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

[catrox14]

On 5/18/2018 at 6:53 AM, cavelupum said:

As a general addition to the discussion, Dean will undoubtedly suffer and struggle at Michael’s hands more uniquely and intimately than anyone else will next season by virtue of being possessed by him, and Michael clearly has the more meaningful connection to and history with Dean. If despite all of that Sam gets to kill Michael in the end with a little help from Dean, then I expect Dean fans will feel exactly as cheated and unsatisfied as I’m feeling right now.

I hope this happens. After 7 fucking seasons of Sam's Hell and Lucifer drama, I'm down for at least 7 episodes of Dean/Michael trauma time.  Sign me the fuck up for that!
 

[DeeDee79]

23 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

I hope this happens. After 7 fucking seasons of Sam's Hell and Lucifer drama, I'm down for at least 7 episodes of Dean/Michael trauma time.  Sign me the fuck up for that!
 

Word. With all of the time spent on the history between Sam and Lucifer I'm not sure what's left to feel cheated out of other than an overall desire to keep the focus on Sam's story as opposed to Dean's. Personally I've felt cheated from the lack of attention given to Dean's hell trauma and I'm sure that there are other Dean fans that feel the same. 

[Reganne]

12 minutes ago, DeeDee79 said:

Word. With all of the time spent on the history between Sam and Lucifer I'm not sure what's left to feel cheated out of other than an overall desire to keep the focus on Sam's story as opposed to Dean's. Personally I've felt cheated from the lack of attention given to Dean's hell trauma and I'm sure that there are other Dean fans that feel the same. 

I feel cheated on Sam's emotional scenes period.  Yes, he gets hallucinations in terms of Lucifer and he gets to make scared faces when confronting Lucifer, but its a rarity that you get to hear Sam express how he feels.  With all the focus on Sam's hell trauma there really isn't much discussion in there.  It was only presented in a superficial scratch the surface kind of way.  The only thing we know is that Lucifer showed Sam his true face and that was brought up 8 seasons later.  Now don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the hallucinations story with Sam.  I just don't feel like that type of story truly dealt with Sam's trauma.  What he remembers or how it affects him.  How he feels about it etc.  Generally we don't see those types of scenes with Sam.

 

At this point in the series, I think it is pointless to go back and explore that type of emotional story with Sam.  However, I would like to see something explored with Sam's emotional state in season 14.  Even if it's the loss of Dean to Michael.  I would like to see more than just Sam looking sad.  I'd like to see some actual lines discussing his emotional state.  I'd like to see the material challenge Jared a little.  

Edited May 20, 2018 by Reganne

[cavelupum]

5 hours ago, gonzosgirrl said:

And it only took 8* years. Lucky Dean fans.

I've made the comparison before and I will again. Sam killed Dean's torturer, the demon that broke him and forever changed him. Sam killed him while Dean was unconscious on the floor. And now Dean killed Sam's torturer, and Sam got a vital assist (one that Dean was denied**). So the scales were somewhat balanced, even if the thumb is still pressed down on one side.

And no, Alistair was not equivalent to Azazel, not in terms of significance to the individual characters of Dean and Sam. And if we're talking equivalencies, Sam killed the next Yellow Eyed demon that came along, not to mention all the Hellhounds they've encountered since Dean was ripped apart by them. So yeah.

I still don’t personally see any of this as evidence that Dean is mistreated by the writers any more than Sam is on average, but miles vary.

Dean should have killed Alistair, but Sam should have killed Lucifer. Dean should have killed a hellhound or two, but Sam should’ve participated in the death of Azazel or been the one to stab Ruby. I mean, I’m pretty sure both sides could do this all day long if given the opportunity. I also don’t agree that a random, one-off YED in a single episode in S12 is in any way equal to Azazel, a two-season villain whose interference changed the course of both brothers’ lives forever and was particularly targeted at Sam.

If you took away the Lucifer win from Dean, he’d still have Azazel, Zachariah, Ruby, Dick Roman, Cain, Death, and even Hitler to his name as significant kills. If you took Alistair from Sam, he’d have a couple of hellhounds, the alpha vampire, Ramiel, assists WRT Ruby and Lucifer, and Lilith, which was presented as a terrible mistake and had disastrous consequences. (I could be forgetting some, so feel free to remind me, I’ll admit I haven’t rewatched the series in full in awhile.) Dean talked God’s sister, the Darkness herself, down from the ledge of destroying everything and was willing to die to take her out if it didn’t work, and there are no signs so far that his positive influence on her will be reversed or undone in any way, which is as it should be. Sam made the ultimate sacrifice to lock Lucifer away, and it was crapped all over six years later by releasing him again in S11, having him torment Sam some more for good measure, and then denying Sam the killing blow. Eight years later, Dean fans get to revisit the Michael arc they always felt robbed of, and Sam fans get to remember that the character’s greatest achievement of all was undone and Lucifer had to be finished off by his brother.

To sum it up, I’m not trying to say that Dean fans have nothing to complain about at all or that Dean is the favorite of the writers. There’s nothing wrong with disliking the way things were done or wanting something different. I’m saying that Sam fans have just as many things to be disappointed in as well, and I maintain my opinion that Sam’s not the favorite of the writers any more than Dean is. I don’t think the writers always consider the implications of their choices (and I will freely admit to getting angry at their decisions at times), but I can’t buy that they’re consciously, deliberately snubbing Dean. In an episode in which Dean gets to look like a badass with that angel wing shot, has a dramatic showdown with a supercharged Satan, lands the killing blow on one of the biggest and most important villains in the entire show, and is set up for a myth arc next season, why even quibble over whether or not Mary’s line about calling Sam, who did little more in 13.23 than get kicked around and toss a blade, was evidence of Dabb’s underlying favoritism? IDGI.

Edited May 20, 2018 by cavelupum
‘seven’ to ‘six’

[Reganne]

20 minutes ago, cavelupum said:

I still don’t personally see any of this as evidence that Dean is mistreated by the writers any more than Sam is on average, but miles vary.

Dean should have killed Alistair, but Sam should have killed Lucifer. Dean should have killed a hellhound or two, but Sam should’ve participated in the death of Azazel or been the one to stab Ruby. I mean, I’m pretty sure both sides could do this all day long if given the opportunity. I also don’t agree that a random, one-off YED in a single episode in S12 is in any way equal to Azazel, a two-season villain whose interference changed the course of both brothers’ lives forever and was particularly targeted at Sam.

If you took away the Lucifer win from Dean, he’d still have Azazel, Zachariah, Ruby, Dick Roman, Cain, Death, and even Hitler to his name as significant kills. If you took Alistair from Sam, he’d have a couple of hellhounds, the alpha vampire, Ramiel, assists WRT Ruby and Lucifer, and Lilith, which was presented as a terrible mistake and had disastrous consequences. (I could be forgetting some, so feel free to remind me, I’ll admit I haven’t rewatched the series in full in awhile.) Dean talked God’s sister, the Darkness herself, down from the ledge of destroying everything and was willing to die to take her out if it didn’t work, and there are no signs so far that his positive influence on her will be reversed or undone in any way, which is as it should be. Sam made the ultimate sacrifice to lock Lucifer away, and it was crapped all over seven years later by releasing him again in S11, having him torment Sam some more for good measure, and then denying Sam the killing blow. Eight years later, Dean fans get to revisit the Michael arc they always felt robbed of, and Sam fans get to remember that the character’s greatest achievement of all was undone and Lucifer had to be finished off by his brother.

To sum it up, I’m not trying to say that Dean fans have nothing to complain about at all or that Dean is the favorite of the writers. There’s nothing wrong with disliking the way things were done or wanting something different. I’m saying that Sam fans have just as many things to be disappointed in as well, and I maintain my opinion that Sam’s not the favorite of the writers any more than Dean is. I don’t think the writers always consider the implications of their choices (and I will freely admit to getting angry at their decisions at times), but I can’t buy that they’re consciously, deliberately snubbing Dean. In an episode in which Dean gets to look like a badass with that angel wing shot, has a dramatic showdown with a supercharged Satan, lands the killing blow on one of the biggest and most important villains in the entire show, and is set up for a myth arc next season, why even quibble over whether or not Mary’s line about calling Sam, who did little more in 13.23 than get kicked around and toss a blade, was evidence of Dabb’s underlying favoritism? IDGI.

Very well said.  I had actually forgotten  about Cain and Zachariah when I was going through the lists of big kills.  I knew I was missing some.  I also hesitated to add Eve to the list of Dean's big kills, but initially refrained because she was only in a few episodes, but she was more significant in season 6 than say Ramiel and the hellhound Sam killed were in season 12.    So you could arguably add her to the list too.

