother had a supernatural storyline was Dean with Amara in Season 11 - which was the main plot but way less explored than it could have been and the ending was way epic than it should have been and Sam with Lucifer - which was only a side story but got some meat on its bones. 

Still, over the course of the show Sam had visions and supernatural powers, was Lucifer`s chosen one, culminating in him defeating Lucifer and Michael. Then he was soulless. He had the Hellucinations. He did the Trials. He was possessed by an angel. Those were all supernatural storylines, not just one-off`s. Even if he were never to have another such storyline, he would still lead the pack, followed by Castiel who has had the second most supernatural storylines. IMO Dean can`t close the gap in whatever remains as the runtime of the show. Lucifer will beat him for third or fourth (have to think about Crowley) spot sooner or later if he is kept on. 

Although Sam has had more longer arcs, Dean has had his fair share of stories as well.  His longer arcs include MOC, demon dean, his demon deal, his angel arc and torture arc in season 4, his arc with Lisa and ben and the emotional last scene, his connection with Amara, his relationship with Benny, his purgatory storyline.  I am not so sure Sam has as many more as you think as there were also other Dean stories going on that lasted an episode like Dean and djinn and Dean being in his dream world, dean being a vampire, Dean time traveling more and getting an episode to himself, Dean being death for a day, Dean losing his memory, Dean running from Tessa at the beggining of season 2, Dean turning to an old Man, Dean turning to a teenager, Dean turning to a dog, Dean turning yellow belly.  He's had his share of stories even if they last one episode.  Dean episodes also tend to be more involved and better written since he is the POV character.  I think Dean has had more 1 off stories.  

 

As far as big kills... Dean has had more through the years and I'm not sure if I would count the hell hound as a big kill.  Surely the two gods this year could count.  

Edited April 24, 2018 by Reganne

[companionenvy]

Right. Every time we have this conversation, what emerges is that different people have different ideas of what makes a quality storyline, or what makes something Dean or Sam-centric. If you go with "character under supernatural influence = main character of plot-line," as a definition of centrality, then yeah, Sam has had more of those. But that's hardly an objective definition. If you instead change it to "most frequent POV character" or "character most often in leadership role" I think Dean wins. But that's also subjective. Then there's things like heroism in arc plots vs. heroism in one-offs, ratio of major mistakes to major saves, the question of how or not a plotline that features a character but ends in failure for them should be counted, and so on.

Which is why even when I criticize the writers, I just can't sympathize with the "the writers definitely hate Dean" (or Sam, but usually Dean) crew. Like, it just seems clear to me that the writers see both these guys as their main characters, and operate accordingly. Maybe that leads to a straight 50/50 split, and maybe it is closer to 60/40 in a given season, since the writers aren't obsessively trying to keep it even, but it just seems a lot more plausible to believe that the writers operate under the premise that Sam and Dean are co-leads than to assume that they are sabotaging Dean/Jensen because they are petrified that he might take attention away from their beloved Sam.

That isn't to say that the writers don't have their preferences, or that they always get the characters right. I do think the current writers sometimes display a pretty shallow concept of who these characters are ,to the disservice of both, in different ways. I just think that if a group of devoted fans can't agree on what makes a good storyline for a character, it makes no sense to assume that the writers have come to unanimous agreement that storyline A is superior, and thus it has to go to Sam. 

[Reganne]

3 minutes ago, companionenvy said:

Right. Every time we have this conversation, what emerges is that different people have different ideas of what makes a quality storyline, or what makes something Dean or Sam-centric. If you go with "character under supernatural influence = main character of plot-line," as a definition of centrality, then yeah, Sam has had more of those. But that's hardly an objective definition. If you instead change it to "most frequent POV character" or "character most often in leadership role" I think Dean wins. But that's also subjective. Then there's things like heroism in arc plots vs. heroism in one-offs, ratio of major mistakes to major saves, the question of how or not a plotline that features a character but ends in failure for them should be counted, and so on.

Which is why even when I criticize the writers, I just can't sympathize with the "the writers definitely hate Dean" (or Sam, but usually Dean) crew. Like, it just seems clear to me that the writers see both these guys as their main characters, and operate accordingly. Maybe that leads to a straight 50/50 split, and maybe it is closer to 60/40 in a given season, since the writers aren't obsessively trying to keep it even, but it just seems a lot more plausible to believe that the writers operate under the premise that Sam and Dean are co-leads than to assume that they are sabotaging Dean/Jensen because they are petrified that he might take attention away from their beloved Sam.

That isn't to say that the writers don't have their preferences, or that they always get the characters right. I do think the current writers sometimes display a pretty shallow concept of who these characters are ,to the disservice of both, in different ways. I just think that if a group of devoted fans can't agree on what makes a good storyline for a character, it makes no sense to assume that the writers have come to unanimous agreement that storyline A is superior, and thus it has to go to Sam. 

Though it may not seem like it from my previous posts, I agree.  I don't think that Sam's lack of hunting skills this season are due to writers hating him or preferring Dean.  I am simply writing another perspective than the whole writers against/apathetic to Dean idea.  

[Aeryn13]

Quote

I do think the current writers sometimes display a pretty shallow concept of who these characters are ,to the disservice of both, in different ways. 

I agree with that. However, I do also believe that affects Dean more negatively, simply because the stereotypes and tropes used for his character are generally regarded as more negative ones: stupidity, violent tendencies, being uncouth etc.   

Sam is also hit with trope writing but some of the tropes used for him fall on a range of being more neutral or even positive.

Both characters often get shallow characterization these days but at least if a cliché is positive, the general perception can end up more favourable. Some people may like it, some don`t, some don`t care. There is not much positivity you can wring out of stupidity or being really uncouth. Those are pretty much global turn-offs. 

[catrox14]

1 hour ago, Aeryn13 said:

There is not much positivity you can wring out of stupidity or being really uncouth.

Which I don't even know when that started. Dean wasn't uncouth until, like the last couple of seasons.

Even the stuffing his face in the Trickster ep wasn't real. Dean eats a lot but he uses cutlery and napkins if not eating a burger. He keeps a clean kitchen. The idea that he would keep, much less eat a 3 day old burger is so ridiculous I can't even say.  Dean just would not eat something that was potentially going to make him sick. I mean come on writers. I guess Dean being smart, beautiful, a badass, snarky, a good cook, and a neatnik was just too much for Dabb.  Sigh.  

[trxr4kids]

1 hour ago, catrox14 said:

Which I don't even know when that started. Dean wasn't uncouth until, like the last couple of seasons.

I have a wild theory ( or 2 ) that Jensen got sick of eating burgers/heavy food on camera and thought exaggerated eating would be so gross that the PTB would stop writing it in due to retakes and just general ick factor or that he truly thought he thought it was hilarious after the trickster episode. I just wish it would stop, he may enjoy slapstick, I don't.

[ILoveReading]

4 minutes ago, trxr4kids said:

I have a wild theory ( or 2 ) that Jensen got sick of eating burgers/heavy food on camera and thought exaggerated eating would be so gross that the PTB would stop writing it in due to retakes and just general ick factor or that he truly thought he thought it was hilarious after the trickster episode. I just wish it would stop, he may enjoy slapstick, I don't.

My theory is that Jensen did it because he was bored and it gave him something do to on screen.  He certainly had nothing else to do last season.

Edited April 25, 2018 by ILoveReading

[AwesomO4000]

Brought over from a spoiler thread. No spoilers:

9 hours ago, Castiels Cat said:

In my opinion seasons 8-11 were about redeeming Sam which is exactly what happened. In season 11 Sam realized the error of his ways, changed his behavior, apologized to Sully and Dean, committed himsrlf to hunting, began taking responsibility for his actions and his mistakes... it was everything rhat should have happened post season 5 and did not.  So seadon 12 was resetting the board and now in seadon 13 we see the results of the reset. Dean has the mytharc big time and Sam is the human brother. 

Seasons 9 and 10 were not about Dean having the mytharc theybwete about Sam's reaction  to losing Dean. It was a repeat of seasons 3 and 4.

The is is why Dean as a demon was not explored. The point was to have Sam go dark not Dean. And Sam went dark... way darker than Dean. Sam manipulated Cas and Charlie,  getting her killed , nearly getting Cas killed. Sam sanctioned human sacrifice with Oscar and let's not get into what he did at the beginning of the season by brokering a demon deal.  He was far worse than demon Dean ever was.  And even tbough Dean repeatedly said stop.  He woyld not stop.  There was proof using the BoTD was bad. He would not stop. Badabing Baraboo. Yet another Apocalypse... this one all on Sam and called the Darkness.

So yeah.  Seasons 8-11 were all about exploring Sam's character and flaws and  redeeming Sam.

Now we are seeing Dean's.

I know that that is your opinion concerning season 8 through 11, and you think that this "redemption" of Sam was necessary, and that's fine. I just don't happen to share that opinion, and I've already posted in detail why and given my well-thought out reasoning, so I'm not going to repeat that here.

I do want to add though, that after thinking about it some more, it seems rather odd - to me anyway - that if the point of season 8 through 11 was indeed to "fix" the mistakes with Sam's character previous showrunners allegedly made, because Sam was previously given an "excuse" (the demon blood-drinking) for his bad behavior as I've seen you talk about before, then why would the writers at the very same time repeat a similar arc with Dean, including giving Dean a supernatural excuse for his bad behavior? Isn't that the opposite of what the arc was supposed to be "fixing" for Sam?

Because supposedly Sam has to learn a lesson about humility (again), but Dean gets to repeat the same hubris-filled mistakes but doesn't have to change his behavior, and it's fine if he doesn't apologize? What literary symmetry am I supposed to be taking from that? What is the message there? It's not okay for you to do things you know your brother doesn't want you to do in order to save your brother - if you're Sam - but if you're Dean, enh, go ahead and do just that; help a strange being get into your brother's body (which I actually didn't mind all that much, really) and then lie about it for months while your brother suffers (which I did think was really, really awful). No need to apologize or anything like that. Really? That's why I don't think - or at least I'm hoping - that wasn't the message there.

Because, to me, it would seem odd to have an arc where the purpose was supposedly redeeming one brother for previous behavior that was somehow allegedly not acknowledged and changed while at the same time having the other brother repeat the behavior that the first brother needed redeeming for, complete with supernatural influence and everything - and making that a big part of those same seasons - but that the second brother doesn't need redeeming for, thereby diluting the entire message.

So instead, I think that Carver was just a not very good show runner who didn't know how to make a narrative fit the characters and instead forced the characters into what he wanted to happen - which wasn't very good anyway and more soap opera than Supernatural, in my opinion - and then got frustrated when fans (understandably) balked at his "interpretation" of the characters which amounted to "Petty Little Jerks" (TM someone here - either double D or triple D, I believe).

I suspect Carver was so enamored with making his original character Benny look good and cool, that he sacrificed Sam (especially) and Dean's characterizations to do that. He then repeated that  - in a different way - with Gadreel.

Quote

So yeah.  Seasons 8-11 were all about exploring Sam's character and flaws and  redeeming Sam.

Now we are seeing Dean's.

