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

[AwesomO4000]

2 hours ago, gonzosgirrl said:

Really? Sam got to 'defend' his memories by saying he didn't think of family the same way as Dean, because he 'didn't get the crusts cut off his sandwiches' like Dean did*. Which completely dismissed all the things Sam did get from Dean as his family. I've seen many theories that the memories were manipulated, or these weren't his real memories, or they weren't his 'best' memories and therefore Dean misunderstood that none of Sam's good memories involved Dean being part of his life. Except, Sam DID have the chance to say any or all of that before he was 'shut down', but instead chose to say what he did. He defended and deflected - because that's Sam's default position.

I don't think Sam saying that he didn't get the crusts cut off his sandwiches - and for me it was implying that he was talking about by a mom - somehow dismisses everything Dean ever did for him when they were growing up. Sam has already told Dean before exactly how much he appreciated everything Dean did for him, so I don't see why this would somehow erase all of that.

I also don't blame Sam for getting defensive. Dean was basically attacking Sam as a person. Dean was basically saying that because Sam had been at one time in his life happy to maybe have his freedom and potentially his whole life ahead of him that he was "bailing on his family" and that his maybe wanting at one time in his life as a kid enjoying a small moment of normalcy on Thanksgiving somehow made him some sort of traitor to his family. In my opinion, Sam was pointing out that he hadn't had the chance to have a normal family - the crusts cut off - like Dean had, and maybe had wanted to try it, and so he (Sam) didn't look at family the same way as Dean did.

Why does either of them have to be right here?

Sam "deflected" because he was getting verbally attacked. There wasn't much Sam could have said that Dean would have listened to, in my opinion. Even Sam trying to say that he wasn't controlling the memories (which I think pretty much covers the same ground as "these aren't my only good memories" at least in my opinion) and apologizing didn't work and just got  him more anger.

As for those not being Sam's best memories, I would think the fact that Jessica wasn't in any of them would be proof enough that these were only some of Sam's good memories. We know from the beginning of the season just how much Jessica meant to Sam. Sam had planned on marrying Jessica. Miles may vary on that.

2 hours ago, gonzosgirrl said:

*And threw it in his face after literally seeing Dean get those crusts cut off, yet moments later having to comfort his mother instead of the other way around and saying he didn't realize how long Dean had been cleaning up John's messes.

And I think that Sam could mean both. I think he really did mean it when he told Dean that. Was bringing up the crusts a little digging? Yes, it likely was, but it wasn't like Dean wasn't pushing. And it's interesting for me that Dean was at the same time complaining that Sam wasn't seeing family the same way after he had previously been crowing how "I guess this isn't your memory. Sorry, Sam" with some sarcasm. And for me, this is where the crusts comment came from. Dean had been right. That wasn't Sam's experience, but at the same time, Dean was complaining about the things that were Sam's experiences and memories, so he was trying to have it both ways in my opinion.

All of that being said, I see both sides here. I understand why Dean was hurt and assuming the worst and not listening to Sam, and I understand why Sam was hurt and feeling defensive. I think Sam learned from this whole incident, however, and so when "Point of No Return" came along Sam tried a different tactic and didn't get defensive in trying to defend himself. Sam learned from this episode that getting defensive with Dean at this point didn't get him anywhere and only pushed Dean further away.

[Aeryn13]

At this point I look at "brother moments", either negative or positive, as I look at Dean getting to voice legitimate grievances - it won`t end well for my guy. So I`m just continously hoping such things are scarce, if they happen at all. Less potential for annoyance or cringeworthy-ness.

The best I can enjoy the brothers interacting in is when they get to have unisolo WTF-reactions to some truly outside of their dynamics. Like God taking lots of showers and stuff like that. That was funny to me. 

Them discussing their relationship. how Dean does feelings (spoiler alert: it`s always wrong) or if they are on opposite sides of a certain issue, Dean is gonna be portrayed as in the wrong in the end anyway. And it`s an unpleasant way there so I prefer not to bother. 

[companionenvy]

28 minutes ago, Aeryn13 said:

how Dean does feelings (spoiler alert: it`s always wrong) or if they are on opposite sides of a certain issue, Dean is gonna be portrayed as in the wrong in the end anyway. And it`s an unpleasant way there so I prefer not to bother. 

Getting in, briefly, before Awesome can respond :) :

 

Agreed that Dean is usually (not always) shown to be wrong when it comes to emotional issues (i.e, "We need to give mom more space") but totally disagree that Dean is even usually in the wrong on big-picture issues. He's right about Ruby, he's right about Benny, he's canonically supposed to have been right about Amy, though I disagree, he's right that Sam using the BoD is really bad news, he's right that Sam is going down a really dark path starting as early as S3, he's right about the Britsh MoL, he's right to be skeptical when Sam thinks God is talking to him, he's right to restore Sam's soul. Now, despite my oft-stated opinion that Sam is disproportionately left in the goat role, I'll acknowledge the are also plenty of times in which Sam winds up being right in a hunting-related disagreements - the Lucifer plan in Swan Song and realizing that Cas is being shady at the end of S6 are the two that first spring to mind -- but it is by no means one sided. And to anticipate a likely objection: yes, sometimes Dean goes along with Sam anyway despite his better judgment, and thus could be at part implicated in any subsequent mistake - but the same happens the other way around, i.e, Sam agreeing not to close the gates of hell (though it is unclear to me whether or not they actually should have done that), or even, arguably, Sam choosing not to kill the YED possessed John all the way back at the end of S1 (a case in which I think Dean was ethically and emotionally right, but wound up being practically wrong, given the consequences). 

[Aeryn13]

Quote

Agreed that Dean is usually (not always) shown to be wrong when it comes to emotional issues (i.e, "We need to give mom more space") but totally disagree that Dean is even usually in the wrong on big-picture issues. 

I should have been more specific, I meant on opposite sides in terms of emotional stuff. I agree that Dean does normally have (though this Season he was shown to be wrong about Jack, Cas being dead, Mom being dead etc) good instincts hunting-related issues. So maybe it would be accurate to say that he did have good instincts in the past. Though he is often like Cassandra, making prophecies and largely being ignored and when it turns out he had been right, that is ignored as well. 

But the emotional issues continue to bug at this point. Now even Mary gets in on the lecturing fun, like she had to explain to dumb, overbearing Dean that Jack would come to see the truth about Lucifer in his own time. Urgh. Last Season of course he was forever wrong in how he approached Mary - who can do nothing wrong if I`m going by the writers. And this Season he was so mean to the nougat baby. 

Next Season, at least when he is mean, it will be Michael at first. Though undoubtedly Dean will be wrong in the aftermath, with how he is either dealing or not dealing. I just hope Mary doesn`t open her lecturing mouth again. Just about every word out of her mouth is now met by me with "shut up".   

What rankles me the most is when I agree with Dean on the emotional issues but the writers force-feed me this "he is a dumb ogre and you are supposed to think he is wrong" narrative. Oh, I`m getting "dumb ogre" from someone, writers, and it is not necessarily someone onscreen in those instances. To me, often the writers do feelings wrong. 