 

I agree with you on the favourites thing.  I just don't see it.  I don't understand why writers that supposedly don't care about or even like Dean would give him the most and biggest kills of the series.  I think of Sam were the ultimate favourite, he would be getting more of the big kills than Dean.

Edited May 20, 2018 by Reganne

[trxr4kids]

4 hours ago, Reganne said:

1)That happens in nearly every other episode.  2)Someone is almost ready to die and are saved.  It's not that it's absolutely insignificant.  3)It's just not as important to the overall story as Azazel.

1)I'm confused here because to the best of my recollection Castiel doesn't die or become almost certainly dead in nearly every episode or even anything close to that. MMV

2)I agree random people in peril may be almost dead before our heroes save them but I fail to see the significance in regards to the almost certain death of Castiel, their brother.

3)Not by my standards but I guess agree to disagree.

[cavelupum]

1 hour ago, catrox14 said:

Actually,  Dean DOES listen to other people, DOES alter his options, and DOES apologize,  even when he thinks he's right or justified. A LOT,  and has throughout the series along. And there are occasions where he doesn't. Dean is a complicated, complex layered character who can't be summed up in such broad strokes that labels him this way, or that way ALL the time.

Well, arguably, so does Mary, who eventually saw the error of her ways in trusting the BMoL and aligned herself with the boys up until Lucifer separated her from them by pulling her through the rift at the end of S12. She’s also willing to compromise and alter options, as demonstrated by her acceptance of going back to OW with her sons once they show a willingness to account for the people she feels still need her. I was a bit hyperbolic in the post you quoted, I’ll admit, and it came off as a little unfair to Dean AND Mary, but I stand firmly by the point I was trying to make: Sam is not the only one who shares negative traits with his parents.

I also do still feel Dean has enough of a documented history of digging his heels in when he feels justified that it’s fair to consider it a trait of the character, and I would add to my other examples his doubling down without apology in the Gadreel arc and stating he was “entitled” to sell his soul for Sam regardless of Sam’s feelings and in spite of knowing firsthand precisely how much it sucked to be on the other end of things. There are additional examples to be found in the MoC arc, and per God, the MoC just makes you more of what you already are. That said, of course a trait or even a pattern of behavior doesn’t define a multilayered character, but it is something I’ve personally noticed. To repeat something I mentioned on page 108 of this thread, I have never had the impression that Dean is all that great at apologizing for the big things and to Sam at least, but I’d accept evidence to the contrary.

[trxr4kids]

Full disclaimer I haven't read the posts since my last one but the more I'm thinking on it, it makes sense to me that the show for whatever reasons give the big kill to the brother that was witness, for lack of a better term, to the damage done to the other. IE: Azazel, Lucifer=Dean for Sam  Alistair, Lillith, hellhounds and Ramiel =Sam for Dean. 

I'm sure I must of missed some kills because otherwise the balance seems wonky <eye roll>

[SueB]

Although it wasn't a "kill", Sam DID do the work with the egg-thingy to get Lucifer out of the President's body so that Rowena could shove Lucifer back in the cage. Yes, Crowley undermined it, but Sam had a bit of a win there.

Having said that, this keeping score thing is not my thing, I just felt like people forget that the Winchesters technically beat the Devil 3 times: Swan Song, LOTUS, and Let The Good Times Roll.   

Edited May 20, 2018 by SueB

[trxr4kids]

5 minutes ago, SueB said:

Having said that, this keeping score thing is not my thing, I just felt like people forget that the Winchesters technically beat the Devil 3 times: Swan Song, LOTUS, and Let The Good Times Roll.   

I'm so sorry Sue but can they really be credited with having beat he devil when he keeps coming back like a bad penny?

[DeeDee79]

5 minutes ago, SueB said:

I just felt like people forget that the Winchesters technically beat the Devil 3 times: Swan Song, LOTUS, and Let The Good Times Roll.   

If only one of the defeats would stick already!! I'm really hoping that the last one did!

Also, for what it's worth I'm not opposed to hearing Sam talk about his feelings regarding his history with Lucifer and his continued nightmares as a result of the experience. I just wish that we could get the same attention to Dean's trauma beyond his telling Sam his shame at torturing souls. It could be a great scene between the brothers if they actually talked to each other about their experiences without the writing turning it into a competition and making Dean belittle his pain because it differed from Sam's.

[SueB]

9 minutes ago, trxr4kids said:

I'm so sorry Sue but can they really be credited with having beat he devil when he keeps coming back like a bad penny?

We'll call those first two "big battles" and perhaps this last one "winning the war"?

Edited May 20, 2018 by SueB

[Reganne]

41 minutes ago, trxr4kids said:

Full disclaimer I haven't read the posts since my last one but the more I'm thinking on it, it makes sense to me that the show for whatever reasons give the big kill to the brother that was witness, for lack of a better term, to the damage done to the other. IE: Azazel, Lucifer=Dean for Sam  Alistair, Lillith, hellhounds and Ramiel =Sam for Dean. 

I'm sure I must of missed some kills because otherwise the balance seems wonky <eye roll>

If that were the case though, then Sam should have killed Cain and Zachariah since they did more damage to Dean and were connected more to Dean.

 

22 minutes ago, SueB said:

Although it wasn't a "kill", Sam DID do the work with the egg-thingy to get Lucifer out of the President's body so that Rowena could shove Lucifer back in the cage. Yes, Crowley undermined it, but Sam had a bit of a win there.

Having said that, this keeping score thing is not my thing, I just felt like people forget that the Winchesters technically beat the Devil 3 times: Swan Song, LOTUS, and Let The Good Times Roll.   

TBH the only reason  I truly keep score is because I don't understand how some people complain when Sam gets some kills or is involved in some kills.  I don't understand it because I see Dean getting a lot of good kills and ones I consider better and more rewarding than ones Sam has got.  It's interesting that people see things so differently though.  I don't even need the kills to be entirely even, but after season 13 Sam and all his failures, I would like to see Sam get a big kill on a villain from some kind of arc or significance to the overall plot of a season.  IMO, he hasn't got that since Lilith.

[MysteryGuest]

5 minutes ago, Reganne said:

I don't even need the kills to be entirely even, but after season 13 Sam and all his failures, I would like to see Sam get a big kill on a villain from some kind of arc or significance to the overall plot of a season.  IMO, he hasn't got that since Lilith.

What did Sam fail at in season 13?  

[gonzosgirrl]

It never ceases to amaze me when I venture into this thread, that we are all watching the exact same 42 minutes of television every week. LOL.

Edited May 21, 2018 by gonzosgirrl

[Reganne]

17 minutes ago, MysteryGuest said:

What did Sam fail at in season 13?  

Staying conscious.  Getting taken and having to be saved all the time. When he attempted to Lead in the AU and ended up getting himself killed.  Trying to leave Lucifer in the AU.  Failing at killing most things.

Edited May 20, 2018 by Reganne

[gonzosgirrl]

On the bright side, Sam will probably get his wish to bond with Mary now without pesky old Dean getting in the way.

[companionenvy]

Yeah, with the exception of Lucifer -- who, of course, wound up coming back -- Sam hasn't killed or defeated an arc villain other than Lillith, and that was depicted as a bad thing. I think his kill streak in S12 was probably an attempt to even the score (in fairness, I think Dean getting Eve, Abbadon and Dick Roman was also an attempt at score-evening, as Sam's defeat of Lucifer was such a big deal) but as Reganne points out, that isn't quite the same thing when it comes to characters on a TV-show. Like, yes, Azazel and Ramiel are both yellow-eyed demons, which means both are equally impressive kills, but as a viewer, Dean getting to close off an arc that lasted two seasons just isn't the same as Sam killing a guy we hadn't heard about until that episode. 

Also, if we count something like Sam killing the uber-Hellhound as a big win, it would seem we'd have to count, in that same season, Dean killing Hitler, and maybe even Dean and Cas taking out Gog and Magog -- who are depicted as major supernatural forces -- in what was essentially a throwaway scene earlier this season.

I also agree with Reganne that I wouldn't care about keeping score so much except for being really baffled by the idea that Dean isn't getting at least his share of big wins - and big wins that are really important to the narrative, and that don't make sense if Dean were a glorified sidekick, or if the writers really disliked him or had a bias toward Sam. Though our perception of the writers' attitude is of course a matter of opinion, that Dean has killed a number of recurring villains would seem to be objectively true. 

[MysteryGuest]

2 hours ago, Reganne said:

Staying conscious.  Getting taken and having to be saved all the time. When he attempted to Lead in the AU and ended up getting himself killed.  Trying to leave Lucifer in the AU.  Failing at killing most things.