What do you expect that to be? How do you think Dean will be redeemed? Because as of how things are going now, I don't expect there to be any more repercussions or apologies for Dean from anything he did in season 9 and 10*** so I guess he doesn't need redemption for that. I also don't expect all that much bad to happen from anything Dean might do... and if it does, I'm more worried that somehow Sam will get blamed for it or it will be flipped to being Sam's fault somehow.

*** Including killing Death - which was both reckless and fairly arrogant, or pretty presumptive at the very least.

And just so people understand... I don't want Dean to be "punished" here... I just don't want Sam to be punished either, especially when he does the same or similar things to what Dean does, but for Sam it's painted as the Worst. Thing. Ever. Just make the consequences for similar actions even a bit similar rather than almost polar opposites.

I really don't think that's asking for all that much really. *shrug*

Edited April 26, 2018 by AwesomO4000

[FlickChick]

16 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:

Because supposedly Sam has to learn a lesson about humility (again), but Dean gets to repeat the same hubris-filled mistakes but doesn't have to change his behavior, and it's fine if he doesn't apologize? What literary symmetry am I supposed to be taking from that? What is the message there? It's not okay for you to do things you know your brother doesn't want you to do in order to save your brother - if you're Sam - but if you're Dean, enh, go ahead and do just that; help a strange being get into your brother's body (which I actually didn't mind all that much, really) and then lie about it for months while your brother suffers (which I did think was really, really awful). No need to apologize or anything like that. Really? That's why I don't think - or at least I'm hoping - that wasn't the message there

Now, the following is only my opinion and my interpretation. When people talk about Dean lying to Sam while he was being possessed by the angel, I keep seeing the manipulation of that angel in keeping the truth from Dean. Remember that Cas vouched for "Ezekiel" as being a good, trustworthy angel - no one, especially Dean, knew that Gadreel had lied to him about who he really was. In their first conversation when leaving the hospital, Dean said that he didn't want to keep the truth from Sam and "Zeke" immediately said that if Sam didn't agree with him healing him from the inside, and cast him out, that Sam would die. "Zeke" then offered to wipe away memories of the hospital from Sam. As the episodes continue, every time Dean questions the length of time it's taking to make Sam better, "Zeke" tells him it's just a little while longer. He also doesn't want anything to do with other angels because he knows that they would not recognize him as "Zeke". Gadreel constantly manipulates Dean every time Dean wants to let Sam know what's going on. On one occasion, as Dean starts to say something to Sam, "Zeke" immediately emerges and warns Dean against saying anything. As soon as Cas calls with the information that Ezekiel died in the fall, Dean is panicked and asks Kevin to find a spell so that he can speak to Sam without Gadreel knowing. Of course, it is all too late and the consequences are dire when Gadreel kills Kevin.

Dean made a decision that he would save Sam in a way that he knew Sam wouldn't like. But he also remembered that Sam stopped the trials because he chose to live over dying. Talk about a no-win situation for Dean or Sam. Dean said that he would "do it again", because he would never allow Sam to die if he could do something to prevent it. That's who Dean is. Period. Should he "mature" past that? Probably, but then we wouldn't have a show, because Sam would be dead. And, as it turns out, Sam feels pretty much the same way. But the thing to remember is that the writers create these impossible situations, and the characters suffer the consequences of viewers who don't like what they did/said/became, etc.

And although I'm quoting Awesom, this is in no way critical of your interpretation, because we are all entitled to our individual views.

[Katy M]

24 minutes ago, FlickChick said:

Now, the following is only my opinion and my interpretation. When people talk about Dean lying to Sam while he was being possessed by the angel, I keep seeing the manipulation of that angel in keeping the truth from Dean. Remember that Cas vouched for "Ezekiel" as being a good, trustworthy angel - no one, especially Dean, knew that Gadreel had lied to him about who he really was. In their first conversation when leaving the hospital, Dean said that he didn't want to keep the truth from Sam and "Zeke" immediately said that if Sam didn't agree with him healing him from the inside, and cast him out, that Sam would die. "Zeke" then offered to wipe away memories of the hospital from Sam. As the episodes continue, every time Dean questions the length of time it's taking to make Sam better, "Zeke" tells him it's just a little while longer. He also doesn't want anything to do with other angels because he knows that they would not recognize him as "Zeke". Gadreel constantly manipulates Dean every time Dean wants to let Sam know what's going on. On one occasion, as Dean starts to say something to Sam, "Zeke" immediately emerges and warns Dean against saying anything. As soon as Cas calls with the information that Ezekiel died in the fall, Dean is panicked and asks Kevin to find a spell so that he can speak to Sam without Gadreel knowing. Of course, it is all too late and the consequences are dire when Gadreel kills Kevin.

IMO, none of that matters.  What matters is Dean said "He'll never say yes."  So, he knew it was against Sam's will.  And, if you want to take the position that Sam wasn't in a position to make the choice at that point, fine.  But, then later, the only reason Gadreel gave Dean that he couldn't tell SAm was because Sam would evict him.  Gadreel didn't threaten to kill him himself, or threaten to take him on a joyride.  Or anything else.  He threatened that Sam would (may) make a decision Dean didn't like. That was it.

[FlickChick]

4 minutes ago, Katy M said:

IMO, none of that matters.  What matters is Dean said "He'll never say yes."  So, he knew it was against Sam's will.  And, if you want to take the position that Sam wasn't in a position to make the choice at that point, fine.  But, then later, the only reason Gadreel gave Dean that he couldn't tell SAm was because Sam would evict him.  Gadreel didn't threaten to kill him himself, or threaten to take him on a joyride.  Or anything else.  He threatened that Sam would (may) make a decision Dean didn't like. That was it.

And according to Gadreel, the decision to evict him would end in Sam's death. It isn't a matter of Dean not liking the decision, it's a matter of Dean not being able to allow that to happen, because he can NEVER let Sam die if something is available to prevent it. I believe I mentioned that above.

[gonzosgirrl]

44 minutes ago, Katy M said:

IMO, none of that matters.  What matters is Dean said "He'll never say yes."  So, he knew it was against Sam's will.  And, if you want to take the position that Sam wasn't in a position to make the choice at that point, fine.  But, then later, the only reason Gadreel gave Dean that he couldn't tell SAm was because Sam would evict him.  Gadreel didn't threaten to kill him himself, or threaten to take him on a joyride.  Or anything else.  He threatened that Sam would (may) make a decision Dean didn't like. That was it.

I think Dean absolutely did the right thing saving Sam from imminent death by any means possible, given the information he had on hand: Sam's assertion that he should do the trials because he saw the light at the end of the tunnel; his choice to live in the church; reassurance from Castiel that Ezekiel was one of the good guys. That doesn't even take into account Dean's prime directive to save and protect his brother. And the bottom line is, tricked or not, Sam again chose to live.

Dean's 'crime' was in not telling Sam the truth the moment he was conscious again, walking out of that hospital on his own two legs, ostensibly healed. Then, if Sam, given the same assurance Dean had that Zeke was good, that he would vamoose the moment Sam was better, still chose to die, it would've been his decision to make. 

There is nothing in this show that makes me wish harder for a time travel episode in which that happens, because I am 100000% certain Sam would not choose that. IMO that whole ready to die speech that came later was utter BS. I wish some angel had zapped them back to that moment and made him see that. 

So yeah , Dean should've apologized for the lie, but not for saving someone that told him he wanted to live. 

Edited April 26, 2018 by gonzosgirrl

[Res]

1 hour ago, gonzosgirrl said:

I think Dean absolutely did the right thing saving Sam from imminent death by any means possible, given the information he had on hand: Sam's assertion that he should do the trials because he saw the light at the end of the tunnel; his choice to live in the church; reassurance from Castiel that Ezekiel was one of the good guys. That doesn't even take into account Dean's prime directive to save and protect his brother. And the bottom line is, tricked or not, Sam again chose to live.

Dean's 'crime' was in not telling Sam the truth the moment he was conscious again, walking out of that hospital on his own two legs, ostensibly healed. Then, if Sam, given the same assurance Dean had that Zeke was good, that he would vamoose the moment Sam was better, still chose to die, it would've been his decision to make. 

There is nothing in this show that makes me wish harder for a time travel episode in which that happens, because I am 100000% certain Sam would not choose that. IMO that whole ready to die speech that came later was utter BS. I wish some angel had zapped them back to that moment and made him see that. 

So yeah , Dean should've apologized for the lie, but not for saving someone that told him he wanted to live. 

I remember screaming at the TV at the time to let Sam die repeatedly because I KNEW all this would come of writers once again writing themselves into a corner for major wangst that they always call "drama". 

 

I still adamantly wish that they would let each other die already and have the writers figure out how to be creative for a friggin' change instead of sacrificing character/the world. I don't care who dies. Let them stay dead already. Hell, the brothers and Cas should know by now that the dead one will come back sooner or later anyway. Sheesh!

[AwesomO4000]

59 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

I think Dean absolutely did the right thing saving Sam from imminent death by any means possible, given the information he had on hand: Sam's assertion that he should do the trials because he saw the light at the end of the tunnel; his choice to live in the church; reassurance from Castiel that Ezekiel was one of the good guys. That doesn't even take into account Dean's prime directive to save and protect his brother. And the bottom line is, tricked or not, Sam again chose to live.

Dean's 'crime' was in not telling Sam the truth the moment he was conscious again, walking out of that hospital on his own two legs, ostensibly healed. Then, if Sam, given the same assurance Dean had that Zeke was good, that he would vamoose the moment Sam was better, still chose to die, it would've been his decision to make. 

There is nothing in this show that makes me wish harder for a time travel episode in which that happens, because I am 100000% certain Sam would not choose that. IMO that whole ready to die speech that came later was utter BS. I wish some angel had zapped them back to that moment and made him see that. 

So yeah , Dean should've apologized for the lie, but not for saving someone that told him he wanted to live. 

This. This exactly.

And this is why season 9 gets my goat. In order to up the "drama" and force some kind of comparison between Dean choosing to save Sam and Sam later choosing to save Dean, the writers pretty much buried the part about Dean lying and not letting Sam choose to agree. That way when Sam chose to save Dean and lied about the means to doing it, it was painted as so much worse.

However, for me, what it really all comes down to is that - with small variations - Dean did things he knew Sam wouldn't want (by not telling him about Gadreel after he was conscious and able to understand the choice) and lied about it, because he wanted to save Sam, and Sam did things he knew Dean wouldn't want (by using the Book of the Damned) and lied about it, because he wanted to save Dean. For me that's a relatively simple comparison and I sympathized with both of them. My beef isn't with either brother and what they did... that all made sense character-wise to me. My beef was with the writers and how they presented these decisions.

For all of the drama the writers started with with Dean lying to Sam, Sam's mental state, etc. by the middle of the season, it was twisted into "I was ready to die" - which as you said, @gonzosgirrl, WTF? - that wasn't even the first complaint Sam had when he found out about Gadreel. His first complaint was "you lied to me!" But the writers couldn't have that emphasized because then Sam couldn't make a speech about how he wouldn't save Dean if the same situation arose so that Sam could be proven wrong at the end of the season. And the writers further downplayed the lying part and the toll it took on Sam with the - to me - BS of Gadreel just being "misunderstood," "not meaning any real harm," and being a "real friend." (That pissed me off).