Edited May 22, 2018 by Aeryn13

[devlin]

I don’t know if sam is the writers favourite but I feel they do tend to woobify him the most. It’s almost as if they are trying to force the viewers to sympathise with him and the acting of jp really adds to it with the constant sad eyes and flinching round dean, especially notable in the last couple of seasons ( which has lead to the ever popular dean is a domineering abusive brother)

[AwesomO4000]

28 minutes ago, companionenvy said:

Getting in, briefly, before Awesome can respond :) :

Heh... nope, I have no conflicting opinion to give really on this one. In perhaps an ironic twist, I tangentially agree with @Aeryn13 on this one in one respect... I don't see the "emotional" things as comparatively as important when it comes to being "right" or "wrong." I put more weight on the things that you mentioned - the big ticket items: the plot, the supernatural things, etc.

It's like the writers throw Sam a bone in that he can be theoretically "right" on more of the emotional things, while Dean for the most part gets to be "right" on the important supernatural and plot related stuff. But in my opinion, it's the plot related stuff that carries more weight.

[Aeryn13]

Quote

I don’t know if sam is the writers favourite but I feel they do tend to woobify him the most. It’s almost as if they are trying to force the viewers to sympathise with him and the acting of jp really adds to it with the constant sad eyes and flinching round dean, especially notable in the last couple of seasons ( which has lead to the ever popular dean is a domineering abusive brother)

I think they kinda give Dean leadership (not in episodes dealing with leadership or when leadership is talked about, then you won`t hear a peep about Dean) so it`s more unacknowledged leadership that happens but it also means he can`t be a woobie and is instead apparently supposed to be mean and bossy. 

So basically, it`s a bad thing then. Which is why when there is positive acknowledgment of leadership, Dean doesn`t quality. That would mean highlighting something good about his character. Which in turn would mean saying he has something good about his character. Perish the thought in the writer`s room.

[AwesomO4000]

6 hours ago, Aeryn13 said:

Cas being dead,

Well Cas was dead. He was just fortunately annoying, and so got to be not dead. But don't worry, they made up for it by having Sam suddenly become Gloomy McAll-is-lost this season instead just when things actually started looking up a bit, so that there could be some role switching I guess. ; )

Edited May 23, 2018 by AwesomO4000
It would help if the right word were italicised.

[MysteryGuest]

Bad writing and totally out-of-character crap notwithstanding, I think the brothers behave very much like brothers do.  I don't know about all of you, but my relationships with my siblings are not all that different from Sam and Dean's, except for the angels, demons and monsters.  I sometimes will look at one of them during a conversation or argument and wonder exactly what family they were brought up in.  Our perspectives on our childhoods are frequently vastly different, even though we were both living through them at the same time.  

Sam and Dean are different people, with very different personalities, just like all of us.  That's why some of us are drawn to Sam and others to Dean.  I tend to relate more to Dean, so I agree with his perspective most of the time, but not always.  And he can be bossy and overbearing sometimes, but he's also kindhearted, loving, loyal, etc.  He's a mix of good and bad traits, as is Sam.  When the writers really ramp up some of those negative characteristics, it's easy to see why we react the way we do.  I can get annoyed with Sam, in the same way I would get annoyed with my own sibling when they do something I think is shitty or when I don't understand their perspective, just as Sam fans get annoyed or pissed at Dean.  But even when they're not getting along, or being downright assholes toward one another, I never doubt for a second that they have each other's backs and would willingly lay down their life for the other.  I think that always comes through, and that's a testament to both Jared and Jensen.  If they always got along and had the same personalities, we'd be bored shitless in no time.

Edited May 22, 2018 by MysteryGuest

[Etoile]

2 hours ago, Aeryn13 said:

What rankles me the most is when I agree with Dean on the emotional issues but the writers force-feed me this "he is a dumb ogre and you are supposed to think he is wrong" narrative. Oh, I`m getting "dumb ogre" from someone, writers, and it is not necessarily someone onscreen in those instances. To me, often the writers do feelings wrong. 

Every time the writers try to tell me that Dean is doing feelings wrong I roll my eyes at the screen. They shouldn't have to force their idea of what is right and perfect, because it should be clear from the story and the narrative. and the more they force it, the more ridiculous their idea of emotional clarity becomes. But then I think that these writers wouldn't see emotional honesty if it started dancing in front of them, so I ignore what they sell. I guess I don't get that mad because in the end Dean is allowed to be right, for how much that serves him obviously, like in the episode last season wihen he broke Mary's brainwashing. It's small consolation after a whole season of being told he is doing feelings wrong , after having his arguments misrepresented or changed (not wanting Mary to lie betray and use them becomes suddenly a problem about cut sandwich crust)  even when it's crystal clear his feelings are warranted and his instincts right, but at least it's there. I think they do it for drama and because they are not that talented, but it is becoming a staple of the courrent batch of writers.

Edited May 23, 2018 by Etoile

[ILoveReading]

4 hours ago, companionenvy said:

He's right about Ruby,

Ultimately, Dean ended up apologizing to Sam because Ruby treated him like an adult and Dean was too controlling which forced Sam into Ruby's arms.

 

4 hours ago, companionenvy said:

he's right about Benny,

The outcome- "Dump Benny or I'll dump you."  Dean's text message bought up numerous times but Sam's behaviorwas swept under the rug and Sam got his way in terms of Benny.

4 hours ago, companionenvy said:

he's right that Sam using the BoD is really bad news

Dean took his share of the blame, plus the show framed this as brotherly love.  It's only a bad thing when Dean does it.

 

 

4 hours ago, companionenvy said:

he's right that Sam is going down a really dark path starting as early as S3

Like with Ruby the outcome is that Dean had to let Sam grow up and learn to trust him.  Not to mention Kripke's words that Dean had to learn to love Sam more and accept his cool powers. 

 

4 hours ago, companionenvy said:

's right about the Britsh MoL

Sam gets promoted to General Winchester and no one ever calls Sam out on this being a mistake.  Sam gets his own way when Dean joins.

 

4 hours ago, companionenvy said:

he's right to be skeptical when Sam thinks God is talking to him,

Sam goes to the cage with Dean's support.  Again, no one calls Sam out on this behavior.  The show swept it under the rug by having Cas say yes.

 

4 hours ago, companionenvy said:

he's right to restore Sam's soul

Not according to the show which made sure to state many times in canon that he was wrong to do this.

 

4 hours ago, companionenvy said:

supposed to have been right about Amy, though

This one I'll concede and I'll admit that arc had a highly satisfying conclusion for me becasue Dean didn't back down or apologize for killing Amy.  He never felt guilty about it or thought he was wrong to do so. 

I always wished those two writers were given another episode. 

Dean might be right but more often than not, I find its Sam's POV that's given validation.

Edited May 23, 2018 by ILoveReading

[Reganne]

10 minutes ago, ILoveReading said:

 

 

This one I'll concede and I'll admit that arc had a highly satisfying conclusion for me becasue Dean didn't back down or apologize for killing Amy.  He never felt guilty about it or thought he was wrong to do so. 

 

If feeling wrong or guilty about something means the narrative says the character was wrong, then plenty of examples that companionivy brought up being about Sam feeling guilty and admitting he was wrong.

 

Ruby.  Sam apologized and felt guilty about starting an apocalypse.

 

Benny.  Sam showed he was wrong about Benny when he agreed to bring Benny back with him from purgatory.  The only reason Benny stayed in purgatory was because he decided to.