I just don't see how these are failures.  He's not superman, and neither is Dean.  They both get tossed around and knocked out on a regular basis.  The fact that they can still feed themselves is rather miraculous in light of all the head injuries they've sustained.  But seriously, I don't see these as failures.  He was fighting off two amped up vampires...Dean couldn't get free of just one vamp in order to help Sam.  And if we go by the supposed canon, only an archangel can kill another archangel with the archangel blade.  I have no idea if that's actually true, but it is the latest consensus.  So he assumed that Michael would take him out, just like he killed Gabriel.  But what else could he have done?  

And I don't understand how Sam's contribution to Lucifer's death can be discounted.  Had he not done what he did, Dean and Michael would be dead.  There was nothing lame about what he did, anymore than Dean was pathetic because he couldn't beat a Lucifer full of angel grace.  I think we're really a pretty tough audience when it comes to just what we expect these guys to be able to do.  

[cavelupum]

3 minutes ago, companionenvy said:

Yeah, with the exception of Lucifer -- who, of course, wound up coming back -- Sam hasn't killed or defeated an arc villain other than Lillith, and that was depicted as a bad thing. I think his kill streak in S12 was probably an attempt to even the score (in fairness, I think Dean getting Eve, Abbadon and Dick Roman was also an attempt at score-evening, as Sam's defeat of Lucifer was such a big deal) but as Reganne points out, that isn't quite the same thing when it comes to characters on a TV-show. Like, yes, Azazel and Ramiel are both yellow-eyed demons, which means both are equally impressive kills, but as a viewer, Dean getting to close off an arc that lasted two seasons just isn't the same as Sam killing a guy we hadn't heard about until that episode. 

Also, if we count something like Sam killing the uber-Hellhound as a big win, it would seem we'd have to count, in that same season, Dean killing Hitler, and maybe even Dean and Cas taking out Gog and Magog -- who are depicted as major supernatural forces -- in what was essentially a throwaway scene earlier this season.

I also agree with Reganne that I wouldn't care about keeping score so much except for being really baffled by the idea that Dean isn't getting at least his share of big wins - and big wins that are really important to the narrative, and that don't make sense if Dean were a glorified sidekick, or if the writers really disliked him or had a bias toward Sam. Though our perception of the writers' attitude is of course a matter of opinion, that Dean has killed a number of recurring villains would seem to be objectively true. 

This post summed everything up so much better than I could, and I agree with it completely. (Also totally forgot about Eve and Abaddon somehow.)

[companionenvy]

15 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

On the bright side, Sam will probably get his wish to bond with Mary now without pesky old Dean getting in the way.

This is a misrepresentation of what Sam said, IMO. Sam indicated that it bothered him that he felt he hadn't really developed as much of a connection to Mary as Dean had. This may or may not be an entirely accurate assessment -- Dean had more contact with Mary in S12, but their relationship was also more fraught -- but it seems like a psychologically understandable reaction, especially given that Dean had childhood memories of Mary and Sam didn't. 

 

2 minutes ago, MysteryGuest said:

I just don't see how these are failures.  He's not superman, and neither is Dean.  They both get tossed around and knocked out on a regular basis.  The fact that they can still feed themselves is rather miraculous in light of all the head injuries they've sustained.  But seriously, I don't see these as failures.  He was fighting off two amped up vampires...Dean couldn't get free of just one vamp in order to help Sam.  And if we go by the supposed canon, only an archangel can kill another archangel with the archangel blade.  I have no idea if that's actually true, but it is the latest consensus.  So he assumed that Michael would take him out, just like he killed Gabriel.  But what else could he have done?  

And I don't understand how Sam's contribution to Lucifer's death can be discounted.  Had he not done what he did, Dean and Michael would be dead.  There was nothing lame about what he did, anymore than Dean was pathetic because he couldn't beat a Lucifer full of angel grace.  I think we're really a pretty tough audience when it comes to just what we expect these guys to be able to do.  

Of course he isn't superman, but again, it comes down to a pattern. I don't think Sam is a loser for not being able to defeat the vamp or failing to kill Lucifer himself, but at the end of the day the show is choosing to create scenarios in which Sam didn't manage to get the win. And taken as a whole, S13, especially the second half, seemed comparatively light on victories for Sam. That doesn't mean the writers loathe him or think he's incompetent or aren't going to give him some great scenes next year, but I agree that this was not a particularly strong season for Sam as a hunter.

As for Sam's contribution to Lucifer's death - I don't think anyone is discounting it. He did play a part, an utterly essential one. But... it wasn't the classic hero's role; it was the sidekick role. Throwing a weapon to the guy who actually strikes the killing blow is standard sidekick fare. Which is fine, but let's not pretend it was more than it was. Sam even credited Dean alone with the kill before Dean acknowledged Sam's contribution, and Sam wasn't totally delusional to do so, especially as not only the final kill, but also the initial plan to allow Michael in was Dean's.

[gonzosgirrl]

2 hours ago, gonzosgirrl said:

It never ceases to amaze me when I venture into this thread, that we are all watching the exact same 42 minutes of television every week. LOL.

And even more amazing is that Sam fans do underscore all Sam's failures and mistakes in more detail than any 'hater; ever does, while the Dean fans do the same with his shortcomings. Amazing and not a little bizarre.

1 minute ago, companionenvy said:

 

As for Sam's contribution to Lucifer's death - I don't think anyone is discounting it. He did play a part, an utterly essential one. But... it wasn't the classic hero's role; it was the sidekick role. Throwing a weapon to the guy who actually strikes the killing blow is standard sidekick fare.

I suppose it falls somewhere ahead of being a little green army man or getting the everloving crap beat out of you on the scale of essential roles in a major kill/apocalypse-averting.

[Reganne]

25 minutes ago, MysteryGuest said:

I just don't see how these are failures.  He's not superman, and neither is Dean.  They both get tossed around and knocked out on a regular basis.  The fact that they can still feed themselves is rather miraculous in light of all the head injuries they've sustained.  But seriously, I don't see these as failures.  He was fighting off two amped up vampires...Dean couldn't get free of just one vamp in order to help Sam.  And if we go by the supposed canon, only an archangel can kill another archangel with the archangel blade.  I have no idea if that's actually true, but it is the latest consensus.  So he assumed that Michael would take him out, just like he killed Gabriel.  But what else could he have done?  

And I don't understand how Sam's contribution to Lucifer's death can be discounted.  Had he not done what he did, Dean and Michael would be dead.  There was nothing lame about what he did, anymore than Dean was pathetic because he couldn't beat a Lucifer full of angel grace.  I think we're really a pretty tough audience when it comes to just what we expect these guys to be able to do.  

Yes, they all get knocked around a bit, but in the last 13 episodes of season 13, it has happened way more than usual to Sam.  8 of those episodes out of 13 saw Sam being knocked out or taken and 3 of the leftover 5 episodes where Sam managed to remain conscious/unkidnapped, Sam didn't really do or accomplish anything in terms of killing monsters/evil.  I think the only two episodes where he accomplished something in terms of killing monsters etc and didn't get knocked out were scooby doo and exodus.  Even in Bring em Back Alive, Sam had to be saved by Cas from the demons raiding the bunker.

13 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

And even more amazing is that Sam fans do underscore all Sam's failures and mistakes in more detail than any 'hater; ever does, while the Dean fans do the same with his shortcomings. Amazing and not a little bizarre.

I think it's because us fans want more for Their favs.  They are hunters.  They have more experience now.  They shouldn't be worse at their jobs now.

Edited May 21, 2018 by Reganne

[gonzosgirrl]

17 minutes ago, companionenvy said:

This is a misrepresentation of what Sam said, IMO. Sam indicated that it bothered him that he felt he hadn't really developed as much of a connection to Mary as Dean had. This may or may not be an entirely accurate assessment -- Dean had more contact with Mary in S12, but their relationship was also more fraught -- but it seems like a psychologically understandable reaction, especially given that Dean had childhood memories of Mary and Sam didn't. 

I disagree.

Quote

SAM
Yeah, but at least you had a relationship with Mom. I mean, who would she always call? Who did she look to for everything?
DEAN
Okay.
SAM
You had something with her I never had! And now I’m just supposed to accept that I never will have it?

There was no indication in the writing or in Jared's delivery that this had anything to do with their childhood. As he does, Sam made his own issues about Dean. It wasn't that Sam didn't get a chance with her, it was that Dean did, at least in Sam's perception. It's funny how he forgot it was Sam she called on to join her in the BMoL and to lie to convince his brother to come along (or not -she wasn't particularly fussed whether he did or not). But yeah, she played WWF with Dean.