Fast forward to season 10... now Sam is trying to save Dean. And there's lying involved also, but in this case, the writers make sure this is pointed out at almost every possible chance... along with "maybe you shouldn't do this Sam." And of course when Sam does it, he starts an apocalypse, just so that the writers can let us know just how awful Sam was for doing something Dean didn't want to save him and lying about it.

And that's what I had the problem with. What looked to me to be the writers bias here. Message 1 - Yes, Dean saved Sam and lied, but look Sam would do the same thing, and Gadreel? So he killed Kevin and a couple of angels. He was just confused. He's really not that bad, and after thinking about it, even Sam agrees! And look - he helped save the world! It doesn't matter that it was a risky thing to do letting Gadreel stay so long without informing anyone else*** Because no problem, it all turned out fine!

Message 2: Sam went behind Dean's back and used the Book of the Damned because he wanted to save Dean from the mark. How dare he?!? And he was told it was dangerous, so look he started an apocalypse!!! What do you mean but Dean just killed Death to save Sam and that's a risky thing to do also? That's not important... Sam lied to Dean!!! Did you not get hit by all of the anvils we dropped about that point?

For me the punishment didn't fit the crime in Sam's case.

*** Dean letting Gadreel have free reign of the knowledge in Sam's head and the bunker full of potentially dangerous stuff and not keeping better tabs on him? I don't care if Castiel vouched for him - dangerous move, in my opinion.

Quote

There is nothing in this show that makes me wish harder for a time travel episode in which that happens, because I am 100000% certain Sam would not choose that. IMO that whole ready to die speech that came later was utter BS. I wish some angel had zapped them back to that moment and made him see that. 

Actually though, that might have been crueler for Dean. Because if they had both seen that Sam would have agreed, then all of Dean's lying wouldn't have been necessary and made it even more tragic that Kevin had died. Which in my opinion, is exactly why the writers didn't want to emphasize that part later on. The writers figured out that they'd written themselves into a corner with the lying and not giving Sam a choice later whether or not he wanted to live. But if they made it mainly about the original choice, it would be easier to show Sam the "error of his ways" later on when Sam would do the same thing to save Dean.

[AwesomO4000]

3 hours ago, FlickChick said:

And although I'm quoting Awesom, this is in no way critical of your interpretation, because we are all entitled to our individual views.

No offense taken. I don't even disagree with you all that much, so I apologize if it appeared that that was my focus. Really the only thing I might disagree with is that Dean was so much at Gadreel's mercy... I think Dean is smart and resourceful and could have found a way around that. But as you pointed out, he wouldn't really want to, because his goal was to save Sam... which is understandable.

I don't even think that Dean originally helping Gadreel was wrong - quite the opposite - it was just the aftermath. But even saying that, I get why Dean did it. My beef isn't with that. My complaint is that I also get why Sam saved Dean in season 10. So why - in my opinion - is Sam slammed with starting an apocalypse, complete with a God himself slamdown? Dean killing Death at almost the exact same time with no consequences was, for me, the writers just rubbing my face in it.

So pretty much - as I described above - I don't fault Dean any more than I fault Sam. They both screwed up for entirely - to me - understandable reasons.

My problem was with how the writers portrayed the scenarios and their - to me - apparent bias as they did it. For me Sam lying to Dean was pretty similar to Dean lying to Sam. Both did it, because they thought their brother finding out the truth would mean that they couldn't save their brother. So why was Sam given a huge story arc smackdown for the same crime? That didn't seem fair to me.

And if the goal was to correct for am being given an excuse and "redeem" him - as I was responding to above - why would the writers create a similar scenario for Dean that would seem to contradict that?

[Katy M]

3 hours ago, FlickChick said:

And according to Gadreel, the decision to evict him would end in Sam's death. It isn't a matter of Dean not liking the decision, it's a matter of Dean not being able to allow that to happen, because he can NEVER let Sam die if something is available to prevent it. I believe I mentioned that above.

No, it's a matter of usurping someone else's free will.

 

2 hours ago, gonzosgirrl said:

Dean's 'crime' was in not telling Sam the truth the moment he was conscious again, walking out of that hospital on his own two legs, ostensibly healed. Then, if Sam, given the same assurance Dean had that Zeke was good, that he would vamoose the moment Sam was better, still chose to die, it would've been his decision to make. 

Yes, that was my main point. I disagree with him doing it in the first place, but I understand and don't really consider that to be the unpardonable (well, not really unpardonable, I've forgiven him) sin that I do that he lied to him for months afterward.  

[gonzosgirrl]

2 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:

My problem was with how the writers portrayed the scenarios and their - to me - apparent bias as they did it. For me Sam lying to Dean was pretty similar to Dean lying to Sam. Both did it, because they thought their brother finding out the truth would mean that they couldn't save their brother. So why was Sam given a huge story arc smackdown for the same crime? That didn't seem fair to me.

For me, the difference between Dean lying about Gadreel and Sam lying about using the book, is that Dean specifically asked Sam not to use the book. Not some vague, off-screen 'promise' to let the other one go *coughcoughPurgatorycough*, or coma-scape conversations, but explicitly and repeatedly asked him not to do it.

Dean's was mostly a lie of omission. Sam outright lied about destroying the book and then continued to go behind Dean's back. So did Castiel. Like you, I don't think it was wrong of Sam to save his brother, but he shouldn't have lied. He did it because he believed Dean would say no, just like Dean believed Sam would say no to being possessed by an angel. You say Sam was given a smackdown, yet Sam's actions in S10 were seen as redemption, while Dean was accused of 'raping' his brother by fans, and told his life's work was both meaningless and selfish by Sam himself. Obviously, miles vary, but I think Dean has gotten the sharp, dirty end of the stick more often by the show.

Edited April 27, 2018 by gonzosgirrl

[DeeDee79]

18 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

For me, the difference between Dean lying about Gadreel and Sam lying about using the book, is that Dean specifically asked Sam not to use the book. Not some vague, off-screen 'promise' to let the other one go *coughcoughPurgatorycough*, or coma-scape conversations, but explicitly and repeatedly asked him not to do it.

Dean's was mostly a lie of omission. Sam outright lied about destroying the book and then continued to go behind Dean's back. So did Castiel. Like you, I don't think it was wrong of Sam to save his brother, but he shouldn't have lied. He did it because he believed Dean would say no, just like Dean believed Sam would say no to being possessed by an angel. You say Sam was given a smackdown, yet Sam's actions in S10 were seen as redemption, while Dean was accused of 'raping' his brother by fans, and told his life's work was both meaningless and selfish by Sam himself. Obviously, miles vary, but I think Dean has gotten the sharp, dirty end of the stick more often by the show.

So much this. Sam didn't look for Dean when he was in Purgatory but most of the takeaway by fandom is that fact that Dean had the audacity to have a vampire ( who was pretty damn awesome ) as a buddy and the *gasp!* fake text message from Amelia. Not to mention that I'm sickened every time the Gadreel incident is compared to rape ( for personal reasons ) but the fact that Dean ( and Cas after realizing how awful the book was ) urged him not to use it is mostly glossed over by fandom. 

[Myrelle]

2 hours ago, DeeDee79 said:

So much this. Sam didn't look for Dean when he was in Purgatory but most of the takeaway by fandom is that fact that Dean had the audacity to have a vampire ( who was pretty damn awesome ) as a buddy and the *gasp!* fake text message from Amelia. Not to mention that I'm sickened every time the Gadreel incident is compared to rape ( for personal reasons ) but the fact that Dean ( and Cas after realizing how awful the book was ) urged him not to use it is mostly glossed over by fandom. 

This. All of it. So much.

And if Dean is still now being held accountable for not apologizing to Sam for lying in S9, then I want a specific apology from Sam for lying to Dean for pretty much the entirety of S3 and 4 because that lame ass excuse of an apology for "everything" in S5 still doesn't even halfway cut it for me. So if the S3 and 4 nonsense was never revisited why should anything that happened in S9 or 10 be? That's the kind of "balance" that these writers go for AFAIC, so no one will ever convince me that Dean should have to or needs to or needed to or should even attempt to apologize(again) for anything that happened in S8-10.

SPNverse balance has already been well achieved in that regard, IMO.

Edited April 27, 2018 by Myrelle

[AwesomO4000]

3 hours ago, gonzosgirrl said:

For me, the difference between Dean lying about Gadreel and Sam lying about using the book, is that Dean specifically asked Sam not to do it. Not some vague, off-screen 'promise' to let the other one go *coughcoughPurgatorycough*, but explicitly and repeatedly asked him not to do it.

Dean's was mostly a lie of omission. Sam outright lied about destroying the book and then continued to go behind Dean's back.

But for me, Dean outright lied also... many times. Sam would ask about things being wrong with him, losing time, not feeling right, even wondering if he was going bad again, and Dean would tell him "it's just leftover stuff from the trials" and "you just need to heal." Those were more like lies than omissions to me.

As I said, I agree that Dean saving Sam was right, no problem, so I'm not taking about the "promise" (that was the writers who chose to drop the original lying part and focus on that). I'm talking about the lying afterwards that I considered the real lie. Dean knew how awful it was for Sam to be possessed by Meg and he knew how awful it was for Sam to not know what was real and what wasn't when Sam was having Lucifer hallucinations. So when Sam is suffering with losing time and thinking he's going crazy, there is nothing "vague" in my opinion about Dean's actions in letting Sam continue suffering that way by just blowing it off as Sam worrying over nothing - especially when Dean knows exactly what is causing Sam that concern. Knowing that Gadreel is wiping Sam's memories and not being horrified by that was just as bad. For me, that was an active choice and not at all just something vague or a lie of omission.

And in a rare less sympathetic moment for Dean that kind of showed me how much Dean justified his lies about this was when Sam is upset about remembering his hands killing Kevin - awful since he'd had to go through it with Meg (and also Lucifer) - Dean just said that's not on you it's on me... Yeah okay, but not what Sam needs to hear right then, Dean. Granted Dean hasn't been possessed, so he can't know, but still - not about you for just a moment. And I was struck by that, because normally Dean is more sympathetic than that. I was thinking "Wow, Dean really doesn't get how awful that possession was for Sam." And I was thinking "okay, this is good, we're going to go somewhere with this." Silly me, what was I thinking? All of that was dropped a couple of episodes later to set up "well, I wouldn't save you against your wishes if you were ready to die" - which I knew right away was a set up for Sam to be wrong and that everything else would be dropped - which it was.

I think a lot of fans likely don't even remember what Sam went through in the early part of season 9. The writers surely didn't with Gadreel the "real friend."

3 hours ago, gonzosgirrl said:

You say Sam was given a smackdown, yet Sam's actions in S10 were seen as redemption, while Dean was accused of 'raping' his brother by fans, and told his life's work was both meaningless and selfish by Sam himself. Obviously, miles vary, but I think Dean has gotten the sharp, dirty end of the stick more often by the show.