 

BOTD.  Sam felt guilty about Charlie and the release of the darkness.  God himself blamed Sam for releasing the darkness.  Dean took no blame, as he didn't ever use the book.

 

Sam's powers.  Dean never had to accept Sam's powers.  Sam had to get off of the demon blood bc he felt guilty for starting apocalypse.  Even Chuck, God himself said that drinking demon blood was wrong.  Sam had to learn to overcome his addiction.  After season 5, Sam's powers are never to be seen again.

 

BMOL.  Sam gets a temporary position to lead hunters against the BMOL because he learned and  he admitted he was wrong about trusting them.  

 

Sam going to the cage.  Just because no one calls out his behaviour, that doesnt negate the fact that the narrative showed Sam to be wrong.  Complete with Lucifer telling Sam he was wrong.

 

Restoring Sam's soul.  Dean never admitted to being wrong or feeling guilty about this action.  Sam eventually turned out fine and is fully free from hell, so ultimately he was right.  Just because other characters don't initially agree with his decision, that doesnt mean it turned out to be wrong.  You don't see Castiel or Bobby telling Dean he was wrong after Sam wakes up with his soul in tact.  Once Sam started having hallucinations, the blame for that went to Cas because he broke Sam's wall.

[ILoveReading]

10 minutes ago, Reganne said:

If feeling wrong or guilty about something means the narrative says the character was wrong, then plenty of examples that companionivy brought up being about Sam feeling guilty and admitting he was wrong.

 

I wasn't saying that Dean not feeling guilty meant he was right or wrong.  The show made sure to tell me how wrong Dean was.  The entire episode was set up to make Dean the bad guy.  I just mean I as a viewer it had a satisfying conclusion. 

I never really felt Sam feel guilty about Ruby, or Benny.  That's why the apologies didn't work for.  A quick, sorry means nothing if its followed up by "I went to her got get away from you."  Sam's exact words.  Plus, Benny was a half hearted, "he's okay, I guess."

Dean did have to learn to accept Sam's powers or Kripke wouldn't have bought it up and made it a point of the finale.  They whitewashed the demon blood drinking by suddenly out of the blue it was needed for Sam to contain Lucifer.  Even though we, the audience, never heard of it before or since.  IMO, thats the pure defintion of whitewashing.   They even had Dean be a part of it. 

Sam blamed Dean for the soul thing in 7.17 when he said "you knew this would happen."

We'll have to agree to disagree that the show was saying Sam was in the wrong here.

Edited May 23, 2018 by ILoveReading

[Reganne]

33 minutes ago, ILoveReading said:

 

Dean did have to learn to accept Sam's powers or Kripke wouldn't have bought it up and made it a point of the finale.  They whitewashed the demon blood drinking by suddenly out of the blue it was needed for Sam to contain Lucifer.  Even though we, the audience, never heard of it before or since.  IMO, thats the pure defintion of whitewashing.   They even had Dean be a part of it. 

Sam blamed Dean for the soul thing in 7.17 when he said "you knew this would happen"

 

If Dean had to learn to accept Sam's powers, he would have kept them after season 5.  Sam even had Dean look away as he drank the blood so it was obviously something Sam felt ashamed of.  Therefore, I didn't see any acceptance regardless of what Kripke said.  If that was the intention, then he did a poor job of it.  If this was the intention, then he should have allowed Sam to use his powers through out season 5 as he worked along side Dean.  That would have shown acceptance IMO.  Dean having to actually accept and live with Sam and his powers.  Instead of only allowing them when he knew it would only be temporary and Sam would be in hell or a vessel in the near future. Dean never had to accept Sam living with his powers.

 

Also saying you knew something would happen isnt the same as blaming someone.  Sam never said he regretted his soul being removed from hell.  I took his words as saying this is what you should have been preparing for.  To try and make Dean accept what was happening.

Edited May 23, 2018 by Reganne

[gonzosgirrl]

Let's just hope there aren't any dogs in the S14 opener.

[AwesomO4000]

4 hours ago, ILoveReading said:

Dean took his share of the blame, plus the show framed this as brotherly love.  It's only a bad thing when Dean does it.

Usually I say "in my opinion" and such, but in this one case I feel confident in not having to do that, because actually in canon, no, Dean didn't get his share of the blame. The narrative actually made a point of having Chuck specifically say that the apocalypse happening wasn't Dean's fault, because the world would have been fine with Demon Dean in it. The only reason the apocalypse happened Chuck pointed out was because of Sam. The writers even set it up so that Metatron posited that it was both of them that started it, and the narrative's God himself told Metatron he was wrong, that it was only Sam. That's canon. And unless  Chuck is dismissed as a unreliable narrator - and who else would be the reliable narrator in that case, Metatron? - I'm just not seeing how Dean gets any of the blame. The narrative literally said Dean wasn't to blame and explained why he wasn't to blame.

I'm also not really seeing how the narrative framed Sam's using the Book of the Damned as just "brotherly love." The writers had every character they could think of question what Sam was doing - even Bobby questioned Sam not telling Dean. Even Castiel questioned it... and he was doing it with Sam. Rowena pointed it out. Charlie pointed it out. Not once that I saw did the narrative frame what Sam was doing as not tempting fate or not doing something ill advised. And then, just in case we had any doubts at all that the narrative saw what Sam was doing was a reckless, ill advised thing... it started an apocalypse... that God later told us was Sam's fault. I just don't find anything in that that's framing what Sam did as simply "brotherly love." I got their "see Sam was wrong" message loud and clear though.

And if Dean saving Sam was being shown as such a bad thing as you say, why were there almost no bad consequences, but a whole bunch of good ones?  If the writers wanted me to see what Dean did as bad, then having Sam do the exact same thing was not the way to do it. They should have had Sam stick to his convictions and not do the same thing, just like Sam said he wouldn't. That might've been enough for me to override the lack of any bad consequences, but those two things together - no consequences and Sam doing the same thing (plus saying "I lied") - to me, are saying that Dean was right to do what he did. I put more stock in consequences and since there were none, for me this says that the writers were siding with Dean. Same as when Dean killed Death to save Sam - more good consequences and no bad ones. I'm just not seeing the evidence for it being shown as a bad thing.

4 hours ago, ILoveReading said:

A quick, sorry means nothing if its followed up by "I went to her got get away from you."  Sam's exact words. 

Actually Sam said "one of the reasons I went to Ruby was to get away from you." He said, because it made him feel strong, not like a little brother ...and in context of season 3 when San took up with Ruby, this actually made sense, because when Sam started with Ruby he had a LOT of guilt he was carrying around because Dean was going to die and there was little Sam could do to stop it, making him feel not strong. Ruby came along and gave Sam the potential to do something, to not feel helpless and in need of saving (the little brother). Sure it was a lie, but at the time, that feeling that maybe Sam could save Dean? ...Probably felt pretty fricking good compared to feeling like an ineffectual little brother who always needed saving. Now was that Dean's fault? ...no unless you count the influence from making the deal in the first place. Was it understandable on Sam's part? ...In my opinion, yes, but also Sam's responsibility, because they were Sam's feelings.

4 hours ago, ILoveReading said:

Dean did have to learn to accept Sam's powers or Kripke wouldn't have bought it up and made it a point of the finale.  They whitewashed the demon blood drinking by suddenly out of the blue it was needed for Sam to contain Lucifer.  Even though we, the audience, never heard of it before or since.  IMO, thats the pure defintion of whitewashing.   They even had Dean be a part of it. 