Edited May 21, 2018 by gonzosgirrl

[Reganne]

14 minutes ago, companionenvy said:

 

As for Sam's contribution to Lucifer's death - I don't think anyone is discounting it. He did play a part, an utterly essential one. But... it wasn't the classic hero's role; it was the sidekick role. Throwing a weapon to the guy who actually strikes the killing blow is standard sidekick fare. Which is fine, but let's not pretend it was more than it was. Sam even credited Dean alone with the kill before Dean acknowledged Sam's contribution, and Sam wasn't totally delusional to do so, especially as not only the final kill, but also the initial plan to allow Michael in was Dean's.

This is my thoughts exactly.  Yes, Sam threw the knife and I do like that he got to be involved in the kill.  However, I think this is more comparable to the end of season 5.  Dean brought the assist to Sam at the end of Swan Song.  He was the one who brought the army man to the scene.  This army man brought memories to Sam's subconscious and allowed him to overcome Lucifer.  Without that assist, Sam would not have succeeded in putting Lucifer in the cage either, but I know there are people who weren't happy with Dean's role in Swan Song despite the fact that Sam wouldn't have succeeded without Dean's assist.

[trxr4kids]

18 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

I suppose it falls somewhere ahead of being a little green army man or getting the everloving crap beat out of you on the scale of essential roles in a major kill/apocalypse-averting.

LMAO!

[Reganne]

4 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

I disagree.

There was no indication in the writing or in Jared's delivery that this had anything to do with their childhood. As he does, Sam made his own issues about Dean. It wasn't that Sam didn't get a chance with her, it was that Dean did, at least in Sam's perception.

The only issues Sam had with Dean during that conversation was the way he was acting.  He was just upset that he wouldn't have the chance to have any kind of relationship with Mary.  I think Sam showed his jealousy about Mary always going to Dean first for everything, but you can be jealous of someone without blaming them for it.  That's how I see it.  YMMV.

[catrox14]

4 hours ago, cavelupum said:

ut it is something I’ve personally noticed. To repeat something I mentioned on page 108 of this thread, I have never had the impression that Dean is all that great at apologizing for the big things and to Sam at least, but I’d accept evidence to the contrary.

I won't have the time to find every instance of the apologies Dean has made. I'm pretty sure another commenter(Demented Daisy?) has listed those. . If you're only counting Big Deal apologies like Gadreeel there is a lot about Dean characterization  that has been missed.

[DeeDee79]

8 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

I won't have the time to find every instance of the apologies Dean has made. I'm pretty sure another commenter(Demented Daisy?) has listed those. . If you're only counting Big Deal apologies like Gadreeel there is a lot about Dean characterization  that has been missed.

To add to this if someone only wants to think of Dean as an unfeeling, overbearing character ( sure Jan ) no apology that Dean makes will ever be enough. He even apologized to Sam in Lucifer Rising after he was the one that had just been strangled. Ugh.

[gonzosgirrl]

20 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

I won't have the time to find every instance of the apologies Dean has made. I'm pretty sure another commenter(Demented Daisy?) has listed those. . If you're only counting Big Deal apologies like Gadreeel there is a lot about Dean characterization  that has been missed.

He apologized for their fight in Scarecrow, even though it was Sam who walked out. He even told him he was proud of him for standing up to their father and going after what he wants. He also apologized for selling his soul and accepted responsibility for it in 3x16.

[Reganne]

27 minutes ago, DeeDee79 said:

To add to this if someone only wants to think of Dean as an unfeeling, overbearing character ( sure Jan ) no apology that Dean makes will ever be enough. He even apologized to Sam in Lucifer Rising after he was the one that had just been strangled. Ugh.

Just because Dean got strangled, that doesn't mean he didn't have anything to apologize for.  He did call Sam a monster.  I think that did deserve an apology.  Just like with Sam's apology at the end of Lucifer Rising.  That was warranted as well.  I can forgive Dean's giving Sam the ultimatum he gave him after just being strangled as being a heat of the moment thing that didn't need an apology though. 

 

And yes, sometimes no apology Sam gives will ever be enough either.  There are times that Sam does try to apologize but gets brushed off by Dean before he is able to make an apology and it just simply doesn't count to some people even though the intent is in Sam's mind.

[DeeDee79]

5 minutes ago, Reganne said:

Just because Dean got strangled, that doesn't mean he didn't have anything to apologize for.  He did call Sam a monster.  I think that did deserve an apology.

Sure! Sam strangled Dean to prove that he was stronger but Dean sure as hell needs to apologize for calling him a monster for drinking demon blood. Got it. Hurt feelings trumps intentional bodily harm. I don't think that warranted an apology.

Edited May 21, 2018 by DeeDee79

[gonzosgirrl]

57 minutes ago, Reganne said:

Just because Dean got strangled, that doesn't mean he didn't have anything to apologize for.  He did call Sam a monster.  I think that did deserve an apology. 

Dean did apologize for it. It's not his fault Sam didn't get to hear it, but that doesn't change the fact he apologized.

Quote

Look, I'll just get right to it. I'm still pissed... and I owe you a serious beatdown. But... I shouldn't have said what I said. You know, I'm not Dad. We're brothers. You know, we're family. And, uh... no matter how bad it gets, that doesn't change. Sammy, I'm sorry.

And unlike most of Sam's apologies, it wasn't followed up with a 'but' and all the reasons why whatever he said/did wasn't really his fault.

[Myrelle]

1 hour ago, DeeDee79 said:

Sure! Sam strangled Dean to prove that he was stronger but Dean sure as hell needs to apologize for calling him a monster for drinking demon blood. Got it. Hurt feelings trumps intentional bodily harm. I don't think that warranted an apology.

 

Me neither.

I also think that every time that Dean apologized for not trusting Sam enough, along with not "allowing" Sam to grow up-which happened numerous times in S5-those were all unnecessary apologies, in my book. And Sam was still going behind Dean's back to do whatever he wanted and with whoever he wanted in S10 and S12. So I still wouldn't be trusting Sam fully on that count if I were Dean and Sam threw the kiddie table argument at Dean again just this season. Thank God Dean refused to apologize for it this time.

I think Dean used to apologize too often and for things that he shouldn't, but I think that he's learned not to do that as much-and especially if he knows that he's not going to change his behavior anyway because Sam hasn't changed his-not in the long run.

Edited May 21, 2018 by Myrelle

[Reganne]

51 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

Dean did apologize for it. It's not his fault Sam didn't get to hear it, but that doesn't change the fact he apologized.

And unlike most of Sam's apologies, it wasn't followed up with a 'but' and all the reasons why whatever he said/did wasn't really his fault.

I didn't say he didn't apologize for it.  I said it was warranted.  Sam's sorry in Lucifer Rising didn't have a but, nor did it in Sympathy for the Devil when he was talking to Bobby.  Heck, Sam even just stood there and took it when possessed Bobby was saying to lose his number.  The only time Sam added a but into it was in Fallen Idols and that was only because of the way Dean was treating him in regards to their working together.  Sam didn't just want to be bossed around for the rest of his life while hunting, so he spoke up.  And yes, I know normally Dean isn't as bossy as he was in Fallen Idols, but in that episode he really was.

 

1 hour ago, DeeDee79 said:

Sure! Sam strangled Dean to prove that he was stronger but Dean sure as hell needs to apologize for calling him a monster for drinking demon blood. Got it. Hurt feelings trumps intentional bodily harm. I don't think that warranted an apology.

 

I didn't say hurt feelings trump bodily harm.  I said both brothers should have apologized in that situation.  I just don't think getting strangled negates any wrong doing on Dean's part, especially considering Dean called him a monster prior to any physical contact between them.  So to me, that's not really a reason to excuse Dean's wrong doings.

Edited May 21, 2018 by Reganne

[Reganne]

59 minutes ago, Myrelle said:

Me neither.

I also think that every time that Dean apologized for not trusting Sam enough, along with not "allowing" Sam to grow up-which happened numerous times in S5-those were all unnecessary apologies, in my book. And Sam was still going behind Dean's back to do whatever he wanted and with whoever he wanted in S10 and S12. So I still wouldn't be trusting Sam fully on that count if I were Dean and Sam threw the kiddie table argument at Dean again just this season. Thank God Dean refused to apologize for it this time.

I think Dean used to apologize too often and for things that he shouldn't, but I think that he's learned not to do that as much-and especially if he knows that he's not going to change his behavior anyway because Sam hasn't changed his-not in the long run.

