Myrelle June 22, 2018 Share June 22, 2018 On 6/20/2018 at 7:23 PM, ILoveReading said: Ive always felt the whole "Benny is a better brother" was done with the intent of painting Dean as the bad guy for being mean to poor little Sammy and hurting his feelings. Because if Sam was intended to be the bad guy or wrong the narrative would have called Sam out on his actions. It didn't. It didn't bring them up or even mention them or have Sam apologize for leaving Dean handcuffed to radiator. Or Martin. Not even a mention from anyone about Sam bringing in an unstable hunter to do his dirty work for him. I always thought that was one of the lowest things that Sam had ever done, but I guess it was nothing to the writers-not even worth a mention except in a passing manner from Dean before everything went to shit, and certainly nothing to the fandom, especially not in comparison to the Text of Doom. On 6/20/2018 at 7:23 PM, ILoveReading said: It wouldn't' have had Charlie canonically say that Dean ruined Sam's life, conveniently forgetting that Sam left before Dean came back and once again removing Dean's voice here. They also had Dean give in to Sam's temper tantrum and demands. Dean- in or out but make a choice. Sam- dump Benny or I'll dump you. But yet somehow Dean's the one that's controlling. (Insert massive eye roll). Indeed. On 6/20/2018 at 7:23 PM, ILoveReading said: Then there was poor woobie Sammy with being so sick from the trials and Dean having to support him, but that support was seen by Sam as babying and once again Dean had to prove to Sam he trusted him. They had Dean bring up all Sam's transgressions, included him being souless. IMO, that was done to put the focus on Dean blaming Sam for something beyond his control so the rest of Dean's points could be ignored. Then the wording, "What happens the next time you decide not to trust me." Putting the burden of trust on Dean's failure to support Sam rather than Sam's actions. Nope. If the show wanted me to see Sam as the bad guy they failed. I think their intention was to give Dean that honor but once again they under estimated Jensen's talent to soften even the harshest writing. For me the authorial intent right from Singer's interview of how Dean was being unfair and mean to Dean grovelling to Sam couldn't have been made clearer. This is why Season 8 is the worst season ever. I couldn't agree more with the bolded part and I think that the "apology" from Sam in S11 only happened because the writers finally actually watched S8 in it's entirety and realized that what their predecessors were going for and what actually showed up on-screen were polar opposites in most ways, just as no few in the fandom had been saying for years. Carver's comments about Sam's "maturity" being highlighted from Comic Con on that summer and Singer's comments in that one interview sealed it for me as to what they were going for and it wasn't anything good for Dean, that's for sure-not IMO, anyway. That they had Lucifer bring it up in S11 was simply so they could put it rest with the fandom, IMO. And IA that even that was poorly done, but that's how this show has rolled since S5, again IMO. 12 hours ago, Aeryn13 said: I want Dean`s strength acknowledged. Lock Singer out of the room when discussing and writing this so he can`t cut in with how stupid and pathetic and crazy Dean is. Lock Dabb out of the room, too. Or find some random person completely unfamiliar with Supernatural who wanders by their office building to write the thing. At least that would give you someone who wouldn`t get their rocks off humiliating the character. Already a step-up IMO. This. So much this. 4 Link to comment
Katy M June 22, 2018 Share June 22, 2018 On 6/20/2018 at 5:14 PM, ILoveReading said: If Benny was only using Dean had the perfect opportunity to dispose of him just after Dean resurrected him. When Dean hugged him he had the chance to rip his throat out. No one would have noticed or cared because no one gave a damn that Dean went missing. Benny earned Dean's trust. Not because he saved Dean but because he saved Cas. He didn't have too, he easily could have been a second too late. When Dean went to confront Benny he bought a machete. So it wasn't a blind trust. He didn't need to kill him. Dean wasn't after him. They hadn't had any adventures yet where Benny didn't absolutely positively need Dean alive. I'm not saying Benny was evil He obviously wasn't. But, how is Benny earning Dean's trust any different than Ruby earning Sam's trust, other than the fact that he may not have gotten to the "gotcha " point yet. Benny could have gone on an all-you-eat buffet as soon as he got topside. Dean had no way of knowing that. And, again, I'm not saying that he should have distrusted him. I'm just saying that it's not so crazy that Sam did. Especially since he had been burned by a monster once before who had seemed to be nothing but helpful. 2 Link to comment