Objecting to it all the way.

And as soon as Sam drank that demon blood, he got over confident and said "yes" when he shouldn't have. And Sam being a "strong" vessel from drinking the blood and getting over confident and saying "yes" lead to huge negative consequences, including a six figure death toll. In my opinion, the only point Kripke made in the final concerning the blood drinking was that it was obviously BAD... otherwise why else would there be huge terrible consequences for doing so? Whitewashing in my opinion shouldn't include "oh yeah because Sam drank demon blood, he's now going to go back on the original plan, and oh yeah, Lucifer's strong, so now he can kill a shit ton of people... oh and also, Lucifer's gonna defeat Sam in two seconds so Sam's confidence was entirely unjustified and the blood didn't help him defeat Lucifer at all." I wouldn't call those things whitewashing myself. I would think that whitewashing would include something positive myself rather than a whole bunch of negative.

I thought the blood drinking was a plot device. There had to be a reason Sam would say "yes" even though Lucifer knew the plan, and since demon blood = overconfidence / hubris... bam! Sam said "yes" anyway. That's why I think Kripke did it. Nothing more. No matter what he said, because if Sam's powers were supposedly so awesome and Dean had to just accept them and the blood drinking, why show them as so negative in the first place and then we never see them again? To me that doesn't make sense.

4 hours ago, ILoveReading said:

Sam blamed Dean for the soul thing in 7.17 when he said "you knew this would happen."

Sam said "We knew this was coming." And his telling Dean that and that they knew this was coming because Castiel told Dean what might happen wasn't to "blame" Dean... it was to tell Dean that Sam was accepting about it. Sam had already told Dean that he was grateful that Dean had saved his soul. Just because Sam was having an understandable moment of doubt about getting better then doesn't mean he "blamed" Dean, in my opinion. He didn't even blame Castiel... it just was what it was. Sam was more about forgiveness and didn't really do blame in season 7.

Besides what was the alternative? Was Sam supposed to be telling Dean he would rather have still been in hell?*** That makes no sense to me.

Or what @Reganne said much better while I was typing all this.

*** Soulless Sam was not really Sam. Souls have memory, too, or Sam wouldn't have remembered hell. If souls were only conscience and not the real person, there would be no memory attached with them. They'd just be a spark of energy that gave a person their sense of right and wrong, but that's not what souls are in this verse. They have memories and personalities. Demons are twisted souls, and they have their own personality no matter what body they are in... even if they do pick up random affects here and there from their host(s) to go along with that basic personality.

Edited May 23, 2018 by AwesomO4000

[companionenvy]

In addition to the above re: Benny and Sam's soul, I really don't get at all how there's a way to see Dean as not having been right about Ruby. Even if we go with the idea -- which I think is a real simplification -- that the narrative, Sam and Dean all agree that Dean was partially to blame for being bossy to Sam previously, that doesn't negate the fact that Dean was 100% right in the ongoing dispute over whether or not Ruby could be trusted. 

I also agree that the fact that Sam had to drink demon blood to be a proper host for Lucifer does not mean Dean was wrong about or had to accept Sam's powers. It certainly doesn't retroactively mean that Sam drinking the blood - which was the most direct reason they were in this situation in the first place -- was depicted as a positive or good thing. Sam is ashamed to be seen doing it, and doesn't resume doing so at any point later in the series for any reason, nor does he get any of his powers back. Dean accepts Sam despite his powers in S1, but he never supports Sam developing or consciously using them, and is proven right to have discouraged this. I actually would have really liked a SL in which Sam does get to learn how to apply his powers in a positive way, because I always thought a knee-jerk "these powers are bad all the time, even if they sometimes let you save the day in the short term" was an inadequate response. But while there are plenty of fantasy narratives that involve someone coming to learn to channel and accept their potentially dangerous magical abilities (Hello, Frozen!), SPN has not been one of them. Arguably, Sam having to drink demon blood to take in Lucifer -- and Dean accepting and aiding in that -- is a sign of Dean's restored trust in Sam; he's putting faith in Sam's ability not to go totally darkside under its influence. But in no way is it an endorsement of either Sam's addiction or the powers themselves, which don't factor into Sam stopping Lucifer. It isn't like he overcomes the devil with awesome telekinetic abilities while Dean looks on admiringly. He barely manages to win back control of his own body for just long enough to throw himself and Lucifer in the pit. 

[Etoile]

1 hour ago, companionenvy said:

I always thought a knee-jerk "these powers are bad all the time, even if they sometimes let you save the day in the short term" was an inadequate response.

What a misrepresentation of Dean's reaction of Sam's powers. I guess you are talking of the reaction when Dean saw that Sam was enhancing them by drinking demon's blood at the start of season 4 which makes framing it as 'knee-jerks' weird especially considering Dean had just come back from Hell where the same demons Sam was associating with had horribly tortured him. I know that someone said above that Dean is always supposed to have the perfect responses to Sam's trauma no matter what is going on with him, because otherwise Sam suffers, but I on the other hand think Dean is  allowed to have Hell PTSD a few days after he came back from Hell and not always have the super perfect responses that respect and nurture Sammy and gently guide him. (How very John Winchester is this argument, by the way?)

But even without that little tiny detail, I'd say that knee jerk was not Dean's reaction to Sam's powers, not since they manifested in Sam.

Sam was more worried of Sam going darkside, considering these powers were given by the same demon who had killed their mother and later Jess, than Dean was to the point he asked Dean to kill him in case he did go darkside. Throughout season one, two, and three Dean did not have any knee-jerk reaction to Sam's powers, although he objected to Ruby's kind of mentoring, which we all know how it went in the end. On top of it, "the powers that saved the day once in a while" was Sam's rationalization and what pushed him to do everything that he did in season 4, among other motivations. It was what he told himself to keep doing what he was doing, drinking demon's blood so he could save the day. I guess Dean seeing what else that was doing to Sam is small potatoes. I would add that Sam was drinking demon's blood. I know that people like to forget it or make it as not a big deal, but it was and it still is, so calling Dean's a knee-jerk reaction is incredibly unfair on Dean and promotes the idea  that he isn't open minded or whatever becasue why focusing on what Sam was doing when you can say that Dean was being a bigot? Ah well, those were all rationalization of Sam, so it's very steeped in Sam's point of view.

Luckily all of it was shown to be wrong in the end, like it should have been. But it's still weird seeing things framed like this after all we've seens since. Yeah, when people say that Sam was shown to be wrong, my reaction is of course he was, did people really think Sam could be right after everything that went on in season 4? And I loved Sam's story in season 4, he was rather more interesting and tragic than what we got since.

 

Quote

Let's just hope there aren't any dogs in the S14 opener.

gonzosgirrl, you made me laugh! 

Edited May 23, 2018 by Etoile

[mertensia]

I don't understand why either is blamed for the Apocalypse. Both were so manipulated that there was no way Dean wasn't going to end up in Hell- even if Zachariah had to bodily punt him into it and that Sam wasn't going to kill Lilith even if Zachariah had to hold her while Sam knifed her.