 

Dean also goes behind Sam's back and does things.  A big example being Gadreel in season 9.  Does that mean Sam shouldn't trust Dean?  And Sam came clean pretty quick in season 12.  Also, I have no doubt Dean would have done the same thing in season 10 if the situation were reversed and Sam was the one with the MOC.  I mean in season 4, Dean didn't tell Sam they were planning to lock him in the panic room in an attempt to rid him of Demon Blood until they tricked him into going into the panic room.  He went behind his back and made plans with Bobby.

 

Also, did Dean ever tell Sam that he tried to commit suicide in Red Meat in attempt to bring Sam back who he thought was dead?  

Edited May 21, 2018 by Reganne

[AwesomO4000]

14 hours ago, Etoile said:

As for Dean lashing out: funny, how Sam lashing out is never tied to the family dynamic, and the things he's learned growing up in it (or it's completely forgotten). Abusive, dysfunctional households influence all the members of the family and Sam is no exception. In fact, he's shown quite a manipulative side, and bossy and violent tendencies and one has to simply watch the show without accepting some  general consensus to see how bossy Sam can be, how "my way or the highway" he is in certain instances, and how he often uses lies and obfuscation to avoid being questioned on his decisions. I don't subscribe to this idea that Sam is abused by Dean. While abuse can result in abusive behaviors, BOTH Sam and Dean have shown it with Sam having an edge IMO. Sam is not the perpetual victim people want to depict him as (Sam on the other hand believes he is a perpetual victim which is one of his issues), and neither is Dean, for that matter, but something that has been clear to me is how Sam has very often looked for and forced the same kind of expectations on Dean that John himself imposed on Dean. 

Sometimes Sam is "my way or the highway," but I wouldn't exactly call that the majority of the time. I don't think Sam is abused by Dean, and I don't think anyone has been saying that here. I also don't think Sam believes that he is a perpetual victim either. This is something that was introduced in season 8, for reasons I don't know why, but before that I don't remember seeing it consistently at all. Sam even said in season 7 that he considered himself lucky to only be having Lucifer hallucinations and that things could've been much worse.

As for the bolded part, I disagree. I also think that those two things are somewhat contradictory. By saying that Sam has somehow forced expectations on Dean and that he supposedly looks to exploit things somehow to force those expectations, that sounds to me like saying Dean is being victimized by Sam... which I don't agree with. I also am not sure what you mean by Sam having the same kind of expectations as John. John expected Dean to follow his orders without question and didn't usually give him information. This isn't Sam's expectation of Dean at all.

14 hours ago, gonzosgirrl said:

And it didn't take much for Sam to declare Dean weak and ineffectual (compared to him).

For me, it actually did take quite a bit. It took a demon blood addiction, a completely stressful situation where Sam's life was being threatened on a consistent basis by angels who simultaneously expected Sam and Dean to stop the seals from being broken without using any powers but also not giving them any other way at all to do it, and manipulation by Ruby for that to happen. When Dean was under a similar situation while being influenced by the MoC and being manipulated by Crowley, Dean had just as awful things to say about Sam,*** but in general it's usually only Sam who is held accountable. (I think the situations are similar and both had extenuating circumstances).

*** Exception here for @Aeryn13 who would likely point out that in Aeryn's opinion, being called weak is worse than being wished dead in someone else's place. There - I said it for you ; ) (even though I disagree that one is worse than the other).

2 hours ago, gonzosgirrl said:

And unlike most of Sam's apologies, it wasn't followed up with a 'but' and all the reasons why whatever he said/did wasn't really his fault.

I disagree that this characterizes most of Sam's apologies. It didn't characterize his Mary apology in the pilot episode, or his apology for saying Dean was a "good little soldier," or for most of his apologies in season 5, or for his apology about what he did while soulless (even though Sam could have legitimately claimed a "but" on that one). There was a "but" in "The Mentalists," but that was mostly for Dean's benefit and so that Sam could say that he understood.

Both brothers do the "but" thing on occasion anyway. Dean's "but"s just generally take a different track than Sam's do. As in "but I felt that I was entitled after all I've done for this family" or "but someone changed the rules."

And here I'm mostly just conceding the "but" on Sam's part, because the only big one I really remember was "Fallen Idols" and I think even that one could be interpreted differently myself.

I personally don't think either brother falls back on the "but" excuse all that much myself. I think they are both pretty good at accepting the blame for things they've done and even things they haven't done.

2 hours ago, Myrelle said:

I also think that every time that Dean apologized for not trusting Sam enough, along with not "allowing" Sam to grow up-which happened numerous times in S5-those were all unnecessary apologies, in my book. And Sam was still going behind Dean's back to do whatever he wanted and with whoever he wanted in S10 and S12. So I still wouldn't be trusting Sam fully on that count if I were Dean and Sam threw the kiddie table argument at Dean again just this season. Thank God Dean refused to apologize for it this time.

I think Dean used to apologize too often and for things that he shouldn't, but I think that he's learned not to do that as much-and especially if he knows that he's not going to change his behavior anyway because Sam hasn't changed his-not in the long run.

Yes, Sam went behind Dean's back to try to save him in season 10, but it's not like season 9 didn't happen... Dean did lie to Sam about something just as bad - and not just as a lie of omission, but to Sam's face. A lot. - for many months. In both cases, the lie was because one brother was trying to save the other. Just because the consequences for one brother was that he started an apocalypse while there weren't really any (beyond personal ones) for the other brother doesn't - to me - negate the fact that both lied.

However, it's not generally brought up that Sam - despite Dean's track record of lying also - should question Dean's trustworthiness. And in many cases, Sam is the one who ends up somehow admitting he was in the wrong - as in the cases of Amy Pond and Gadreel.

I really don't see all that much difference myself. YMMV.

4 hours ago, gonzosgirrl said:

He apologized for their fight in Scarecrow, even though it was Sam who walked out. He even told him he was proud of him for standing up to their father and going after what he wants.

I'll overlook that Dean did go a little bit back on that later - the being proud that is. I mostly blame stupid John's influence, though, since John conflated things and sewed seeds of discontent... as John is sometimes want to do.

As for their fight, Sam also apologized... it's just sometimes forgotten. Sam was actually the one to say the words "I'm sorry." ("I'm sorry, too") after he translated for Dean. ("Actually, uh—I want you to know….I mean, don’t think…."). Dean did say that Sam was right though, so that does count for a lot, so I'd say that was an apology for both of them for that fight.

[mertensia]

Siblings fight. They might apologize, they might not. That's life.

[Etoile]

2 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:

As for the bolded part, I disagree. I also think that those two things are somewhat contradictory. By saying that Sam has somehow forced expectations on Dean and that he supposedly looks to exploit things somehow to force those expectations, that sounds to me like saying Dean is being victimized by Sam... which I don't agree with

He quite forcefully pushed Dean to accept responsibility for Jack just this season, not just responsibility for this creature, but emotional responsibility that Dean didn't owe to him. When Dean calmly and quietly told him that they had a different approach to the whole thing, I think it was either the end of episode 1 or 2 this season, Sam refused to accept it, but strong-armed Dean with a lot of emotional manipulation, like equating himself to Jack and how Dean saved him or something, or nothing bad coming from when Sam was the 'freak' (he forgot a lot of the bad that happened apparently included Sam strangling Dean after he beat him violently) or putting the responsibility of Jack going darkside on Dean. He literally said that. So yeah, I say he was acting exactly like John there and it's the most recent example in 13 seasons.

They both do live and sometime re-created the family dynamic they grew up in (Dean killing himself to bring Sam back and Gadreel being the most egregious example for Dean) but I see Dean being way more self-aware of what it was versus Sam lack of self-awareness, and that's my opinion. Beside Sam has been equated to John by everybody, included himself. Sam too often puts the onus of his own choices on Dean like John did growing up. Examples: when he said that it was Dean who forced him stop the trials, or the much discussed Fallen Idols. He also too often forgets that it was his own quest for vengeance that brought him back into the family business and uses Dean's fear that he dragged him into it against his will to win arguments. Sam hides behind a thinly disguised appareance of good guy, but he is very messy in how he behaves with Dean the same way Dean is. It's my favorite part of their dynamic, how messy they are with each other, and it's my favorite part of Sam.

 

So yeah, agree to disagree :)

Edited May 21, 2018 by Etoile

[companionenvy]

1 hour ago, Etoile said:

He quite forcefully pushed Dean to accept responsibility for Jack just this season, not just responsibility for this creature, but emotional responsibility that Dean didn't owe to him. When Dean calmly and quietly told him that they had a different approach to the whole thing, I think it was either the end of episode 1 or 2 this season, Sam refused to accept it, but strong-armed Dean with a lot of emotional manipulation, like equating himself to Jack and how Dean saved him or something, or nothing bad coming from when Sam was the 'freak' (he forgot a lot of the bad that happened apparently included Sam strangling Dean after he beat him violently) or putting the responsibility of Jack going darkside on Dean. He literally said that. So yeah, I say he was acting exactly like John there and it's the most recent example in 13 seasons.