Okay - I know this is long, but I hope you'll hear me out, because the explanation is important to my reasoning. Okay, here we go.

I get that what fans say can be frustrating and hurtful, and I don't want to dismiss your legitimate gripes about that, but I'm not talking about fans here - I'm talking about writers. If Sam's actions in season 10 were supposed to be seen as redemption by the writers, why would they have it cause an apocalypse - making sure a few 1000 people being killed got mentioned (despite not being needed for the plot) - and then have God himself say that Sam was the problem because he had the nerve to save Dean... that it was all Sam's fault? That's not "redemption" from the writers in my mind, that's a smackdown in the show canon... from that universe's God / mouthpiece.

Now I agree, the writers did have Sam question Dean's life choices in an angry rant... but at the same time, they set Sam up to be a complete hypocrite and liar, so I'm not sure how much stock I was supposed to put into what they had Sam say there. If the writers had really wanted to question Dean's actions, they could have had Sam emphasize the lying and how awful Gadreel was and the pain and anxiety he caused Sam. Heck if the writers wanted that "The Purge" speech to actually mean something criticizing Dean, all they had to do was have Sam not be lying and actually get to keep his integrity. Have Sam hold Dean in the finale and be devastated but be ready to let him go just like Sam said - it's not like Dean wasn't going to become a demon anyway - but I don't think that was ever the writer's intention to begin with. The writers' point, in my opinion, was to show Sam was wrong for questioning Dean's saving of him and questioning Dean's methods in that speech... not Dean for saving him, so that's why they had Sam "see the light" after being put in the same position. And they had set that all up with the "The Purge" speech. It showed Sam being unnecessarily harsh and then learning the hard truth when it happened to him (which really was kind of stupid in my opinion... if Carver had remembered, Sam was well aware of what it was like to want to save his brother... and had previously considered and done all sorts of questionable things to do so. It was the main point of one of Carver's own episodes ("Mystery Spot"), for crying out loud. It's not like Sam would have forgotten that. The whole thing was just to set Sam up as a jerk and wrong, in my opinion.)

That's why I see that "The Purge" speech differently than you. Looking at the way the arc went, everything in the second half more pointed towards the writers thinking what Dean did was right. Sam would do the same thing (he immediately called Crowley), Gadreel was "misunderstood" and was redeemed, the lying and Sam's anxiety was retconned ("no I don't feel like he [Gadreel] had been trying to hurt me" - Me: "Bullshit. He threatened to kill you to Dean. Don't you remember that now? WtH?"), and maybe most insulting, Gadreel had a bigger part in stopping Metatron than Sam. Really? And just in case we lamented Kevin's death as awful, the writers brought him back as a ghost and reunited him with his mother. See no harm done! And look at it this way, if Kevin wasn't a ghost, his mom wouldn't have been saved! Good thing Kevin was a ghost! Me: really? How much more "Dean did the right thing and Sam was a jerk for not seeing it earlier" could that arc have gotten in the second half of the season?

Now truthfully, at the time, I didn't see this as that bad... Granted Sam being a hypocrite and Gadreel being deemed a "true friend" and getting to help save the day pissed me off, but okay, so the writers are actually cool with this kind of decision, I get it. But after season 10 and Sam saving Dean causing an apocalypse, I was retroactively livid at the lopsidedness of the writers response. Well actually during season 10, because I saw Sam causing an apocalypse a mile (at least 6 episodes) away.

So I guess that's why I don't see Dean as getting the short end of the stick with the writers***. It basically boils down to Dean's decision to save Sam via questionable methods leads to a dead, but ghost-who-saved-his-mom Kevin and a redeemed misunderstood angel who helped stop a potential apocalypse while Sam saving Dean via questionable methods leads to an apocalypse and a couple 1000 dead people. Sam recklessly drinking demon blood and using its power (understandably) leads to an apocalypse Sam had to fix by spending 150+ years with Lucifer. Dean recklessly taking the Mark of Cain and using its power (less understandably, in my opinion) just leads to him killing a big bad and a short stint being a demon which God said was nothing to worry about (silly Sam for worrying).

*** At least on the big things. I admit that sometimes Dean's feeling are dismissed more often than Sam's tend to be - although writers conveniently dismiss both if it suits their plot - but when it comes to who is going to be set up to take the major blame or fall for something plot-wise, I generally think Sam (and also Castiel) gets the short end of that stick. They both have starting two apocalypses to their name to prove it.

3 hours ago, DeeDee79 said:

So much this. Sam didn't look for Dean when he was in Purgatory but most of the takeaway by fandom is that fact that Dean had the audacity to have a vampire ( who was pretty damn awesome ) as a buddy and the *gasp!* fake text message from Amelia.

I'm not sure which part of fandom you are referring to, but on the board I was on in season 8, a very vocal and significant faction of the fandom was mostly concerned with posting about the many ways Sam should die so that Dean could go hunting with Benny. I recall seeing a post here and there complaining about Dean's posting the text message, but a much larger majority mostly praised him for the resourcefulness of it in saving potentially both Benny and Sam. And this was a major fan site with 100s of posters in the Supernatural section.

And my problem with Benny was less with Benny himself, but with the writers' propping of him... so much so that they tried to even make Dean look like a jerk to the character. It was bad enough changing Sam's behavior from his usual give the monsters a chance stance to make Benny look good, but having Dean appearing to be crappy to Benny made no sense to me except to garner sympathy for Benny and make him look better in comparison... which not cool, in my opinion. Don't show me a Dean who all year in purgatory was loyal to both Castiel and Benny, as is to be expected with Dean, because Dean is loyal - and then want me to buy that he's being crappy and disloyal to Benny. I'm going to balk at that.

59 minutes ago, Myrelle said:

And if Dean is still now being held accountable for not apologizing to Sam for lying in S9, then I want a specific apology from Sam for lying to Dean for pretty much the entirety of S3 and 4 because that lame ass excuse of an apology for "everything" in S5 still doesn't even halfway cut it for me. So if the S3 and 4 nonsense was never revisited why should anything that happened in S9 or 10 be? That's the kind of "balance" that these writers go for AFAIC, so no one will ever convince me that Dean should have have to or needs to or needed to or should even attempt to apologize(again) for anything that happened in S8-10.

SPNverse balance has already been well achieved in that regard, IMO.

I don't care about an apology from Dean, and I never said he had to or I expected it. My only point when I said Dean didn't apologize is that if that's okay with the show - which I'm good with, because based on what I saw as the show's philosophy, Dean was right so that makes perfect sense - then why would Sam have to apologize, and the show make such a big deal out of it. I was refuting the argument that Sam was only redeemed because he apologized in season 11. My point was why does that make any sense for the show to do when Dean didn't apologize... would that mean that the show considers that Dean isn't "redeemed" like Sam is?

And my conclusion - and yes, I understand that I'm wordy but the points I'm trying to make are somewhat nebulous, so I apologize - was that that doesn't make sense so Sam apologizing was not necessary for a Sam redemption, and so I disagreed with the entire premise of the poster I was answering.

That's it... It wasn't a slam on Dean not apologizing or anything else. It was a comment on symmetry that I couldn't reconcile that one brother's entire redemption relied on apologizing and learning humility (again) when a parallel arc showed that wasn't necessary for the other brother... and within the same time period. There was also a separate issue about powers being an "excuse" tied in with the redemption which again was in opposition to what was being show for the other brother.

So bottom line, I was disagreeing with the premise that season 8-11 was all about Sam's "redemption" when - to me - that made no sense, based on everything else within those seasons. Apologizing just happened to be an integral part of my explaining why I found the premise to be faulty - in my opinion.

I agree with you that that's balanced between the brothers in terms of not needing to apologize to one another - no doubt.

It's the consequences for actions the characters get (from the show/writers) that I find unbalanced which I explained above and to which I understand that opinions vary from mine and are also legitimate.

Edited April 27, 2018 by AwesomO4000

[Myrelle]

6 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:

As I said, I agree that Dean saving Sam was right, no problem, so I'm not taking about the "promise" (that was the writers who chose to drop the original lying part and focus on that). I'm talking about the lying afterwards that I considered the real lie. Dean knew how awful it was for Sam to be possessed by Meg and he knew how awful it was for Sam to not know what was real and what wasn't when Sam was having Lucifer hallucinations. So when Sam is suffering with losing time and thinking he's going crazy, there is nothing "vague" in my opinion about Dean's actions in letting Sam continue suffering that way by just blowing it off as Sam worrying over nothing - especially when Dean knows exactly what is causing Sam that concern. Knowing that Gadreel is wiping Sam's memories and not being horrified by that was just as bad. For me, that was an active choice and not at all just something vague or a lie of omission.

And in a rare less sympathetic moment for Dean that kind of showed me how much Dean justified his lies about this was when Sam is upset about remembering his hands killing Kevin - awful since he'd had to go through it with Meg (and also Lucifer) - Dean just said that's not on you it's on me... Yeah okay, but not what Sam needs to hear right then, Dean. Granted Dean hasn't been possessed, so he can't know, but still - not about you for just a moment. And I was struck by that, because normally Dean is more sympathetic than that. I was thinking "Wow, Dean really doesn't get how awful that possession was for Sam." And I was thinking "okay, this is good, we're going to go somewhere with this." Silly me, what was I thinking? All of that was dropped a couple of episodes later to set up "well, I wouldn't save you against your wishes if you were ready to die" - which I knew right away was a set up for Sam to be wrong and that everything else would be dropped - which it was.

I could make arguments that Sam did something very similar to Dean in much of s3 and s4(and in s4 Dean had just returned from hell and Sam knew this and still continued to canoodle with his demon girlfriend behind Dean's back and I didn't see this as a "rare" less sympathetic moment for Sam, at that point in the story(S4), and just like you, I thought the same thing(and I remember feeling this way especially after the siren episode) "okay, this is good, we're going somewhere with this." But silly me, too! And yup, everything dropped one! episode later and while they apparently tried to redeem Sam in S5, I don't think Sam ever really and truly realized how much he'd hurt Dean during S3 and 4, so from the writing standpoint, I guess they just decided to use their brand of "balance" by trying to tear Dean down in a similar way to how they did it with Sam via the Gadreel business so that maybe Sam would THEN understand how much he'd hurt Dean(in s4 especially) about not considering his brother's feelings enough after he'd just gone through something horrible.

And I know that some feel that Sam paid his dues in S5, but IMO, much was glossed over within the brother's relationship and Sam's "regret" at the unnamed things he'd done and said to Dean simply just didn't shake out as real regret, but more as indignation that Dean wasn't forgiving him fast enough this time. It was like Sam didn't even hear Dean when Dean told him that their relationship could never be the same in the S5 premiere. And notice how that speech was written-Dean didn't attack Sam personally or his life's work, he just pretty much stuck to the most specific thing he had a problem with as his reasoning for the lost trust. Compare this with the Purge speech-that the writers of that episode named "hard truths" that needed to be said-and that no few Sam fans that I knew at the time completely agreed with-well, you could say that at least Sam got his licks in(and then some!) but good with regard to the "wrong" that he felt Dean had done to him, while Dean was given no such thing.