[Etoile]

44 minutes ago, mertensia said:

I don't understand why either is blamed for the Apocalypse. Both were so manipulated that there was no way Dean wasn't going to end up in Hell- even if Zachariah had to bodily punt him into it and that Sam wasn't going to kill Lilith even if Zachariah had to hold her while Sam knifed her

If I may answer, I think, for me, the point of the story is never the plot, but how those plot are developped via the characters's actions and what those actions shows of the characters. It's why I loved early seasons so much and why in general I don't subscribe to the separation of emotional and supernatural themes. Of course, the apocalypse could have happened even if Sam and Dean had made different choices, but the interesting part is that it happened because of the choices they made, out of the trauma of their lives. I don't know if it makes sense. One of the reasons I don't like season 12 and 13, that much is because they are putting plot before characters. It happened for example when Sam joined the BMol last season. Not because it wasn't something I gound OOC for Sam, included his secretiveness but because the writers never bothered to explore why it was in character for Sam. They kind of tried to deal with it at the end of the season when Sam said that he tends to follow and that's why he ends making things worse, but it was so confused and too little to see if they were really addressing one of Sam's huge flaws, ie. his tendency to rationalize his choices as right even when logic and common sense should stop him.

Edited May 23, 2018 by Etoile

[cavelupum]

3 hours ago, Etoile said:

What a misrepresentation of Dean's reaction of Sam's powers. I guess you are talking of the reaction when Dean saw that Sam was enhancing them by drinking demon's blood at the start of season 4

I might be misunderstanding, but Dean at least had no idea Sam was drinking demon blood at the beginning of S4 when he punched Sam in the face twice after finding out he was using his powers — at the time, he thought it was “just” Sam’s powers, more developed as a result of Ruby’s tutelage perhaps, but nothing more than that. Dean finding out about Sam drinking demon blood came much later, near the end of the season (4.20).

[Etoile]

17 minutes ago, cavelupum said:

but Dean at least had no idea Sam was drinking demon blood at the beginning of S4

You are right, I apologize: he didn't know that at the time. He did see him practicing with Ruby at the end of In the Beginings which considering what Ruby had been trying to do with Sam, and how their last parting words were how Ruby would enjoy hearing his screams in hell, still doesn't make his reaction a knee jerk.

Also, he didn't punch Sam in the face out of nowhere. He punched Sam in the face when Sam, who had been practicing his demon's given powers with a demon just a moment before, tried to keep him from leaving. It may be a small difference to most, but it's not to me. 

[gonzosgirrl]

4 hours ago, Etoile said:

I would add that Sam was drinking demon's blood. I know that people like to forget it or make it as not a big deal, but it was and it still is,

Honestly, I don't even need the word 'demon' in there. "Sam is drinking blood" should've been enough to put anyone, including himself into wtf mode.

[companionenvy]

8 hours ago, Etoile said:

What a misrepresentation of Dean's reaction of Sam's powers.

First of all, I want to clarify that I think, above all, that the show's perspective against Sam using powers is a straight-up nope. Dean represents that position; it is then substantially corroborated by everything that happens on screen. 

As for misrepresenting... leaving aside whether Dean is right or wrong to distrust Sam's powers, does Dean ever entertain the possibility that Sam's powers could be used or developed responsibly? Again, maybe he shouldn't entertain this, but in either case, the answer, as far as I remember, is no. For lack of an alternative, he's willing to accept Sam's passive acquisition of powers (psychic visions, one or two cases of uncontrolled, unplanned telekinesis). But when Sam begins to suggest the possibility of actively developing those abilities -- for the purposes, first of saving Dean and then of fighting baddies more generally -- Dean is absolutely, adamantly opposed. 

And he has reason to be, and turns out to be right - although it is worth pointing out that we don't know that Sam's powers would invariably have led him to darkness if not for Ruby. Sam's powers, in S1 and S2, were notably less developed than those of Azazel's other "special children," none of whom, as far as we know, were scarfing down demon's blood. In Ava's case, developing her powers does seem to have been tied to embracing darkness, but this was not true of Andy, who was way more powerful than Sam while still, apparently, being a decent enough or at least decidedly not-evil guy. 

But in any case, I think Sam's perspective deserved, at the very least, more and more nuanced discussion, both by Dean and by the show more generally. Because the bottom line was that Sam was using his powers to kill demons and save people, and Dean, for most of S4, actually didn't know that demon blood was a part of the price. In fact, there are a couple of occasions in which - likely thanks to angelic/demonic manipulation -- Sam using his powers is the only thing that saves them and a bunch of other people. And it shouldn't, IMO, be treated as a totally self-evident and obvious proposition, for two people involved in constant struggle against increasingly big-league, cosmic forces of evil, that the mere risk that Sam himself might turn evil if he taps into demon-induced powers outweighs the immediate, readily apparent benefits of saving more people and more effectively fighting demons. In fact, Dean actually makes a version of this same bargain when he accepts the Mark of Cain, which he knows is bad news, because he thinks defeating Abbadon is worth the risk (and also is in a state of deep self-loathing, of course, but it isn't like Sam's in an awesome psychological place after Dean goes to hell, either). 

To me, given that the show more or less confirmed, at the end of S4, that Sam  could have developed his abilities without the demon blood - aka, the thing that was actually making him go darkside -- it would have made a lot of sense to explore what that would look like. It doesn't make sense to essentially conclude "See? Sam's powers are evil" on the basis of Sam going out of control while addicted to demon blood if you're going to suggest that the demon blood wasn't actually necessary; that was Ruby's key manipulation. IMO, the fact that this is never addressed again and Sam, as far as I recall, never again uses any powers without being on demon blood is a weakness in the writing, or at the very least a missed opportunity. 

[Katy M]

16 minutes ago, companionenvy said:

To me, given that the show more or less confirmed, at the end of S4, that Sam  could have developed his abilities without the demon blood - aka, the thing that was actually making him go darkside --

And I always thought that was a weird comment from Ruby.  Because he has no powers after that. Until he drinks demon blood again in My Bloody Valentine and then in Swan Song, where he does get his powers back.  Besides Ruby's comment there is nothing to support that Sam doesn't need to drink demon blood for his power.

As for the rest of the psy kids, well, they did have the original drippings of demon blood, but more importantly perhaps, is the fact that the YED is still alive.  There may have been some connection. Because Sam also point blank says that he has no more powers after he dies. Although, how he knew that is beyond me.  He only got visions every once in a while and they always involved another psy kid killing someone or something directly to do with YED.  But, I digress.

[catrox14]

29 minutes ago, companionenvy said:

As for misrepresenting... leaving aside whether Dean is right or wrong to distrust Sam's powers, does Dean ever entertain the possibility that Sam's powers could be used or developed responsibly? Again, maybe he shouldn't entertain this, but in either case, the answer, as far as I remember, is no. For lack of an alternative, he's willing to accept Sam's passive acquisition of powers (psychic visions, one or two cases of uncontrolled, unplanned telekinesis). But when Sam begins to suggest the possibility of actively developing those abilities -- for the purposes, first of saving Dean and then of fighting baddies more generally -- Dean is absolutely, adamantly opposed. 

Being adamantly opposed was not a knee jerk reaction though. 