They both do live and sometime re-created the family dynamic they grew up in (Dean killing himself to bring Sam back and Gadreel being the most egregious example for Dean) but I see Dean being way more self-aware of what it was versus Sam lack of self-awareness, and that's my opinion. Beside Sam has been equated to John by everybody, included himself. Sam too often puts the onus of his own choices on Dean like John did growing up. Examples: when he said that it was Dean who forced him stop the trials, or the much discussed Fallen Idols. He also too often forgets that it was his own quest for vengeance that brought him back into the family business and uses Dean's fear that he dragged him into it against his will to win arguments. Sam hides behind a thinly disguised appareance of good guy, but he is very messy in how he behaves with Dean the same way Dean is. It's my favorite part of their dynamic, how messy they are with each other, and it's my favorite part of Sam.

 

So yeah, agree to disagree :)

I think one of the most interesting parts of the first few seasons was the realization that Sam, the son who rebelled, was in many ways a lot more similar to John than Dean was. But I'd say that the similarity mostly lies in the self-destructive ability to adopt a laser-focus dedication to the mission at the expense of everything else; John and Sam can both be ruthless and cold-blooded in a way I don't think Dean ever was.

I don't, however, see Sam's treatment of Dean as meaningfully similar to John's, in large part because the respective dynamics and obligations in a father/son relationship are so different than the ones in a sibling relationship. Most of what John "did" to Dean involves John utterly failing as a parent, specifically. There's simply no comparison, IMO, between adult John making child Dean responsible for little Sam over a period of years and one grown man telling another grown man that they both need to take responsibility for a superpowered newborn who has come under their control/protection. 

John had a lot of qualities, many bad and some good. A lot of these, in turn, are qualities that are shared in some form by many people, including but not limited to Sam and/or Dean. So unless there's a pretty specific parallel - i.e, Sam getting unhealthily dedicated to a revenge quest --, I'm not going to read "displaying a negative character trait that John sometimes displayed" as "acting like John" in a significant kind of way. I mean, Cas can also be manipulative and self-righteous; that doesn't mean he's really similar to John. 

[Etoile]

35 minutes ago, companionenvy said:

There's simply no comparison, IMO, between adult John making child Dean responsible for little Sam over a period of years and one grown man telling another grown man that they both need to take responsibility for a superpowered newborn who has come under their control/protection. 

I agree with the general sentiment, I disagree that that was what Sam was doing. He wasn't simply asking Dean to take responsibility of a superpowered newborn (Dean had already accepted that they did have responsibility for him when he said they had to take him to the bunker). He forced an emotional connection that Dean had all the right to reject and he forced Jack's presence on Dean even when Dean said that the mere sight of Jack hurt him (end of 13.03 start of 13.04).  To me that's different than asking Dean to take responsability for this superpowered being who just had been the direct or indirect cause of so many deaths. It's this behavior that retraces what John often did not just while growing up but at the very moment of his death when he gave Dean the order of saving Sam or killing him (effectively putting the responsability of Sam's choices on Dean, something that Sam later does as well when he asks Dean to kill him if he goes darkside).

The mission is everything, nobody cares that you are hurting.  Sam was putting the mission first over everything else (his own mission and his own emotional needs because it was not just about responsibility for Jack but about his desire to save Mom, and his projection of his issues onto him) and namely over Dean's right to feel grief and deal with it in the ways he deemed fit; over his right not be forced into accepting an insta made brother or something in Jack. Typical John, I would say. I laughed when Sam said that Mary had made her choice in the AU in 13.022 because yes, his respect for Dean's choices was inexistent in those first episodes of the season. But then the rules are different for Dean it seems - bitter opinion LOL.

Those dynamics are hard to shake because they are in the fabric of their personality. Obviously, Sam is not John in relation to Dean but he grew up the same family dynamic Dean grew up and one way those influence emerge is  that he takes a few things for granted as far as Dean is concerned, to the point that sometime he is blind to Dean's emotional needs. In this specific case Dean needed to be left alone grieving Dean had asked quite forcefully to be left alone and grieve and deal with his grief the way he deemed fit. Maybe Sam not putting on him this kind of weight for about four episodes  after Dean had relived his original childhood trauma of seeing his mother burn (the dream/hallucination he had in the premiere) wouldn't have made Dean feel so useless and bereft that he'd prefer dying in Advanced Thanatology rather than 'dragging Sam down'. I do think everything about this is relevant to the end of the season and Dean's decision to sacrifice himself to save the world (and Sam and Jack).

Again, not an indictment of Sam. It's Sam's little brother syndrome contextualized in the family dynamic he grew up in which also influenced him with regard to Dean. It's something the show shows a lot, but rarely addresses openly because Sam is not a self-aware dude, IMO. 

[Reganne]

34 minutes ago, Etoile said:

 

Those dynamics are hard to shake because they are in the fabric of their personality. Obviously, Sam is not John in relation to Dean but he grew up the same family dynamic Dean grew up and one way those influence emerge is  that he takes a few things for granted as far as Dean is concerned, to the point that sometime he is blind to Dean's emotional needs. In this specific case Dean needed to be left alone grieving Dean had asked quite forcefully to be left alone and grieve and deal with his grief the way he deemed fit. Maybe Sam not putting on him this kind of weight for about four episodes  after Dean had relived his original childhood trauma of seeing his mother burn (the dream/hallucination he had in the premiere) wouldn't have made Dean feel so useless and bereft that he'd prefer dying in Advanced Thanatology rather than 'dragging Sam down'. I do think everything about this is relevant to the end of the season and Dean's decision to sacrifice himself to save the world (and Sam and Jack).

To me, Dean wasn't anymore in tune to Sam's emotional needs in season 13 either.  Take the Breakdown for example.  Sam seemed to be going through an episode of depression.  He didn't want to be working on the case with Donna anymore, most likely because of his emotional state.  Though Dean said he would be there for Sam like Sam was for Dean, the only thing he did really was convince Sam to push through on the case, even though Sam didn't want to.  To me, that's not someone who knows how to handle someone's grief/depression either.  There wasn't really all that much effort on his part.  More just let's do the case.

Edited May 21, 2018 by Reganne

[cavelupum]

Jack was, as far as they knew at the time, the most powerful being in the world and one they were unable to take out should things go sideways. He was also shown to be impressionable and childlike. Arguably, it was important for Dean to at least pretend to accept and get along with Jack lest the brothers inadvertently turn him against them or just down a dark road in general. Jack was said to be actively afraid of Dean, who directly told Jack he didn’t think he could be saved and that he (Dean) would be the one to kill him. That conversation between Jack and Dean also happened before Sam suggested bringing Jack along on a case (aka “forcing” Jack’s presence on Dean).

 

In an ideal situation, everyone should be given the luxury to deal with their grief as they see fit short of harming others in the process, but it was hardly an ideal situation.

[AwesomO4000]

52 minutes ago, Etoile said:

The mission is everything, nobody cares that you are hurting. Sam was putting the mission first over everything else (his own mission and his own emotional needs because it was not just about responsibility for Jack but about his desire to save Mom, and his projection of his issues onto him) and namely over Dean's right to feel grief and deal with it in the ways he deemed fit;

18 minutes ago, Reganne said:

To me, Dean wasn't anymore in tune to Sam's emotional needs in season 13 either.  

I agree with Reganne. This isn't only a Sam thing like some are trying to argue. Dean kind of stomps on Sam's emotional needs when he sees fit also. When he made the deal and Sam was dismayed that he would have to deal with the same things Dean had to deal with when John made the deal, Dean said "don't be made at me." When John died and Sam wanted to talk and needed an emotional connection to get through his grief, Dean insisted in not talking about it and ignored most of Sam's attempts to talk, even Sam's desire to apologize. This is sometimes painted as Sam trying to "force" his emotional needs on Dean, but in my opinion, that goes both ways. It was Dean who won out on that in that Dean closed down and that was that. Dean got what he wanted. Sam didn't get to discuss it, and left Dean alone - until Dean's emotional repression came out all over the place and affected his judgement a bit.

When Sam had a breakdown at the end of "Sam, Interrupted" Dean literally told him to stuff his emotions down deep, suck it up, and get the job done. And that was the end of that. Sam buried it and it was never addressed again. Season 9 was another example: save Sam, ignore Sam's emotional needs while accomplishing that mission.