And Sam has never apologized for one thing that came out of that Purge speech either because "I lied." is simply not an apology in my book-not for that speech-not by a long shot. But this is old ground again, so...

At this point, I think that the writers feel that the "hurting contest" between the brothers is pretty much balanced to their liking. But it will likely never feel balanced to any fan who claims a favorite brother and it's easy to perpetuate the contest by saying but what *name your less like character* did was just so much worse than what your *name your favorite* did.

I think that at this point in the series, if you have a favorite brother, it's because you identify with that one more and with the character traits that have remained  predominantly constant with them through the years-both the good and the bad traits-and this, even while Dabb, under his tenure, has tried his best through the writing to undermine those traits in some way or exaggerate them to the nth degree or pretty much even ignore those traits(in either character) for stretches at a time.

Edited April 27, 2018 by Myrelle

[ILoveReading]

IMO,

Sam's speech in this episode shows how little he understands Dean.  "We die together."  Really Sam have you met your brother?

Since Dean was 4 years old he's had it drilled into his head that Sam is the important one and that he's responsible for Sam's well being.   In Dean's world something happening to Sam on his watch was a punishable offense.

Does Sam really think that Dean is going to let that happen?  That Dean will just let Sam die alongside him? 

Now, I'm not saying its a good thing, because im not a fan of the toxic codependency but IMO, if Dean thinks Sam is okay with dying he'll fight harder to make sure he doesn't.

[companionenvy]

On the other hand, Dean canonically let Sam sacrifice himself in Swan Song, and as recently as last year's finale he let Sam go off and lead a highly dangerous charge against the BMOL while he stayed behind. This was presented as an act of maturation, in which Dean accepted that Sam could stand on his own. 

It isn't that Sam doesn't understand, IMO. It is that he is banking on Dean being able to recognize -- as he has been able to do at certain points in the past -- that there are scenarios in which "save Sam," is not a viable option. He is also reminding him that at the end of the day, they are partners in this and that any risk should be shared.

I don't blame Dean for still trying to assume the bulk of the risk, but nor do I blame Sam - or consider him delusional, or out of touch with Dean's nature- for trying to tamp down that impulse as much as possible. Because, as I said, there actually are times in the past where Dean has allowed Sam to put himself at risk even in spite of his personal prime directive. 

[Aeryn13]

The phrasing Sam used annoyed me here. It`s not on Dean to "put" Sam anywhere. When Dean went through the rift, they did discuss it, albeit briefly but rightly or wrongly, Sam accepted the outcome. He didn`t follow Dean through the rift later either. Which, noone was truly stopping him from.  

I get that Sam regrets that decision but that is his beef. This just goes more into the "you have to let me grow up" territory. Which is ironically to me the demand of a child that wants more space and autonomy from their parents. 

It would have been better if Sam had said something like "yeah, we discussed this and I was wrong to back down, I`m not gonna do that anymore". That makes it clear that he is gonna change his behaviour and choices as an adult.

But I also cringed at Dean giving the "I never really cared for myself as long as my beautiful codependency lives on" speech. Dude, you`ve boarded the train to Patheticville and it`s not a happy ride. Get off while you can. 

And the vengeance parallels in the last episode were really stupid and nonsensical. Sam suddenly wants vengeance like never before on Lucifer - and him, Dean and the show acts like he has never, ever, ever sought revenge before. Or achieved it. Conversely they act like Dean did, just like John so Sam should know it solely from their example. Are you fucking kidding me? It`s Season 13, noone, including Sam, is as pure as the freshly driven snow. 

Dean had moments of wanting revenge but it hasn`t really a super-big character arc for him over the show. Meanwhile Sam started out the show because of revenge. He knows what that`s like. He doesn`t need a written essay by Gabriel to weigh the pros and cons of his very first sweet 16 vengeance party. 

[ILoveReading]

11 minutes ago, Aeryn13 said:

The phrasing Sam used annoyed me here. It`s not on Dean to "put" Sam anywhere. When Dean went through the rift, they did discuss it, albeit briefly but rightly or wrongly, Sam accepted the outcome. He didn`t follow Dean through the rift later either. Which, noone was truly stopping him from.  

I get that Sam regrets that decision but that is his beef. This just goes more into the "you have to let me grow up" territory. Which is ironically to me the demand of a child that wants more space and autonomy from their parents. 

It would have been better if Sam had said something like "yeah, we discussed this and I was wrong to back down, I`m not gonna do that anymore". That makes it clear that he is gonna change his behaviour and choices as an adult.

But I also cringed at Dean giving the "I never really cared for myself as long as my beautiful codependency lives on" speech. Dude, you`ve boarded the train to Patheticville and it`s not a happy ride. Get off while you can. 

And the vengeance parallels in the last episode were really stupid and nonsensical. Sam suddenly wants vengeance like never before on Lucifer - and him, Dean and the show acts like he has never, ever, ever sought revenge before. Or achieved it. Conversely they act like Dean did, just like John so Sam should know it solely from their example. Are you fucking kidding me? It`s Season 13, noone, including Sam, is as pure as the freshly driven snow. 

Dean had moments of wanting revenge but it hasn`t really a super-big character arc for him over the show. Meanwhile Sam started out the show because of revenge. He knows what that`s like. He doesn`t need a written essay by Gabriel to weigh the pros and cons of his very first sweet 16 vengeance party. 

Its like the writers are only writing from when Dabb took over and pretending the previous 11 seasons didn't exist.

[Myrelle]

1 hour ago, ILoveReading said:

Its like the writers are only writing from when Dabb took over and pretending the previous 11 seasons didn't exist.

They JUST finished S11 on TNT and as I said in the episode thread, Dean gave the same speech about revenge to Amara in the finale and today we get a tweet from Dabb's assistant calling it awesome character growth in this area in last night's episode for Dean?! I mean he said in S1 and he said it in S11 and he's sadi it numerous times in between. How could they have missed that if they've watched the show in it's entirety?! It boggles the mind.

And don't even get me started on how SAM(of all characters on this show)could be ignorant of it, while Dean refers to only himself and John and what it's done to them. *eyes rolling to the back of my head at that one*

[ILoveReading]

1 minute ago, Myrelle said:

They JUST finished S11 on TNT and as I said in the episode thread, Dean gave the same speech about revenge to Amara in the finale and today we get a tweet from Dabb's assistant calling it awesome character growth in this area in last night's episode for Dean?! I mean he said in S1 and he said it in S11 and he's sadi it numerous times in between. How could they have missed that if they've watched the show in it's entirety?! It boggles the mind.

And don't even get me started on how SAM(of all characters on this show)could be ignorant of it, while Dean refers to only himself and John and what it's done to them. *eyes rolling to the back of my head at that one*

It seems to be part of the writers agenda to force parallels between Dean and John where they don't exist.

[Myrelle]

1 hour ago, Aeryn13 said:

The phrasing Sam used annoyed me here. It`s not on Dean to "put" Sam anywhere. When Dean went through the rift, they did discuss it, albeit briefly but rightly or wrongly, Sam accepted the outcome. He didn`t follow Dean through the rift later either. Which, noone was truly stopping him from.  

I get that Sam regrets that decision but that is his beef. This just goes more into the "you have to let me grow up" territory. Which is ironically to me the demand of a child that wants more space and autonomy from their parents. 

It would have been better if Sam had said something like "yeah, we discussed this and I was wrong to back down, I`m not gonna do that anymore". That makes it clear that he is gonna change his behaviour and choices as an adult.

But I also cringed at Dean giving the "I never really cared for myself as long as my beautiful codependency lives on" speech. Dude, you`ve boarded the train to Patheticville and it`s not a happy ride. Get off while you can. 

And the vengeance parallels in the last episode were really stupid and nonsensical. Sam suddenly wants vengeance like never before on Lucifer - and him, Dean and the show acts like he has never, ever, ever sought revenge before. Or achieved it. Conversely they act like Dean did, just like John so Sam should know it solely from their example. Are you fucking kidding me? It`s Season 13, noone, including Sam, is as pure as the freshly driven snow. 

Dean had moments of wanting revenge but it hasn`t really a super-big character arc for him over the show. Meanwhile Sam started out the show because of revenge. He knows what that`s like. He doesn`t need a written essay by Gabriel to weigh the pros and cons of his very first sweet 16 vengeance party. 

I abhor the bolded parts at this point in the show. Give me a friggin' break, writers. Sheesh... *still eye rolling when I'm just posting about it*...

[AwesomO4000]

3 hours ago, Myrelle said:

I could make arguments that Sam did something very similar to Dean in much of s3 and s4(and in s4 Dean had just returned from hell and Sam knew this and still continued to canoodle with his demon girlfriend behind Dean's back and I didn't see this as a "rare" less sympathetic moment for Sam, at that point in the story(S4), and just like you, I thought the same thing(and I remember feeling this way especially after the siren episode) "okay, this is good, we're going somewhere with this." But silly me, too! And yup, everything dropped one! episode later and while they apparently tried to redeem Sam in S5, I don't think Sam ever really and truly realized how much he'd hurt Dean during S3 and 4, so from the writing standpoint, I guess they just decided to use their brand of "balance" by trying to tear Dean down in a similar way to how they did it with Sam via the Gadreel business so that maybe Sam would THEN understand how much he'd hurt Dean(in s4 especially) about not considering his brother's feelings enough after he'd just gone through something horrible.

And I know that some feel that Sam paid his dues in S5, but IMO, much was glossed over within the brother's relationship and Sam's "regret" at the unnamed things he'd done and said to Dean simply just didn't shake out as real regret, but more as indignation that Dean wasn't forgiving him fast enough this time. It was like Sam didn't even hear Dean when Dean told him that their relationship could never be the same in the S5 premiere. And notice how that speech was written-Dean didn't attack Sam personally or his life's work, he just pretty much stuck to the most specific thing he had a problem with as his reasoning for the lost trust. Compare this with the Purge speech-that the writers of that episode named "hard truths" that needed to be said-and that no few Sam fans that I knew at the time completely agreed with-well, you could say that at least Sam got his licks in(and then some!) but good with regard to the "wrong" that he felt Dean had done to him, while Dean was given no such thing.

And Sam has never apologized for one thing that came out of that Purge speech either because "I lied." is simply not an apology in my book-not for that speech-not by a long shot.

I'm not going to disagree entirely with what you're saying here, (except that I don't really get why Sam wasn't understanding in season 3, since I thought he pretty much was, but okay, you don't, that's fine) although I would like to say in Sam's defense in season 4 that he didn't know that Dean remembered hell in the beginning, so he didn't really know all that Dean was going through at first... and that he'd stopped the demon blood drinking part at least by the 4th episode... before he found out. The siren episode - entirely legitimate. Sam was awful there, no doubt. I also thought that Sam did acknowledge that Dean had a right to be angry quite a few times in season 5. Often only "Fallen Idols" is used as the example, but there were several other episodes where Sam acknowledged why Dean didn't trust him as legitimate, and that Sam understood, but if you don't think those matter, then that is your legitimate opinion. And yes, Dean didn't get personal in the season 5 premier speech, but he did later in the season - he got his licks in then. (So I disagree that Dean wasn't given anything - it may not have been as dramatic as "The Purge," but he got to call Sam angry and self-righteous and imply he was weak-willed, so something anyway.) And the writers had (numerous) other characters point out Sam's failings to take up any slack.