ILoveReading June 22, 2018 Share June 22, 2018 51 minutes ago, Katy M said: He didn't need to kill him. Dean wasn't after him. Benny knew Dean was a hunter. If he really had a plan to start eating people again getting rid of Dean would have been strategic since if he got wind of vampire like killings that he had to know he'd be a suspect and Dean would come after him. 53 minutes ago, Katy M said: But, how is Benny earning Dean's trust any different than Ruby earning Sam's trust, other than the fact that he may not have gotten to the "gotcha " point yet. Because Ruby proved herself to be untrustworty before Dean even died. In No Rest for the Wicked. She lied about being able to save Dean, and when Dean got the knife off her she made it clear how disappointed she was not to get to watch Dean burn. Plus, when Dean got topside from hell he gave Ruby several chances. He thanked her for saving Sam and for helping them. When Sam explained, Dean listened. He even agreed to work with her. Plus, in Heaven and Hell getting the angels and demons together was Sam's idea. Ruby was a big part of that plan since she was tasked with bringing the demons. Even if Dean didn't trust her he had to believe in Sam's faith in her. 1 hour ago, Katy M said: I'm just saying that it's not so crazy that Sam did. Especially since he had been burned by a monster once before who had seemed to be nothing but helpfu To quote Dean in Everyone Loves a Clown- "These are your issues quit dumping them on me." Just because Sam got burned by Ruby doesn't mean that Benny would do the same thing. The main difference is that Dean gave Ruby repeated, multiple chances. Sam didn't. He wanted Benny to be guilty. 9 Link to comment
BabySpinach June 22, 2018 Share June 22, 2018 (edited) 4 hours ago, Katy M said: He didn't need to kill him. Dean wasn't after him. They hadn't had any adventures yet where Benny didn't absolutely positively need Dean alive. I'm not saying Benny was evil He obviously wasn't. But, how is Benny earning Dean's trust any different than Ruby earning Sam's trust, other than the fact that he may not have gotten to the "gotcha " point yet. Benny could have gone on an all-you-eat buffet as soon as he got topside. Dean had no way of knowing that. And, again, I'm not saying that he should have distrusted him. I'm just saying that it's not so crazy that Sam did. Especially since he had been burned by a monster once before who had seemed to be nothing but helpful. There's also the MASSIVE difference in that Benny wasn't getting Dean hooked on demon blood or some other obviously sketchy substance. He also wasn't stringing him along, nor was he pumping up Dean's ego and trying to push him toward some agenda. ETA: Also, when Dean learned that Ruby saved Sam's life, he put aside his completely justified hatred of demons and thanked her. Benny getting Dean out of Purgatory meant fuck-all to Sam. Edited June 22, 2018 by BabySpinach 9 Link to comment
FlickChick June 22, 2018 Share June 22, 2018 7 hours ago, BabySpinach said: There's also the MASSIVE difference in that Benny wasn't getting Dean hooked on demon blood or some other obviously sketchy substance. He also wasn't stringing him along, nor was he pumping up Dean's ego and trying to push him toward some agenda. There is no MASSIVE difference in my mind. Everything that you mentioned were CHOICES made by Sam. Sam chose to listen to Ruby, get his ego pumped up, and drink the demon blood even though he was told by Dean that the angels wanted him to stop. Just like Ruby said in the S4 finale - she gave him the choices and he made the "right" ones every time. "Right", of course meaning that she fed him a line and he fell for it, hook, line and sinker. So no, IMO, Sam either felt jealous over Dean's relationship with Benny or he hated Benny for helping his brother get out of Purgatory when he didn't even bother to look for him. Maybe it was guilt on Sam's part or maybe he was just fine with Dean being "dead". Sam certainly wasn't welcoming when Dean got back. JMO 3 Link to comment
BabySpinach June 22, 2018 Share June 22, 2018 4 minutes ago, FlickChick said: There is no MASSIVE difference in my mind. Everything that you mentioned were CHOICES made by Sam. Sam chose to listen to Ruby, get his ego pumped up, and drink the demon blood even though he was told by Dean that the angels wanted him to stop. Just like Ruby said in the S4 finale - she gave him the choices and he made the "right" ones every time. "Right", of course meaning that she fed him a line and he fell for it, hook, line and sinker. So no, IMO, Sam either felt jealous over Dean's relationship with Benny or he hated Benny for helping his brother get out of Purgatory when he didn't even bother to look for him. Maybe it was guilt on Sam's part or maybe he was just fine with Dean being "dead". Sam certainly wasn't welcoming when Dean got back. JMO Well, yeah, but Ruby was also offering those things to Sam because she had an ulterior motive. I was just comparing Ruby and Benny and arguing that Benny was a much more trustworthy individual from the get-go. You're arguing something completely different, and yes, I agree that Sam was jealous of Benny and unnecessarily antagonistic toward him, since he's given monsters the benefit of the doubt multiple times before and after. 4 Link to comment