I'm not saying here that Sam doesn't sometimes do what you're saying. I'm saying that this isn't just a Sam thing. Both brothers do this often throughout the course of the show. Dean's motivation is just often wrapped up in "Save Sam," but that doesn't negate that ignoring how Sam feels about that is sometimes a large part of that "save Sam" mission.

1 hour ago, Etoile said:

I do think everything about this is relevant to the end of the season and Dean's decision to sacrifice himself to save the world (and Sam and Jack).

Dean's decision was his own. There tends to be this thing with the show in later seasons to show Sam being "mean" to Dean and then having Dean make some choice or another. It doesn't seem to matter that sometimes Sam has a right to be angry or hurt. I guess the implication is that maybe Sam drove Dean to it, but I don't get swayed by this. Dean made his own decisions just like Sam made his own decisions regarding Ruby in season 4. For me, suggesting thatSam not being more respectful of Dean's grief in season 13 was part of the reason Dean made the decision he did to sacrifice himself would be like saying Sam's decisions in season 4 were because of Dean making the deal and leaving Sam with the guilt. Each one made their own decisions, and Dean is just as responsible for his own choices as Sam is of his.

1 hour ago, Etoile said:

It's something the show shows a lot, but rarely addresses openly because Sam is not a self-aware dude, IMO. 

In my opinion, he used to be. I thought that Sam was fairly self-aware in season 6.5 through 7 and had grown quite a bit in that regard. But then season 8 came along and most if not all of that was taken away, in my opinion. Carver seemed to prefer the brothers being petty to each other - and to other characters like Kevin - to the emotional growth. My opinion on that one.

[Myrelle]

3 hours ago, Etoile said:

They both do live and sometime re-created the family dynamic they grew up in (Dean killing himself to bring Sam back and Gadreel being the most egregious example for Dean) but I see Dean being way more self-aware of what it was versus Sam lack of self-awareness, and that's my opinion. Beside Sam has been equated to John by everybody, included himself. Sam too often puts the onus of his own choices on Dean like John did growing up. Examples: when he said that it was Dean who forced him stop the trials, or the much discussed Fallen Idols. He also too often forgets that it was his own quest for vengeance that brought him back into the family business and uses Dean's fear that he dragged him into it against his will to win arguments. Sam hides behind a thinly disguised appareance of good guy, but he is very messy in how he behaves with Dean the same way Dean is. It's my favorite part of their dynamic, how messy they are with each other, and it's my favorite part of Sam.

IA with almost all of this-especially  the bolded part.-but definitely not the last sentence-shifting the blame, emotional manipulation to achieve an end, projecting your own faults and flaws onto another(especially a purported loved one)-all hot-button issues for me. Just as consent is for others on this board. Those things are why I don't think I'll ever really be able to like the Sam character-because the writers won't allow him to become aware  of them and change those things and/or apologize for them either.

As for trust, I knew that when I brought up the season 5 apologies someone would come back with the Gadreel situation and but Dean lies and goes behind Sam's back, too. So this is one of those cases when I'll just say that the poster asked about apologies that Dean issued that Dean fans thought were unnecessary and that was all I answered, but I WILL add that while I think both brothers should only trust the other so far where it concerns some things, only one of them is somewhat aware of the many reasons for and behind the deep dysfunction in their relationship-and its' not Sam, that's for sure. Not IMO.

And it's not just John's fault, at this point-they both still continue to fuel it and contribute to it as adults-adults who are now capable of and who should both be re-examining the behaviors that have lead them into this deeply dysfunctional(and disturbing, IMO) relationship.

It is good entertainment for some, that's obvious. But for me, it's too disturbing and far too hard to watch as a Dean fan. That's why I vastly prefer it when the brothers are separated and interact with others, at this point; or when Dean becomes another and different character who gives us better insight into Dean and what he really thinks of the dysfunctional relationship and a more in-depth view than the simple-ness of the idea that he's crap and/or not worth saving and  Sammy must be saved at all costs. I want to see the why of it from more angles, not just John's mistakes, but Sam's, too-from Dean's POV and the ones that he's constantly forced to push down and/or stuff in that little lead box of his. That's one of the reasons that DemonDean was so welcomed by me-and so mourned when that storyline was ended so quickly.

I want to see more of Dean's anger and frustration and disappointment with the brothers' dynamic. We know it's there now. And we've certainly gotten plenty of Sam's in that same regard where it concerns the brothers' relationship/dynamic-and both when Sam was under a supernatural influence AND when he wasn't.

That's the kind of "messiness" within their dynamic that I want to see more of now-Dean's  real thoughts on the family dynamic; more extrapolation of what he said when he was being cleansed of his demon counterpart; more anger at having his thoughts and feelings dismissed so summarily by his loved ones when they're not convenient to them, or when they don't fit into any given loved ones thoughts or feelings or plans.

[Reganne]

28 minutes ago, Myrelle said:

 

I want to see more of Dean's anger and frustration and disappointment with the brothers' dynamic. We know it's there now. And we've certainly gotten plenty of Sam's in that same regard where it concerns the brothers' relationship/dynamic-and both when Sam was under a supernatural influence AND when he wasn't.

That's the kind of "messiness" within their dynamic that I want to see more of now-Dean's  real thoughts on the family dynamic; more extrapolation of what he said when he was being cleansed of his demon counterpart; more anger at having his thoughts and feelings dismissed so summarily by his loved ones when they're not convenient to them, or when they don't fit into any given loved ones thoughts or feelings or plans.

I don't agree with this.  I feel Dean gets to Express his frustrations just as much about Sam.  We got to hear Dean vent his frustrations at Sam with Ruby and purgatory.   Both supernatural influenced and what not.  These were ongoing and through many episodes. We even heard it from Demon Dean and MOC Dean. We got to hear how Dean doesnt know if he can trust Sam anymore or if their relationship will ever be the same.  He also vented his frustrations regarding Jack to Sam this season.

Edited May 21, 2018 by Reganne

[Etoile]

21 minutes ago, cavelupum said:

In an ideal situation, everyone should be given the luxury to deal with their grief as they see fit short of harming others in the process, but it was hardly an ideal situation.

I imagine, John also said this to himself many times while he neglected his sons and parentified Dean ;)

 

6 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

I guess the implication is that maybe Sam drove Dean to it, but I don't get swayed by this. Dean made his own decisions just like Sam made his own decisions regarding Ruby in season 4.

Well, your implication is wrong  but in case I wasn't  clear in my post, I never meant to  imply that Sam drove Dean to Michael, Sam definitely put enough pressure on Dean to perform the good supportive big brother when Dean had nothing left to give, to the point that Dean felt that Dean was dragging Sam down. I'm watching a story about two, three, when they bother to write for Cas, deeply flawed characters with a ton of issues whose story is deeply connected. I don't like to dismiss the context of their decisions. And even though Dean's choice was his and his alone and I doubt we will have the equivalent of Fallen Idols where Dean says how Sam also contributes to the bad dynamic (as per the most favorable interpretation I have seen here) because this seems to be a completely different storyline, he doesn't live in a vacuum. His state of mind at the start of the season was relevant in the sense that it brought him close to giving up and is still relevant at the end of the season: the dude basically sacrificed himself to mop a huge mess - because to me he came across as someone who knew was selling himself without a lot of hope of coming back from it. 

 

13 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

This is sometimes painted as Sam trying to "force" his emotional needs on Dean, but in my opinion, that goes both ways. It was Dean who won out on that in that Dean closed down and that was that. Dean got what he wanted. Sam didn't get to discuss it, and left Dean alone - until Dean's emotional repression came out all over the place and affected his judgement a bit.

The difference to me is that Dean doesn't try to force anything on Sam, he simply wants to be left alone. It's a HUGE difference IMO.

 

12 minutes ago, Myrelle said:

I want to see more of Dean's anger and frustration and disappointment with the brothers' dynamic. We know it's there now. And we've certainly gotten plenty of Sam's in that same regard where it concerns the brothers' relationship/dynamic-and both when Sam was under a supernatural influence AND when he wasn't.

That's the kind of "messiness" within their dynamic that I want to see more of now-Dean's  real thoughts on the family dynamic; more extrapolation of what he said when he was being cleansed of his demon counterpart; more anger at having his thoughts and feelings dismissed so summarily by his loved ones when they're not convenient to them, or when they don't fit into any given loved ones thoughts or feelings or plans.