But I guess the main difference for me was that the writers at least gave consequences to Sam's bad behavior with the season 4 finale and later. And those consequences followed him for many seasons. You may not have felt that this was acknowledged enough, but it was at least there. Dean's feelings often were, I agree, downplayed, but Sam's behavior was shown as awful through his raising of Lucifer. This didn't happen with Gadreel. Not only were Sam's feelings about Gadreel dropped, Sam was shown to be wrong about having those feelings, by first twisting them (Sam's complaints about Dean lying were dropped) and then having Sam talk about how "misunderstood" Gadreel was and what a "friend" he was. And on top of that, the consequences were mostly good... so Sam's feelings got screwed and his being treated that way was mostly justified by the narrative, because Gadreel helped save the day. Yay? Imagine if instead of raising Lucifer, Ruby saw the light, got redeemed by helping to defeat Lucifer in season 4, and Dean had to praise Ruby as a "real friend." That would've been ridiculous... but that's pretty much what happened with Gadreel and what they made Sam say about him after everything Gadreel did to him.***

As I said, my main beef isn't with Dean's behavior - I entirely get why he did what he did - or needing him to apologize - I don't. It's with the consequences the way the writers presented them. The "The Purge" speech was harsh - and I as a Sam fan did not agree with it... at all, and saw it for the writer deflection I thought it was - but if it's going to be entirely contradicted by the end of the season, what is even the point? And for the Sam fans you are talking about, you can at least imagine how indignant they were when Dean was proven right about Sam doing the same thing and when Gadreel was redeemed. I know I was pissed... and I thought Sam was wrong in his "The Purge" speech.

*** I'm starting to agree more and more - and I had my own leanings this way already - with @catrox14 that Sam is, and the writers see him, as a masochist, because come on with that... The guy hijacked your body, wiped your memories, and entirely didn't care about how you felt about it. He is not your "friend" in any meaning of the word.... geesh.

[AwesomO4000]

Brought over from the Bitter Spoilers thread. No spoilers:

1 hour ago, Castiels Cat said:

Yep.  Correct on that point. We do not agree. I am coming from it having read a lot of classics.  Kripke obviously did not.

Carver did however, and he did redeem the character in my eyes because he had him go through all of the steps of a classic heroic tragic fall and redemption arc in the correct order and without any supernatural whitewashing to explain away his mistakes.  Bravo in my opinion.  Other fans think far too little to late. They hate Sam.

Sam would apologize sometimes and repeat the sane behavior. Having him chose to trust in Dean in 11 was a pivotal moment because every misstep has been when he mistrusted Dean or did things behind Dean's back.

Unforgiven was in regards to Soulless Sam not in regards to forsakiing Dean in favor of some hubric need to be bigger, better and stronger than his big brother, which was the play Ruby used to lure him in, all the while banging the denoness that suggested virgin sacrifice and smiled whilst his brother was dragged off to Hell.

And i never saw him apologize to Jody who lost her entire family in the most awful manner during the Apocalypse. 

Yet somehow Dean feels guilty about Hendricks and Jo whereas in the same episode Sam shrugs his shoulders because he feels he has paid his price. )_(

Even the lamest comic book hero woukd never feel he had paid his price in those circumstances. Kripke and Gamble did a huge disservice to the character.  At some point Seasons 6-7 should have shown Sam trying to come to terms with the horror of what he had done and committing to hunting.  1) Instead Sam never committed to hunting until season 10 well into Carver's arc.  He did it and whined alot.

There is a reason a lot of fans did not find the character very sympathetic post season 5.  The fault lay in the writing in my opinion.  

So Carver had to do it all again.  Bravo. It worked.   2) I am sure it sucked if you were a big Sam fan because he acted like a jerk and went dark and broke the world again all without the excuse of demon blood or Ruby or grand schemes. And he was far far worse than demon Dean.  But at least he manned up and went through every damn step of a redemption arc and 3) we saw rhe origin of his hubric need to prove himself and be bigger and better and stronger than his big brother in just my imagination and of course the fault lies in John's parenting and the fact that he protected Sam by excluding him which Dean does too a bit sometimes.

4) For me the situation has changed....dramatically changed thankfully. For others it was far too little too late.

1) You keep saying that Sam didn't dedicate himself to hunting until season 10, but that really isn't true. Sam didn't whine about hunting in season 6.5 through 7 (I don't think he did earlier either actually, but whatever). He actually said that he felt lucky to just be having Lucifer visions. And he had dedicated his life to hunting with Dean, choosing to take on his hell memories in order to fight the good fight with him. Sam told Dean many times in those seasons that they keep doing it because they try to help and they can only hope that they do more good than not. It made Sam feel good to help people. It was his reason for keeping somewhat sane in season 7.*** If either brother questioned their hunting during that time it was Dean - see the end of "Mannequin 3" for an example. Sam also could have had Jared Padelecki's life in "The French Mistake" and Dean even said to Sam (paraphrase) "but you wouldn't be all that upset if we couldn't get back." Sam told Dean straight out that Dean was crazy - their friends were back home and he and Dean meant something there - in other words they could do good. Sam was the one who was happy to be back at Bobby's when they returned, knocking on the wall and smiling that it was real and he was home. Dean complained about the moldy wallpaper and the potential termites.

I can agree that "Defending Your Life" was probably not a stellar moment for Sam, (I've only seen that episode once or twice) but one episode doesn't a pattern make in my opinion... And Adam Glass has written only two episodes - imo - that could be considered Sam neutral or positive. Most of his episodes either focus almost exclusively on Dean - usually where Sam learns a very valuable lesson - have Sam be a jerk, or turn Sam into the hugest damsel in distress around, usually in out of character ways, so that the character of the week can save him. He also wrote one of the worst insults to Sam's character on the show, passing it off as "comedy" and using sweet Garth to say it. I'm not a fan of his work and generally skip his episodes during rewatches. (Except "Mommy Dearest" and "About A Boy" which I like a lot... the rest nope.)

*** Sam even got himself into trouble once because he went on a job alone, because Dean couldn't go and Sam didn't want to wait so more people wouldn't die. It was important  to Sam, not something he "whined" about.

2) What sucked was watching Sam act out of character to be a jerk. When in the show before did Sam ever not try to save Dean from death or dying, sometimes going to scary lengths to do so? "Faith," "In My Time of Dying." "Mystery Spot," "Time is on My Side," "No Rest for the Wicked," "I Know What You Did...," "The Curious Case...,"  "Time After Time..." But Carver changed canon with some never before heard "promise" they wouldn't try to save one another just so Dean could snipe "well we've never kept to that before"... Yeah, including Sam! Not saving Kevin was also out of character. Nor was not giving monsters the benefit of the doubt. But then Carver couldn't prop up his own original character Benny - even making Dean behave like a jerk to him to do so also. Nor insisting Dean not have friends. When before did Sam ever object to Dean spending time with Castiel for example - even when Castiel didn't much care about Sam?

If Carver had done a a story arc with Sam actually acting like Sam - using his actual flaws, but leaving him a complex character - with both good and bad traits... fine. But that's not what he did. He took all of Sam's negative characters and magnified them and took away all of his good ones. That to me is bad storytelling. If you have to magnify bad traits to make a character go bad, that's not being true to the character. I wasn't the only fan who watched the first episodes and thought that what we were seeing wasn't even real - that Sam had a beakdown, and this was all in his head. There were a whole bunch of us... and if a bunch of your viewers are actually questioning if what's going on is the actual story, in my opinion, you're doing it wrong.

It also doesn't answer my question as to why only Sam was "redeemed" this way during seasons 8 through 11. You say that Sam needed redemption because he'd apologize and then do the same behavior over again. Well, doesn't this also apply to Dean? Dean repeated what you describe as his reckless character flaw behavior at least 3 times during seasons 1 through 7, to Sam's 1 fall due to hubris. So why wasn't Dean given the "go dark and get redeemed through being sorry" treatment? He got to go dark, get a supernatural power excuse to be a jerk, repeat his character flaw behavior yet again - twice - and still got to be right... multiple times with the same "under the influence" excuse that was supposedly so damaging to Sam's "redemption." How is that fair on the part of Carver?

To me, it more looked like Carver wanted to cause rifts between fans by letting some fans who didn't like Sam get to watch him be made into a jerk to prove they were right all along that Dean was the better brother and then get to gloat when Sam was brought down a bunch of pegs and then pronounce him "better" for it... while at the same time happy that Dean got to do whatever crappy behavior he wanted because he was "under the influence" and then be mostly justified for it.

3) I still don't understand this interpretation of that episode. In my opinion, that episode had nothing to do with Sam's hubris at all. Sam was 9 years old. He wanted to go hunting with his brother and his father to be part of the family, and considered running away because he was lonely and didn't feel like he was needed. How did that have anything to do with wanting to prove he was "better than Dean?" We even saw an older Sam in Dean's memories in "Dark Side..." still looking up to and appreciating his big brother for taking care of him.

4) And for other fans - including me - Carver took two of our favorite characters and ruined them for two seasons by turning two complex characters into  "good brother" / "bad brother" soap opera cliches complete with a stupid "love triangle" and "poor vampire / misunderstood angel with a heart of gold" characters who only needed to be given a chance to be good. *barf*

[Icarus]

2 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:

I wasn't the only fan who watched the first episodes and thought that what we were seeing wasn't even real - that Sam had a beakdown, and this was all in his head. There were a whole bunch of us... and if a bunch of your viewers are actually questioning if what's going on is the actual story, in my opinion, you're doing it wrong.

Although I do struggle with some of how you see Sam (just in my opinion of course) (actually the same can be said of how some people see Dean!) I so agree with this - I still have to mind wipe the whole Sam and Amelia story - really up until the end of the Season I still thought they would somehow show that this was all a dream or something that was not real surely.  Then the whole Benny scenario which almost made me stop watching as I just could not stand how Sam was written, I disliked him so much at that time.  It did teach me however, in the most part, to eye roll past what "I" felt were totally OOC scenes - doesn't always work though!

[Aeryn13]

I think my fan preferences are not mystery on this board, however I don`t see either (and never have) that Seasons 8-11 were a Sam redemption storyline.

Nor do I agree that Sam had never committed to the hunting life before. And even if he hadn`t, it`s not something he would IMO need redemption for. It`s not a sin to NOT want this life. What bugged me in Season 1 especially was how he looked down on it and made remarks about it not being a real life or stuff like that. Let alone acknowledging that in the Supernatural verse, it is both necessary and really heroic to choose to be a hunter and save lifes in a really dangerous vocation. That was a childishly arrogant perception but Season 1 actually had a storyline about character growth there. So, it`s not longer a problem and hasn`t been for a while.