catrox14 June 22, 2018 Share June 22, 2018 I've always thought that Crowley in s9 with Dean was more akin to Ruby than Benny by far. Sam's distrust of Benny was rational but it turned from rational distrust to almost irrational hatred once he learned that Benny saved Dean and Cas. Either he was projecting his guilt onto Benny over not looking for him which could tie into his "I never forgave myself" or he was plain old jealous and insecure that Dean had someone else to rely on, who had proved a trusted ally after a year of battle. 5 Link to comment
ILoveReading July 5, 2018 Share July 5, 2018 (edited) Putting this response here in response to a comment in the spoiler thread just to be on the safe side. No spoilers in this post. The comment was dropping Demon Dean because of the 200th episode. For me this isn't' an acceptable excuse because IMO, good show runners who talk to each other and plan arcs and should have been able to come up with a creative way around the problem if the concept of singing school girls absolutely had to be the concept of the 200th. They could have had Demon Dean realize that Sam and cas wouldn't stop so he pretended to be cured. There would have been the interesting element of Demon Dean not being able to handle things like salt. Jensen excels at subtlety so we could have seen little things to show that Dean wasn't Dean and Sam and/or Cas getting suspicious. Or Dean's meat suit was dead. Sam could have realized that completing the cure would kill Dean so Dean was some kind of demon/human hybrid. Dean fighting to keep the human side dominate would have given Jensen a challenge. Again adds another element to MOTW eps. Or it would have been cool to see Dean disappear in the middle of a hunt because he was summoned to make a deal. Or the simplest thing of all is change theme of episode 200. It wasn't written in stone that Fan Fiction had to be the 200th, and have it focus on Demon Dean rather than teenagers pretending to be be Sam and Dean. If they can think of a reason why Souless Sam, who wasn't supposed to have emotions, would suddenly decide hunting with Dean was better than hunting alone they could come up with a reason why Demon Dean would hunt with Sam. If they can't think of anything say he decided to do it for shits and giggles. Plain and simple they didn't want to. The writers just had no interest in the demon Dean storyline. No one was even on the same page about how long Dean was gone from the bunker. One said one week, another said a couple, and I think Carver said 6 weeks. It sounds like they left it up to Jensen to chose the direction. While flattering on one hand, its also reeks of the writers pure laziness. IIRC this was also a contract year. As it was, Dean didn't even need to be a demon to make that story line happen. They could have had Dean just get fed up and walk away. Then after they dropped it they had no plan for the rest of the season. No one sat down and discussed exactly what the mark was or what it did. It kept changing to suit a particular writers whims. So this is why I don't have faith in the writers to do the Michael Dean story justice. Given the lack of build up and the cheesy way the finale was filmed I still think it was about offering Jensen extra incentive to sign a new contract. It wouldn't surprise me if they dropped it after ep 3 (or even before) because there is some quirky concept the writers want to go with or if the writers decide that a wayward sisters ep just had to go there. Edited July 5, 2018 by ILoveReading 6 Link to comment
Jonesy July 5, 2018 Share July 5, 2018 34 minutes ago, ILoveReading said: Putting this response here in response to a comment in the spoiler thread just to be on the safe side. No spoilers in this post. The comment was dropping Demon Dean because of the 200th episode. For me this isn't' an acceptable excuse because IMO, good show runners who talk to each other and plan arcs and should have been able to come up with a creative way around the problem if the concept of singing school girls absolutely had to be the concept of the 200th. They could have had Demon Dean realize that Sam and cas wouldn't stop so he pretended to be cured. There would have been the interesting element of Demon Dean not being able to handle things like salt. Jensen excels at subtlety so we could have seen little things to show that Dean wasn't Dean and Sam and/or Cas getting suspicious. Or Dean's meat suit was dead. Sam could have realized that completing the cure would kill Dean so Dean was some kind of demon/human hybrid. Dean fighting to keep the human side dominate would have given Jensen a challenge. Again adds another element to MOTW eps. Or it would have been cool to see Dean disappear in the middle of a hunt because he was summoned to make a deal. Or the simplest thing of all is change theme of episode 200. It wasn't written in stone that Fan Fiction had to be the 200th, and have it focus on Demon Dean rather than teenagers pretending to be be Sam and Dean. If they can think of a reason why Souless Sam, who wasn't supposed to have emotions, would suddenly decide hunting with Dean was better than hunting alone they could come up with a reason why Demon Dean would hunt with Sam. If they can't think of anything say he decided to do it for shits and giggles. Plain and simple they didn't want to. The writers just had no interest in the demon Dean storyline. No one was even on the same page about how long Dean was gone from