Dean was already worried in s2 especially that he would HAVE to KILL SAM if he couldn't save him.   Dean's position wasn't that the powers were bad or wrong, in and of themselves, not that I recall. Rather he had the concern of whether or not they would lead SAM HIMSELF to the dark place where Dean once more would be faced with having to kill Sam if he couldn't save him.  That was Dean's issue. Not whether the powers were bad, even if Dean didn't like them.

Unfortunately the shitty strawman writing in Metamorphosis never mentioned that old fashioned exorcism was still a valid option.  It was only Dean is mean and wrong because he only wants to use the knife and Sam cares SO MUCH more about the meatsuits so doing it with his Hand of Ipecac was morally better.

Clearly exorcism was left out to set up the narrative structure required for Dean and Sam to be at odds, because together they could have agreed that exorcism was still the best option.

So again, to me that's not a Dean character trait that makes him so self righteous nor that Sam was suddenly hit with the morality stick.  To me, it was plot contrivance to force the dichotomous narrative that was IMO setting up Kripke's Evil Sam vs Good Dean, which went by the wayside.

[Etoile]

34 minutes ago, companionenvy said:

Because the bottom line was that Sam was using his powers to kill demons and save people,

I think that was Sam's rationalization and his argument to shut Dean up because his reasons were about completely different things (it was about revenge, about being stronger when he'd felt helpless and many more interesting things). The fact that Sam used that argument to justify himself is part of his character and how he tries to logic his way into making his decisions morally correct. Now nobody can object to what he's doing because he's saving people! But the slow reveal of the demon's blood drinking served to show how it was only a rationalization. Beside how many hosts had he killed while practicing his powers with Ruby (or let Ruby kill but it doesn't make much of a difference) when he could have indeed saved them with an exorcism? In before someone say but they always kill host. Yes but self defense is different than using them for demon powers practice.

I also took Ruby's comment as something completely different and not about his powers and how he could have developped them without the blood - with Azazel dead his powers had disappeared so I don't see any failing of the writing that Sam needed the demon's blood to activate them. In fact, I took Ruby's comment about not manipulating him into freeing Lucifer  (as he was accusing her of) as Ruby telling Sam  that he was the one making his choices every step of the way.  I think that's exactly what she says: she talks about choices not powers, in fact, but I can't check the transcript right now and will have to go back at you on that.

[Aeryn13]

Quote

To me, given that the show more or less confirmed, at the end of S4, that Sam  could have developed his abilities without the demon blood - aka, the thing that was actually making him go darkside -- it would have made a lot of sense to explore what that would look like. It doesn't make sense to essentially conclude "See? Sam's powers are evil" on the basis of Sam going out of control while addicted to demon blood if you're going to suggest that the demon blood wasn't actually necessary; that was Ruby's key manipulation. IMO, the fact that this is never addressed again and Sam, as far as I recall, never again uses any powers without being on demon blood is a weakness in the writing, or at the very least a missed opportunity. 

I think Ruby`s point was an entirely different one. He found out she had manipulated him into doing what she wanted and his first go to was "you poisoned me" (via the demon blood). Which she refuted and said "you never needed the feather to fly, it was you and your choices, you chose right every single time". She is saying that the demon blood didn`t make him listen to her and follow her manipulation, those worked on him because of him. 

Basically in Fallen Idols, he confirms that. He liked how Ruby made him feel strong and validated. That was the manipulative shtick she used on him in Season 4. And the demon blood didn`t make him go along with it, he went along with it because he liked her shtick - outside of the blood. 

Season 3-Ruby was too abrasive, she wisely switched to her Season 4 act because that would work the best on Sam and it did like a charm. 

In terms of being thankful for little things, I was relieved the powers didn`t make a comeback anymore after Season 5. With Cas, they "solve" the powers problem by various shenanigans and the revolving door of screentime. If you gave Sam easy superpowers for hunts, you could have written Dean off the show right away. Unless he also got convenient powers to balance things again. 

The one human character in all-supernatural-beings-shows is usually the most useless overall. No thanks. 

[companionenvy]

1 hour ago, catrox14 said:

Unfortunately the shitty strawman writing in Metamorphosis never mentioned that old fashioned exorcism was still a valid option.  It was only Dean is mean and wrong because he only wants to use the knife and Sam cares SO MUCH more about the meatsuits so doing it with his Hand of Ipecac was morally better.

Clearly exorcism was left out to set up the narrative structure required for Dean and Sam to be at odds, because together they could have agreed that exorcism was still the best option.

I agree that exorcism should have been brought up, but exorcism just sends the demon back to hell; Sam was actually killing them. Exorcism also seemed to take more time than Sam at his full powers needed, so there were still some advantages. 

 

1 hour ago, Etoile said:

I think that was Sam's rationalization and his argument to shut Dean up because his reasons were about completely different things (it was about revenge, about being stronger when he'd felt helpless and many more interesting things). The fact that Sam used that argument to justify himself is part of his character and how he tries to logic his way into making his decisions morally correct. Now nobody can object to what he's doing because he's saving people! But the slow reveal of the demon's blood drinking served to show how it was only a rationalization. Beside how many hosts had he killed while practicing his powers with Ruby (or let Ruby kill but it doesn't make much of a difference) when he could have indeed saved them with an exorcism? In before someone say but they always kill host. Yes but self defense is different than using them for demon powers practice.

I think that's excessively ungenerous. On some level, it reminds me of the old argument about whether or not true altruism is possible, since most altruists feel good about themselves when they do generous things, so actually, what they're doing is self-serving. In theory, the only true altruist would be a total misanthrope and miser who really hates donating money and doesn't give two straws about the people he's helping but has some abstract, philosophical commitment to benevolence.

And that's as argument that has some merit, but it also, ultimately, strikes me as unfair: what makes an altruist a good person is the fact that making the lives of others better does give him or her pleasure - and, evidently, more pleasure than whatever other things he or she could do with the money donated. 

I think some of the same logic applies with Sam. At his most harshly self-reflective -- which, though it clearly has elements of truth, does not mean he is being 100 % fair to himself, or that there aren't slightly more positive spins one could accurately put on the same set of actions -- Sam suggests that the prime thing that Ruby offered him wasn't a totally selfless capacity to help others, but a sense of power. That's pretty insightful, and not actually all that surprising; as the altruism conversation suggests, at its core, a lot of our best actions could be traced to fundamentally selfish ends; doing good things also does something for us. But it still says something to me that when Sam got a lot of power, the thing that gave him a charge wasn't cheating at cards or bullying random jerks who pissed him off or taking prank wars with Dean to a whole new level. Until late S4, when he had given way to the demon blood fully, the only thing we see Sam doing with his powers is defeating bad guys. For him, having power is good because it means that he gets to do heroic things. And yeah, there's a certain pettiness and egoism at the core of the desire to be the hero - but it doesn't indicate that the fact that Sam was saving people was irrelevant. If it had been, there are plenty of other ways he could have used his powers.

I also think it is morally significant that Sam needed the justification of being able to tell himself that he was a hero, which automatically puts him on a better place in the moral scale than people who gleefully revel in destructive, vindictive, and/or sadistic behavior. Misguided villains tend to be more redeemable, for my money, than people who know they're villains and don't care. And misguided villains who actually spend most of their time engaged in behaviors that lead to pretty objectively good outcomes, and whose primary screw-up comes in large part from lack of accurate information, are more redeemable than misguided villains who rack up massive body counts in a willing sacrifice to the greater good. In other words, season 6 Cas is still morally above the great majority of other villains on the show, because he had good intentions, but Season 4 Sam is morally a lot less problematic than season 6 Cas, because he spends the great majority of his time killing demons and starts the apocalypse only because he doesn't actually and couldn't possibly know that killing Lillith is a bad thing. The only really terrible things he does is drain the nurse and beat Dean. 