IMO Carver`s real goal when coming to the show in Season 8 was to break the codependency. Which would be a great goal IMO but it gets you pitchforks from a lot of fans and in light of that, he tucked in his tail and ran in the other direction with the Trials. What bugged me about his approach was that he tried to do it at Dean`s expense and make him the bad one for daring to be upset at coming back and being met with "get over it" reaction from Sam. Anyone would be hurt by that and Sam handled it extra-douchey. 

Then in mid-Season 9 Carver again shifted gears and for some inexplicable reason gave Dean a storyline. Pity? Insanity? I was gobsmacked, pleased and terrified every single episode that it would be given to Sam. Maybe I should rewatch this stretch of episodes now, knowing that it actually had a conclusion for Dean.

But nowehere during that line of episodes did I think "Sam`s redemption arc" and especially not for not wanting to hunt previously. 

What Sam needed to be redeemed for in my eyes has always been hubris. I was pleased with Season 4 because despite the character reaching unbearable levels of "I`m better than you", I felt it would only be this bad to go somewhere with it. Then Season 5 happened and the resolution was "Dean needs to change his bossy and controlling ways and Sam really is better because he is the Chosen Messiah, Dean needs to learn his little sidekick place". Miss me, show.    

Gamble didn`t change anything about this set-up of course since IMO she was one of the biggest proponents of it. Carver may have tried and now we have Dabb who is fully onboard with it again.

I`m especially displeased about them harping on Dean being suicidal so much to the point that the show is basically saying he is not heroic and his motivations/goals are never heroic so even if he does something heroic, it should still be regarded as pathetic. Only Sam does big heroic things for heroic reasons. Dean should be looked down upon for it. Urgh.  The "hard truths" of the Purge Speech seems to live on in the hearts and minds of the writers for infinity.

Edited April 28, 2018 by Aeryn13

[AwesomO4000]

17 minutes ago, Aeryn13 said:

I think my fan preferences are not mystery on this board, however I don`t see either (and never have) that Seasons 8-11 were a Sam redemption storyline.

Nor do I agree that Sam had never committed to the hunting life before. And even if he hadn`t, it`s not something he would IMO need redemption for. It`s not a sin to NOT want this life. What bugged me in Season 1 especially was how he looked down on it and made remarks about it not being a real life or stuff like that. Let alone acknowledging that in the Supernatural verse, it is both necessary and really heroic to choose to be a hunter and save lifes in a really dangerous vocation. That was a childishly arrogant perception but Season 1 actually had a storyline about character growth there. So, it`s not longer a problem and hasn`t been for a while.

Okay, good. Now I feel pretty confident that I'm not somehow missing something here. Because on the rare occasions that we agree on something, that's gotta mean something - besides the world coming to an end, that is. ; ) (I kid, I kid).

No really, thank you.

23 minutes ago, Aeryn13 said:

IMO Carver`s real goal when coming to the show in Season 8 was to break the codependency. Which would be a great goal IMO but it gets you pitchforks from a lot of fans and in light of that, he tucked in his tail and ran in the other direction with the Trials. What bugged me about his approach was that he tried to do it at Dean`s expense and make him the bad one for daring to be upset at coming back and being met with "get over it" reaction from Sam. Anyone would be hurt by that and Sam handled it extra-douchey. 

If this was Carver's goal - which I agree was not an awful one - I wonder if it would have been better received if he'd thought it through a little - okay a lot - better? I'm not sure why Carver would think it would be a good idea to not only have his supposed representative for less dependence not only not state a well-reasoned, non-codependent explanation for not trying to find the supposedly co-dependent brother,*** but to also have that supposedly less dependent brother insist the other one get rid of his friend and then not leave if that's what he supposedly wanted to do? Though why I would buy that Sam would give up hunting to become a handyman - I shutter to think of the poor tenants in that place praying that their stuff doesn't break, because I wouldn't even want Sam near my appliances with tools - I have no idea. And why make your supposed poster boy for independence act like independence means you don't give a crap about your responsibilities? That's not what not being codependent means. So not only did Carver's example of non-codependence look like a jerk, so why would we the audience sympathize with that side... but he made him look codependent, so what message was he supposed to be giving me with that? I mean I might be able to accept him messing with Sam's characterization if the message he was trying to convey was worth it... but his message was a mess at best, so what the hell?

You know what would have made so much more sense to me... and I wonder if this was more what Gamble might have had in mind when she sent Dean to purgatory? (I know you don't think her view was what you would want, but I did think Sam and Dean communicated more and were more equal partners under her time - "The Mentalists" was a good example, but anyway...). ...if Dean, after going to purgatory had come back as the less codependent one. Boom - easy way to get the message across. It was all right there considering Dean had to learn to survive there on his own for a while. And it wasn't like Sam hadn't exhibited unhealthy co-dependence before - in Carver's own episodes no less. So Sam saved Kevin, looked for Dean... Carver could've even had Sam have brokered a deal somehow where word got to Benny that helped get Dean back... but when Dean got back, he wasn't so ready to pick up where they left off, because of his experiences in purgatory. And it would've fit with Gamble's closing lines of Sam well and truly being on his own - and alone - and how lost Sam looked. We could've skipped all the annoying muddled Gadreel / Book of the Damned crap and gotten Sam's co-dependent attempt to get Dean back over with right away in season 8. And effects from purgatory could've been why Dean took on the mark of Cain, not some reckless, suicidal mission guilt crap. No muddled, contradictory messages.

If I thought of that scenario, why couldn't Carver?

*** I mean, what would've been so hard about something like "Look Dean, I considered trying to get you back through other means, but I was afraid it might open doors that would be dangerous and cause more of the same problems we always get ourselves into when this happens. I'm sorry you had to go through that." It would take 30 seconds, tops.

[Aeryn13]

Quote

If this was Carver's goal - which I agree was not an awful one - I wonder if it would have been better received if he'd thought it through a little - okay a lot - better?

I really have no idea, it was atrociously conceptionalized and written for what I think was its purpose. 

Your idea of Dean being less codependent after Purgatory is actually very interesting to me. Unfortunately they dropped how Purgatory was for Dean after episode 2 of Season 8 and it wholly became the mystery of "what happened with Cas?" I wanted them to really explore and dig in with how Purgatory might have changed Dean. But alas, it`s like his hell now. A "don`t ask, don`t tell" scenario.

It doesn`t overly surprise me, though, that Carver`s goal, the writing for it and the reaction to it were so far apart. The Comic Con before Season 8 told me everything I needed to know on what the writers intended. Then their writing for it enraged me and drove me in the opposite direction.

It`s not just a Supernatural problem. Arrow this Season is doing a storyline where the writers go on and on about their intentions and then act baffled by fan reaction being what it is. They even make up reasons for why fans don`t sympathize with characters they are writing as dickheads. "But...but...we give them valid points." Noone this side of sanity could come to that conclusion, writers. Wash, rinse, repeat. It`s comical at this point how are off they are in predicting which character pops and who will be sympathetic. In a show about archery, noone has ever missed targets so widely as the writers.  :D 

Stuff like that is why I really do believe when writers go on and on about something being the point of a Season or episode and yet noone really gets that from that Season or episode, it was really just a clever ploy or they meant something else. Nope, tone-deafness in writing is a real thing. 

That`s IMO what happened to Carver. He chose the wrong scenario, he wrote it badly and I have no idea how he and Singer thought this would come off well, particularly with this show that has the codependency build into its tapestry. And then he IMO took the wrong conclusion for it, namely "oh, this is never going to work, I tried". Well, you didn`t try well, you didn`t give it a fair chance with some good writing.     

[Myrelle]

8 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:

To me, it more looked like Carver wanted to cause rifts between fans by letting some fans who didn't like Sam get to watch him be made into a jerk to prove they were right all along that Dean was the better brother and then get to gloat when Sam was brought down a bunch of pegs and then pronounce him "better" for it... while at the same time happy that Dean got to do whatever crappy behavior he wanted because he was "under the influence" and then be mostly justified for it.

I'm not a proponent of 8-11 being a redemptive storyline for Sam either, but if you just change out each brother's name(and change Carver to Kripke) in every instance in this paragraph, that would be exactly how *I* felt about S3-5, so their idea of attempting to "balance" things seemed like it might have worked, if this is truly how you felt about 8-11.

IOW, in hindsight, it appears to me that it was that strange kind of "balance" that they were going for; of course this could all be coincidental too and more due to the on-going crappiness of the altogether overly patterned writing that Kripke wrote the blueprint for and that his predecessors have simply followed(in part or in whole, depending on the showrunner, character biases in that area notwithstanding, as to how each one attempted to execute the blueprint)-and after Kripke left, I think Singer just became the big pusher of the pattern/blueprint because in his mind it made things "easier" for all those involved with the writing. And it does, but it's also an Extremely Lazy approach.

Jensen just this year said in an interview that they're still doing role reversals for the two main characters within the writing of this show because it seems to "work" for them. And in that, I can only assume that his reasoning for thinking that is that the show is still on the air and it still has enough obsessed/die-hard fans who want to keep it going.

Edited April 28, 2018 by Myrelle

[Reganne]

I don't get how people defend Deans right to his feelings and his right to express them in anyway he wants which includes throwing things and shouting which resembles a toddler throwing a temper tantrum but yet they are quick to criticize Sam and his feelings bc he's apparently doing it wrong and acting like a child when he is merely expressing his side.  One line about the kiddie table all of a sudden makes Sam a whiny kid, yet actual temper tantrums are just Dean expressing his feelings which he is allowed to Express.

 

And before anyone accuses me of saying Dean does feelings wrong, I have never complained about Dean's outbursts.  I just don't understand the hypocrisy and think people here are saying Sam does feelings wrong.

Edited April 28, 2018 by Reganne

[ILoveReading]

3 minutes ago, Reganne said:

I don't get how people defend Deans right to his feelings and his right to express them in anyway he wants which includes throwing things and shouting which resembles a toddler throwing a temper tantrum but yet they are quick to criticize Sam and his feelings bc he's apparently doing it wrong and acting like a child when he is merely expressing his side.  One line about the kiddie table all of a sudden makes Sam a whiny kid, yet actual temper tantrums are just Dean expressing his feelings which he is allowed to Express.

 

And before anyone accuses me of saying Dean does feelings wrong, I have never complained about Dean's outbursts.  I just don't understand the hypocrisy and think people here are saying Sam does feelings wrong.

For me the difference is that Dean's outburst was directed at situation not at Sam or Cas, or at least that's how it played to me.   He might not have agreed with Sam giving the grace back but his words were, "then I should never have come back."  He didn't tell Sam "Because of you we'll never get back." 

My issue here is Sam blaming Dean for a choice he made. 

[Aeryn13]

Quote

I don't get how people defend Deans right to his feelings and his right to express them in anyway he wants which includes throwing things and shouting which resembles a toddler throwing a temper tantrum but yet they are quick to criticize Sam and his feelings bc he's apparently doing it wrong and acting like a child when he is merely expressing his side.  One line about the kiddie table all of a sudden makes Sam a whiny kid,

I briefly mentioned this in the episode thread but the problem for me is actually that this is a consistent character trait of Sam`s that drives me nuts. 