 

I want that too. I loved Demon Dean lack of filters. I loved that he said things the way they were even though everything was a bit extra, a bit exaggerated and aimed to hurt deeply. I love the trope of possession as letting true, hidden feelings coming out. As for Sam I can appreciate his character without really liking that kind of character. He's a bit like John to me, interesting when he is allowed to be complex and messy. Maybe I'm holding hope that some things will be finally addressed without using Dean as scapegoat like usual. I'm into this show for these dynamics that I find hurtful yes, especially to Dean and as a Dean fan first, but also very nuanced, but I live in perpetual hope and Michael Dean is giving me a bit of  hope both for the exploration of Dean character outside of what he can or can't do for Sam or Cas abut also for what it will show of them as well. 

[Myrelle]

1 hour ago, Reganne said:

I don't agree with this.  I feel Dean gets to Express his frustrations just as much about Sam.  We got to hear Dean vent his frustrations at Sam with Ruby and purgatory.   Both supernatural influenced and what not.  These were ongoing and through many episodes. We even heard it from Demon Dean and MOC Dean. We got to hear how Dean doesnt know if he can trust Sam anymore or if their relationship will ever be the same.  He also vented his frustrations regarding Jack to Sam this season.

 

All we got from Dean in almost all of these instances was the frustration and anger parts-and very little of the why he feels this way behind that anger and frustration-except when it was Demon Dean.

1 hour ago, Etoile said:

And even though Dean's choice was his and his alone and I doubt we will have the equivalent of Fallen Idols where Dean says how Sam also contributes to the bad dynamic (as per the most favorable interpretation I have seen here) because this seems to be a completely different storyline, he doesn't live in a vacuum. His state of mind at the start of the season was relevant in the sense that it brought him close to giving up and is still relevant at the end of the season: the dude basically sacrificed himself to mop a huge mess - because to me he came across as someone who knew was selling himself without a lot of hope of coming back from it. 

The bolded part has not been something that we've been given, through actual dialogue, from Dean's POV, IMO, unless he was under a supernatural influence and even then it was only very broadly addressed. Again. And I won't even mention The Purge speech except to say that if they do a tit-for-tat balancing act in regards to that, I wouldn't cry foul because at least it would be something after Sam got to get all those "hard truths" of his about Dean off his chest-and even if they were overblown because he was just so angry. But that won't happen unless we get it from MichaelDean because that's how this show rolls with Dean.

 

1 hour ago, Etoile said:

I live in perpetual hope and Michael Dean is giving me a bit of  hope both for the exploration of Dean character outside of what he can or can't do for Sam or Cas abut also for what it will show of them as well. 

Hope still springs eternal, in some ways and for some of us, with this show, doesn't it? I can't hope or expect this, considering that Dabb and Singer are still running things, but I sure would love to get it, too.

Edited May 21, 2018 by Myrelle

[companionenvy]

3 hours ago, Etoile said:

I agree with the general sentiment, I disagree that that was what Sam was doing. He wasn't simply asking Dean to take responsibility of a superpowered newborn (Dean had already accepted that they did have responsibility for him when he said they had to take him to the bunker). He forced an emotional connection that Dean had all the right to reject and he forced Jack's presence on Dean even when Dean said that the mere sight of Jack hurt him (end of 13.03 start of 13.04).  To me that's different than asking Dean to take responsability for this superpowered being who just had been the direct or indirect cause of so many deaths. It's this behavior that retraces what John often did not just while growing up but at the very moment of his death when he gave Dean the order of saving Sam or killing him (effectively putting the responsability of Sam's choices on Dean, something that Sam later does as well when he asks Dean to kill him if he goes darkside).

The mission is everything, nobody cares that you are hurting.  Sam was putting the mission first over everything else (his own mission and his own emotional needs because it was not just about responsibility for Jack but about his desire to save Mom, and his projection of his issues onto him) and namely over Dean's right to feel grief and deal with it in the ways he deemed fit; over his right not be forced into accepting an insta made brother or something in Jack. Typical John, I would say.

We've discussed the relative merits of Sam and Dean's positions re: Jack in this thread before, so I'm not going to rehash it at length. But regardless, I still don't see it as intrinsically John-like behavior on Sam's part. Part of this, again, is because the context is so, so different, but I also don't even see the behaviors as all that John-like. Sam's approach to Jack winds up being more or less validated by the narrative, so his mistake, to the extent that he's making a mistake, is not being respectful enough of Deans 'grief and pushing him emotionally to do something he isn't ready for. IMO, that's not a fundamentally John-like behavior. John's MO wasn't not respecting Dean's emotional boundaries, although it is true that he didn't; there are plenty of good parents (and siblings, and friends, and spouses) that have trouble stepping back when someone isn't emotionally ready to discuss something, or sometimes lay an emotional guilt trip on their loved ones. These are just  pretty basic staples of interpersonal relationships, and well within the normal range of behavior. John was a crappy parent specifically because he put revenge over providing a safe and stable physical and emotional environment for his young children, part of which involved giving one of those children enormous responsibility over the other and tying his whole sense of self to his ability to fulfill that responsibility (and, as I described in another post, I think Sam's sense of self also wound up suffering greatly from his childhood, albeit in somewhat different ways). That isn't going on here. If anything, Sam is arguably being somewhat John-like in his willingness to use Jack as a resource and push him past his comfort zone, which is a closer parallel to the parent who raised his children as soldiers. I don't see it in his behavior to Dean.

Even putting the mission above emotional needs, when the needs we're talking about are those of two adult hunters, seems not sufficient to me for a real comparison. If soldiers didn't put the mission above their own emotional needs and those of others, armies and law enforcement couldn't function; there may be limits to this (you can still be respectful of other's needs whenever possible), but in a basic sense, that's just part of the game. Even outside of such fraught situations, I'm sure all of us, as adults, have at times put our emotional needs aside to get something done. What John was doing was so wrong specifically because he had a prior obligation to young children who couldn't choose whether or not they wanted to sacrifice their childhoods to a revenge quest. Maybe Sam could have been a little more respectful of Dean's need for space, but again, his behavior seems to be in the realm of normal interaction between two adult siblings and partners dealing with highly extreme circumstances, rather than something akin to the wildly irresponsible and emotionally, if not physically abusive pattern that was John's treatment of his sons.

[Myrelle]

3 minutes ago, companionenvy said:

We've discussed the relative merits of Sam and Dean's positions re: Jack in this thread before, so I'm not going to rehash it at length. But regardless, I still don't see it as intrinsically John-like behavior on Sam's part. Part of this, again, is because the context is so, so different, but I also don't even see the behaviors as all that John-like. Sam's approach to Jack winds up being more or less validated by the narrative, so his mistake, to the extent that he's making a mistake, is not being respectful enough of Deans 'grief and pushing him emotionally to do something he isn't ready for. IMO, that's not a fundamentally John-like behavior. John's MO wasn't not respecting Dean's emotional boundaries, although it is true that he didn't; there are plenty of good parents (and siblings, and friends, and spouses) that have trouble stepping back when someone isn't emotionally ready to discuss something, or sometimes lay an emotional guilt trip on their loved ones. These are just  pretty basic staples of interpersonal relationships, and well within the normal range of behavior. John was a crappy parent specifically because he put revenge over providing a safe and stable physical and emotional environment for his young children, part of which involved giving one of those children enormous responsibility over the other and tying his whole sense of self to his ability to fulfill that responsibility (and, as I described in another post, I think Sam's sense of self also wound up suffering greatly from his childhood, albeit in somewhat different ways). That isn't going on here. If anything, Sam is arguably being somewhat John-like in his willingness to use Jack as a resource and push him past his comfort zone, which is a closer parallel to the parent who raised his children as soldiers. I don't see it in his behavior to Dean.

Even putting the mission above emotional needs, when the needs we're talking about are those of two adult hunters, seems not sufficient to me for a real comparison. If soldiers didn't put the mission above their own emotional needs and those of others, armies and law enforcement couldn't function; there may be limits to this (you can still be respectful of other's needs whenever possible), but in a basic sense, that's just part of the game. Even outside of such fraught situations, I'm sure all of us, as adults, have at times put our emotional needs aside to get something done. What John was doing was so wrong specifically because he had a prior obligation to young children who couldn't choose whether or not they wanted to sacrifice their childhoods to a revenge quest. Maybe Sam could have been a little more respectful of Dean's need for space, but again, his behavior seems to be in the realm of normal interaction between two adult siblings and partners dealing with highly extreme circumstances, rather than something akin to the wildly irresponsible and emotionally, if not physically abusive pattern that was John's treatment of his sons.

I'm not going to belabor things either, so I will just say that I disagree with a lot of this post, but the bolded parts, especially and completely.