1 hour ago, Etoile said:

I also took Ruby's comment as something completely different and not about his powers and how he could have developped them without the blood - with Azazel dead his powers had disappeared so I don't see any failing of the writing that Sam needed the demon's blood to activate them. In fact, I took Ruby's comment about not manipulating him into freeing Lucifer  (as he was accusing her of) as Ruby telling Sam  that he was the one making his choices every step of the way.  I think that's exactly what she says: she talks about choices not powers, in fact, but I can't check the transcript right now and will have to go back at you on that.

If the show wanted us to think that, they shouldn't have alluded to Dumbo's feather. That specifically has to do with a character who thinks he needs a magical aid to help him exercise a gift, when he can actually do it on its own. The obvious parallel is Sam using his powers, not Sam trying to shift responsibility. 

[Aeryn13]

Well, I don't think anyone would accuse the show of always having the most poignant fitting dialogue. I think Kripke put in the Dumbo line because he found it neat, not to be a perfect parallel. I never personally read it as relating to the powers but always the choices. And I do know the plot of Dumbo. 

Edited May 23, 2018 by Aeryn13

[Etoile]

2 hours ago, companionenvy said:

I also think it is morally significant that Sam needed the justification of being able to tell himself that he was a hero, which automatically puts him on a better place in the moral scale than people who gleefully revel in destructive, vindictive, and/or sadistic behavior.

But that's not what I'm talking about? Of course Sam is a hero, as are Dean or Cas. But they are not heroes because they are these complete unselfish, always perfect people that always have good motivations (for whatever value one assigns to the word good) but because they try. This is literally not the way I watch this show because I actually dislike the overblown idea of heroes and I think that a deconstruction of heroism is a worthy endeavor and that these characters shine exactly because their motivations are complex and complicated), So I guess that what didn't come across in my posts is that I'm never making a moral judgement of an action and saying that they fall on this or that side of some moral perfection. If i say that Sam was rationalizing his choices because this way he could live with them, and justify them both to himself and Dean, I don't meant to say that Sam is a horrible person. Someone who sadistically revels in a destructive vindictive behavior is an extreme end of the spectrum that IMO flattens the conversation and reduces it in terms of good versus bad, right versus wrong, evil versus saintly, and I don't think such a conversation is in any way beneficial.

As for Ruby's comment I have to agree to disagree. I know what literally the Dumbo line means, but I still think it's not about Sam's powers but the choices he made, out of desperation, helplessness, hubris - all relatable human reactions.

[SueB]

I'm suddenly reminded of this speech (start at 1:40):

Edited May 23, 2018 by SueB

[DeeDee79]

1 hour ago, Etoile said:

As for Ruby's comment I have to agree to disagree. I know what literally the Dumbo line means, but I still think it's not about Sam's powers but the choices he made, out of desperation, helplessness, hubris - all relatable human reactions.

Agree with this. That was my interpretation of that line as well. 

[Mulva]

On 5/21/2018 at 2:07 PM, Reganne said:

Lol.  I love Jack but that's how I felt about Benny when it appeared everyone else loved the character.  I'm like, I really don't and I hope he never comes back.  Yeah I think I am just bitter about season 8 in general.

So I'm not alone in my distaste for the whole Sam is a bad person for daring to be suspicious of a vampire BS.  Good to know.

Edited May 27, 2018 by Mulva

[gonzosgirrl]

1 hour ago, Mulva said:

So I'm not alone in my distaste for the whole Sam is a bad person for daring to be suspicious of a vampire BS.  Good to know.

No more-so than Dean is a bad person for daring to be skeptical about the son of Satan BS. ;)

[DeeDee79]

6 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

No more-so than Dean is a bad person for daring to be skeptical about the son of Satan BS. ;)

Excellent point :)

[gonzosgirrl]

9 minutes ago, DeeDee79 said:

Excellent point :)

At least Dean had the facts of Jack's parentage, the circumstances leading up to him being born (controlling Cas, opening the rift, the death of [Jack's] mother, and the events of that day (Cas's death, Mary's disappearance) on his side. Sam had.... the fact that Benny saved his brother's life? But yeah, Vampire bad! Must die!!  (Unless their name is Lenore and they've promised not to kill any humans. Or, if you need some intel and turning your brother into one might help you get it. Then it's okay if they live awhile.)

[DeeDee79]

1 minute ago, gonzosgirrl said:

At least Dean had the facts of Jack's parentage, the circumstances leading up to him being born (controlling Cas, opening the rift, the death of [Jack's] mother, and the events of that day (Cas's death, Mary's disappearance) on his side. Sam had.... the fact that Benny saved his brother's life? But yeah, Vampire bad! Must die!!  (Unless their name is Lenore and they've promised not to kill any humans. Or, if you need some intel and turning your brother into one might help you get it. Then it's okay if they live awhile.)

More excellent points! Keep em' coming! I will never be swayed from my opinion that Benny was one of the more interesting characters that have been introduced and he was a great friend to Dean. I can't decide between him and Henriksen who I would have wanted to see a friendship flourish with more.

[ILoveReading]

I guess Benny didn’t remind Sam enough of himself which means he didn’t deserve the benefit of the doubt. 

Edited May 28, 2018 by ILoveReading

[DeeDee79]

3 minutes ago, ILoveReading said:

I guess Benny didn’t remind Sam enough of himself which means he didn’t deserve the benefit of the doubt. 

In actuality given the whole thing that Sam has about empathizing with characters that feel that they are evil and are trying to fight the darkness inside of them Benny should have been right up his alley.

[ILoveReading]

2 hours ago, Mulva said:

So I'm not alone in my distaste for the whole Sam is a bad person for daring to be suspicious of a vampire BS.  Good to know.

Also no more so then Dean is a bad person. For daring to be suspicious of a demon that proved to be a know liar. 

[Reganne]

1 hour ago, ILoveReading said:

Also no more so then Dean is a bad person. For daring to be suspicious of a demon that proved to be a know liar. 

See for me I never thought Dean was made out to be a bad person for being suspicious of Ruby, especially with how season 4 ended and ultimately Dean being right about her.  I think the Jack comparison  would be better.  I gotta say though, it's about time the narrative allowed Sam to be right about someone.  I also like that Jack was allowed to have an internal struggle over his actions and sometimes hurting people.  Showing him to be overconfident in the AU also and such.  Its makes for a more interesting character IMO.  I also liked that they allowed Sam to bond with Jack.  As well as Rowena and Gabriel.  It took them 13 seasons but they finally figured out they have two lead characters and that they don't have to have all the recurring characters bond mostly with Dean all the time.