Back in the Pilot episode he defended his choice not to share the truth about his life with Jessica. Which, fine. Well, I think, it was wrong but it was his choice. And he got to make it. Then she dies in a Supernatural fashion and he obviously felt guilty and regretted that choice. Then there is the episode where he learns that Dean told a girl the truth in the past 4 years.

And out comes, in a really accusatory way: "for two years I lie to Jessica and you tell some girl?"  

What? What did Dean`s choice to tell have to do with Sam`s choice not to? Noone, not John, not Dean and noone else held a gun to his head and made him do it. 

And this trait has come out over and over again. Sam makes a decision, Sam regrets a decision afterwards and somehow retcons history for himself so he can blame someone else. Usually Dean since Dean is usually around. 

In Season 12 he was hounding Dean for not giving Mary breathing room and this and that. He nagged him for every move Dean made in trying to establish a relationship with Mary. Season 13 he bitches that Dean got to enjoy such a close relationship with Mary.  

Like, the hypocrisy of that - urgh. 

At this point, I don`t want to hear any more variations on "you have to let me grow up". 

Just as I don`t want to hear any more variations from Dean on "oh, my family". I`m sick of either one. 

The reason why I`m much lighter on Dean - and I don`t think his anger is always a healthy expression of his feelings - is how often and how nasty the show/narrative comes down on him for expressing his feelings. He is forever doing it wrong and being a jerk and being called out on it every which way. 

Meanwhile when Sam acts IMO like a jerk, I think the narrative seems him as completely validated and such an empathetic, wise, mature soul. When is he called out on stuff like that? Pretty much never. If Dean does it, you just know, Dean will learn a very special lesson in the next episode on how he was wrong and a jerk so he crawls back in apology. 

If Dean got off as lightly in the material itself, I wouldn`t feel the need to defend him so fiercely offscreen. 

[Reganne]

38 minutes ago, ILoveReading said:

For me the difference is that Dean's outburst was directed at situation not at Sam or Cas, or at least that's how it played to me.   He might not have agreed with Sam giving the grace back but his words were, "then I should never have come back."  He didn't tell Sam "Because of you we'll never get back." 

My issue here is Sam blaming Dean for a choice he made. 

Sam didn't really make that choice though.  Dean did.  He conveniently made it so that he could leave right away so that Sam had another responsibility with Gabriel/opening the rift.  Then in the last episode he ran off to take on Loki himself.  If they had of waited until Cas came to open up the rift, I would agree with you that Sam had a choice, but Sam couldn't just go through the rift anyway, leave Gabriel and have no one on the other side know where they were to open up the rift again if it closed.  I think that is the way Dean planned it and I have no doubt that he had this planned for a while.  It didn't just come out of thin air.

[Reganne]

19 minutes ago, Aeryn13 said:

I briefly mentioned this in the episode thread but the problem for me is actually that this is a consistent character trait of Sam`s that drives me nuts. 

Back in the Pilot episode he defended his choice not to share the truth about his life with Jessica. Which, fine. Well, I think, it was wrong but it was his choice. And he got to make it. Then she dies in a Supernatural fashion and he obviously felt guilty and regretted that choice. Then there is the episode where he learns that Dean told a girl the truth in the past 4 years.

And out comes, in a really accusatory way: "for two years I lie to Jessica and you tell some girl?"  

What? What did Dean`s choice to tell have to do with Sam`s choice not to? Noone, not John, not Dean and noone else held a gun to his head and made him do it. 

And this trait has come out over and over again. Sam makes a decision, Sam regrets a decision afterwards and somehow retcons history for himself so he can blame someone else. Usually Dean since Dean is usually around. 

In Season 12 he was hounding Dean for not giving Mary breathing room and this and that. He nagged him for every move Dean made in trying to establish a relationship with Mary. Season 13 he bitches that Dean got to enjoy such a close relationship with Mary.  

Like, the hypocrisy of that - urgh. 

At this point, I don`t want to hear any more variations on "you have to let me grow up". 

Just as I don`t want to hear any more variations from Dean on "oh, my family". I`m sick of either one. 

The reason why I`m much lighter on Dean - and I don`t think his anger is always a healthy expression of his feelings - is how often and how nasty the show/narrative comes down on him for expressing his feelings. He is forever doing it wrong and being a jerk and being called out on it every which way. 

Meanwhile when Sam acts IMO like a jerk, I think the narrative seems him as completely validated and such an empathetic, wise, mature soul. When is he called out on stuff like that? Pretty much never. If Dean does it, you just know, Dean will learn a very special lesson in the next episode on how he was wrong and a jerk so he crawls back in apology. 

If Dean got off as lightly in the material itself, I wouldn`t feel the need to defend him so fiercely offscreen. 

I see it differently.  I see the narrative pushing Dean's involvement in starting the apacolypse all onto Sam in season 5.  You even have Dean saying on the phone to Bobby "well we all know who's fault that is" while talking about the apocalypse.  There for pushing all of the blame on Sam regardless of the fact that Dean broke the first seal.

 

Also I never heard Sam say it was Dean's fault he didn't have a relationship with Mary.  Only that Dean had more of a relationship with her.  He admitted that he was jealous of Dean, but never said it was Deans fault.  IMO  the whole Sam is blaming Dean thing is another way for Dean fans to criticize/blame Sam for everything he does.

Edited April 28, 2018 by Reganne

[ILoveReading]

10 minutes ago, Reganne said:

Sam didn't really make that choice though.  Dean did.  He conveniently made it so that he could leave right away so that Sam had another responsibility with Gabriel/opening the rift.  Then in the last episode he ran off to take on Loki himself.  If they had of waited until Cas came to open up the rift, I would agree with you that Sam had a choice, but Sam couldn't just go through the rift anyway, leave Gabriel and have no one on the other side know where they were to open up the rift again if it closed.  I think that is the way Dean planned it and I have no doubt that he had this planned for a while.  It didn't just come out of thin air.

I disagree.  Sam made the choice because he has a mouth and he's not afraid to use it.  He could have put up more objections and more arguments or called Dean out on his need to protect Sam right then and there.  He did it this ep when he didn't agree.  He could have done it right then and there.  The only person to stop Sam from objecting further was Sam.

Edited April 28, 2018 by ILoveReading

[Aeryn13]

Quote

Also I never saw Sam say it was Dean's fault he didn't have a relationship with Mary.  Only that Dean had more of a relationship with her.  He admitted that he was jealous of Dean, but never said it was Deans fault. 

I disagree. I see these scenes as badly written - the words are blaming Dean - and delivered in an accusatory tone. 

When Dean came back from Purgatory and the brothers argued over Kevin`s options, Sam even snidely asked "so free will, that is only for you?" That was ridiculously blaming Dean for basically pointing out that Kevin couldn`t go back to a normal life with Crowley after him. 

Quote

IMO  the whole Sam is blaming Dean thing is another way for Dean fans to criticize/blame Sam for everything he does.

On the inverse there are places full of meta of "abuser bully Dean" for every time he is not perfectly validating Sam or standing back to let Sam do everything.

What can I say. I do think Sam blames Dean a lot unfairly for when he, Sam, is not satisfied with his own choices. It has been consistent over 13 Seasons and it`s a character trait that drives me up walls.

Dean is by far my favourite character on the show and he has consistent character traits I highly dislike. And find increasingly hard to ignore and accept.           

Edited April 28, 2018 by Aeryn13

[Reganne]

3 minutes ago, ILoveReading said:

I disagree.  Sam made the choice because he has a mouth and he's not afraid to use it.  He could have put up more objections and more arguments or called Dean out on his need to protect Sam right then and there.  He did it this ep when he didn't agree.  He could have done it right then and there.

It doesn't really matter when he does it IMO, but I think as long as he disagrees with Dean on anything he will get criticized for it.

Just now, Aeryn13 said:

I disagree. I see these scenes as badly written - the words are blaming Dean - and delivered in an accusatory tone. 

When Dean came back from Purgatory and the brothers argued over Kevin`s options, Sam even snidely asked "so free will, that is only for you?" That was ridiculously blaming Dean for basically pointing out that Kevin couldn`t go back to a normal life with Crowley after him. 

Which scenes were badly written? The one with Dean on the phone bc it was obvious he was blaming Sam.  Even later in the episode he was saying to Sam "What, so it's my fault now?" in a way that makes it clear Dean doesn't blame himself.

And Dean spent how much time blaming Sam in season 8?

[catrox14]

17 minutes ago, Reganne said:

And before anyone accuses me of saying Dean does feelings wrong, I have never complained about Dean's outbursts.  I just don't understand the hypocrisy and think people here are saying Sam does feelings wrong.

 

Are you talking about how the characters are reacting and behaving or how the viewers respond to it? 

Sam is more or less stating it as a fact that Dean did that by going to the Rift alone. It's not a fact. It's Sam's perception.  If Sam had said, "Dean, when you do things like that, I FEEL like you are putting me at the kids table" and Dean said, 'You shouldn't feel that way" Or "suck it up Princess and stop feeling that way" then it would be the same as when Dean is told his emotions are wrong by other characters.

[Reganne]

1 minute ago, catrox14 said:

 

Are you talking about how the characters are reacting and behaving or how the viewers respond to it? 

Sam is more or less stating it as a fact that Dean did that by going to the Rift alone. It's not a fact. It's Sam's perception.  If Sam had said, "Dean, when you do things like that, I FEEL like you are putting me at the kids table" and Dean said, 'You shouldn't feel that way" Or "suck it up Princess and stop feeling that way" then it would be the same as when Dean is told his emotions are wrong by other characters.

I'm talking about on this board.  

[Aeryn13]

Quote

Which scenes were badly written?

When Sam blames Dean and the writers actually want me to agree with him and cheer him on. No joy on that. 

Quote

And Dean spent how much time blaming Sam in season 8?

Blaming him for what? Just writing him off when he was in Purgatory? Sam didn`t explain himself, not really. Acted like Dean being hurt and frustrated was an offense to him and then told him to just get over it, that he had explained himself (ha!) and Dean should shut up. Obviously, he was supposed to be validated in that since the episode ended with bad!Dean caving and apologizing. 

If it was me, Sam would have gotten the earful of his lifetime in Season 8.  

Then the second half of Season 8 had Sam with the trials. Which he proclaimed to take on because he was the resident optimist. Once he got them he immediately switched to "I always wanted a hero`s journey" and pretty soon becoming the resident pessimist. Dean becoming his maidservant, Dean staying back like a good little boy for the second trial when Sam proclaimed the trials were his to do and his alone wasn`t enough for Sam to feel validated. He made a big speech how Dean didn`t respect him enough and dared to have other friends. 

Season 8 was horrible for Dean-fans.  

[catrox14]

Just now, Reganne said:

I'm talking about on this board.  

 I've not seen anyone here say that Sam doesn't have the right to express his emotions. Some of us may disagree with how Sam feels and think he's off base but no one has said he shouldn't feel it.  I do think they, we are saying that Sam needs to not blame Dean for how he reacts to something.