 

IMO Benny was just a bland character.  Yet another character brought in for Dean to bond with after Crowley and Castiel and I'm glad he only lasted for a season because he's not nearly as interesting as Crowley or Cas.  There was no struggle.  He was just a good vampire.  Then the narrative made him out to be the best thing ever that happened to Dean.  A better brother than Sam has ever been.  He saved Dean's life?  Ruby also saved Sam's life, yet of course when it was Sam there had to be ulterior motives.  Although I still maintain the fact that there could have been with Benny as well.  With him using Dean as a means to get out of purgatory.  Of course though, since it was Dean the narrative wouldnt state that.  Then they couldn't paint Sam as so terrible as they did.

Edited May 28, 2018 by Reganne

[ILoveReading]

9 hours ago, Reganne said:

ultimately Dean being right about her.

I've made my position clear so I won't go into it but it doesn't matter if Dean was right when ultimately Sam's pov was the one that was given on screen validation.

9 hours ago, Reganne said:

There was no struggle.

This is exactly how I feel about Jack.  Sure the show paid some lip service to Jack having a dark side, but they painted Jack as such a precious nougat loving cinnamon roll I never felt like he was going to go bad all season.  Dabb's MO was more about making Dean the bad guy which is why I feel they went over the top in turning Jack into a woobie.  IMO, in a well written story I should have been guessing if Jack was going to choose the Winchester's or Lucifer.  I never doubted he was going to pick the Winchesters.  They were calling him family by the early episodes.  There was zero suspense or mystery over whether Jack was going to display his dark side.

Jack going off on the kid in the gas station really doesn't qualify because we've seen Sam and Dean do that.  Dean pulling the gun on Kaia was by the far the darkest thing that happened this season. 

Edited May 28, 2018 by ILoveReading

[MysteryGuest]

I just can't give any credence to season 8, whatsoever.  I can't be bothered to argue about Sam or Dean's behavior because the season was so badly written.  Whatever they were going for was a complete failure, and all they did was damage the Sam character.  The writing for Dean wasn't great, but what they did to Sam was just shit...not looking for Dean, abandoning Kevin, taking up with Amelia, freaking out over Benny...all of it was inexplicable.  If they wanted to show that Sam had fallen into despair at the idea of being alone, there were a thousand different ways they could have done that without making him look like a total dick.  This was an epic fail, IMO.

[DeeDee79]

18 minutes ago, MysteryGuest said:

I just can't give any credence to season 8, whatsoever.  I can't be bothered to argue about Sam or Dean's behavior because the season was so badly written.  Whatever they were going for was a complete failure, and all they did was damage the Sam character.  The writing for Dean wasn't great, but what they did to Sam was just shit...not looking for Dean, abandoning Kevin, taking up with Amelia, freaking out over Benny...all of it was inexplicable.  If they wanted to show that Sam had fallen into despair at the idea of being alone, there were a thousand different ways they could have done that without making him look like a total dick.  This was an epic fail, IMO.

I don’t disagree but it seemed to me that Dean was supposed to be the one to come out looking like a dick that season. The writing and fandom criticized him for even being friends with Benny and for being upset that Sam didn’t look for him. Sam may have looked worse in the end but it sure doesn’t seem like that’s what the writers were going for. Overall there was just a constant air of antagonism in the beginning of the season that made a lot of their interactions hard to watch.

Edited May 28, 2018 by DeeDee79

[MysteryGuest]

48 minutes ago, DeeDee79 said:

I don’t disagree but it seemed to me that Dean was supposed to be the one to come out looking like a dick that season. The writing and fandom criticized him for even being friends with Benny and for being upset that Sam didn’t look for him. Sam may have looked worse in the end but it sure doesn’t seem like that’s what the writers were going for. Overall there was just a constant air of antagonism in the beginning of the season that made a lot of their interactions hard to watch.

I can't speak for Sam fans, but I know that as a Dean fan, if the show runners had done to Dean what they did to Sam that season, I'd have gotten defensive too.  It's human nature.  I do it now.  Dean is my favorite, so even when his behavior is indefensible (kidnapping a young girl at gunpoint, or tricking his brother into being possessed by an angel, for example), I still find a way to defend him.  I will look deeper at the issue, and try to come up with a psychological reason why his behavior makes sense.  Which is no different from what Sam fans did in season 8 by trying to explain that Sam was desperate and afraid and alone, and that the brothers had a pact not to look for each other.  The actual words on the page and action on the screen didn't really show us that, but if Sam is your favorite, you're absolutely going to fill in those blanks with something that makes sense for his character.  I just wish the writers didn't make us do this quite so often.

[companionenvy]

3 hours ago, ILoveReading said:

I've made my position clear so I won't go into it but it doesn't matter if Dean was right when ultimately Sam's pov was the one that was given on screen validation.

12 hours ago, Reganne said:

Ruby tricked Sam, who thought Ruby was trustworthy, into starting an apocalypse. He ultimately held her down as Dean, who had always been suspicious of her, killed her. I can't see how that constitutes validation of Sam's position in any way. Sam's subsequent statement that he was susceptible to Ruby because she made him feel strong, unlike Dean, may raise a whole different can of worms, but it doesn't "validate" his trust in Ruby.

[Reganne]

1 hour ago, companionenvy said:

Ruby tricked Sam, who thought Ruby was trustworthy, into starting an apocalypse. He ultimately held her down as Dean, who had always been suspicious of her, killed her. I can't see how that constitutes validation of Sam's position in any way. Sam's subsequent statement that he was susceptible to Ruby because she made him feel strong, unlike Dean, may raise a whole different can of worms, but it doesn't "validate" his trust in Ruby.

I agree.  I also don't feel that Sam got the POV with Ruby.  I actually think they did a disservice to any POV from Sam regarding Ruby by keeping it secret from the audience for most of the season.  Having us essentially go down the road with Dean without even knowing why Sam was doing what he did.  Having the Angels tell Dean and Sam what he was doing was wrong through out the beginning of the season.

[ILoveReading]

1 hour ago, companionenvy said:

Ruby tricked Sam, who thought Ruby was trustworthy, into starting an apocalypse. He ultimately held her down as Dean, who had always been suspicious of her, killed her. I can't see how that constitutes validation of Sam's position in any way. Sam's subsequent statement that he was susceptible to Ruby because she made him feel strong, unlike Dean, may raise a whole different can of worms, but it doesn't "validate" his trust in Ruby.

It was Sam who spent the entire s4 lying and going behind Dean's back so when Dean has to apologize to Sam 3 different times (Fallen Idols, PONR, and Swan Song) for not trusting him, and then prove that he think of Sam like an adult (something I thought Dean in abundunce in s4) and the creator himself says Dean has to learn to love Sam more, than Sam was validated. 

Ruby didn't make Sam feel strong, it was only an illusion.  So for Sam to say that was why he was with her is a complete lack of awareness on Sam's part. 

Edited May 28, 2018 by ILoveReading

[Reganne]

1 minute ago, ILoveReading said:

It was Sam who spent the entire s4 lying and going behind Dean's back so when Dean has to apologize to Sam 3 different times (Fallen Idols, PONR, and Swan Song) for not trusting him, and then prove that he think of Sam like an adult (something I thought Dean in abundunce in s4) and the creator himself says Dean has to learn to love Sam more, than Sam was validated. 

Sam was also made to apologize many times.  Lucifer rising and Sympathy for the devil come to mind which specifically deal with Ruby which Dean appologys don't.  Dean was never made to apologize because he didn't trust Ruby.  Of course I am not saying he should but to me, that means Dean was validated when it comes to Ruby.