the bunker. One said one week, another said a couple, and I think Carver said 6 weeks. It sounds like they left it up to Jensen to chose the direction. While flattering on one hand, its also reeks of the writers pure laziness. IIRC this was also a contract year. As it was, Dean didn't even need to be a demon to make that story line happen. They could have had Dean just get fed up and walk away. Then after they dropped it they had no plan for the rest of the season. No one sat down and discussed exactly what the mark was or what it did. It kept changing to suit a particular writers whims. So this is why I don't have faith in the writers to do the Michael Dean story justice. Given the lack of build up and the cheesy way the finale was filmed I still think it was about offering Jensen extra incentive to sign a new contract. It wouldn't surprise me if they dropped it after ep 3 (or even before) because there is some quirky concept the writers want to go with or if the writers decide that a wayward sisters ep just had to go there. I disagree with most of this but whatever to each their own--i'll just say this...I still predict we will have Micheal/Dean for 5 to 8 episodes and do not think for a second they made this plot to get Jensen to sign...it fit in with their story and Dabb gave those who wanted this plot their wishes. Though it doesn't seem to do Dabb any good since he still gets ripped even though he made the plot a certain segment of fans wanted--maybe he should just always go against what his critics want since he'll just get criticized anyway regardless--lol! No need to argue overall we'll see soon enough how many episodes MD is...I think i'll be correct and we'll get a good deal, maybe even too much for my tastes. 2 Link to comment
companionenvy July 5, 2018 Share July 5, 2018 How long I think we're getting (or want to get) Michael Dean depends, to me, on whether Jensen would solely be playing Michael during these episodes or whether there's going to be enough of a struggle - or enough of a reason for Michael to let Dean out -- that he can be playing both characters. If Dean is around even some of the time, I think the plot has mileage, and will last for a somewhat extended run. If it is pure Michael at the wheel, I think that's unsustainable, and we wind up with only 2-3 episodes. The only reason I think Soulless Sam was able to go on as long as it was is that for a good chunk of the run, we didn't actually know that we were, in effect, dealing with a different character. We knew something was up with Sam, but not only did we not know what it was, Soulless Sam was deliberately trying to act as much like ordinary Sam as possible. So it didn't fundamentally change things up; we still had Sam and Dean hunting together. There wasn't the appearance that one of the two mains was MIA for half the season. Here, we go in knowing that Dean is Michael, and there's not going to be any pretending. And while I usually like the idea of changing up the dynamic -- I'd be fine if Sam and Dean were separated for a run of episodes -- I just don't think the show can sustain anything more than a few episodes in which no character resembling (well....except in the literal sense) Dean Winchester is on screen. Demon Dean at least had enough superficially Dean-like qualities that I agree the show could have gotten a little more mileage out of him. But I think the real problem with Demon Dean was that, surface attitude aside, he just wasn't complex enough. I think I've said somewhere on the boards before that my vision for DD would have been an amoral and more violent version of Dean, but one who still had the same basic impulses, including at least an approximation of love for Sam and Cas, desire to gank baddies, etc. Once you have the character dismissing Baby and responding with a shrug to a credible death threat against Sam, that's just not meaningfully Dean Winchester anymore. It would have been fascinating for DD to buck expectations and come back to the bunker ready to carry on some version of his old life, but instead the writers tried to compromise with MoC Dean, who went to the opposite extreme as Demon Dean and wasn't bad enough, to the point where Sam and Cas's level of concern seemed silly. 2 Link to comment
gonzosgirrl July 5, 2018 Share July 5, 2018 2 hours ago, ILoveReading said: Putting this response here in response to a comment in the spoiler thread just to be on the safe side. No spoilers in this post. The comment was dropping Demon Dean because of the 200th episode. For me this isn't' an acceptable excuse because IMO, good show runners who talk to each other and plan arcs and should have been able to come up with a creative way around the problem if the concept of singing school girls absolutely had to be the concept of the 200th. They could have had Demon Dean realize that Sam and cas wouldn't stop so he pretended to be cured. There would have been the interesting element of Demon Dean not being able to handle things like salt. Jensen excels at subtlety so we could have seen little things to show that Dean wasn't Dean and Sam and/or Cas getting suspicious. Or Dean's meat suit was dead. Sam could have realized that completing the cure would kill Dean so Dean was some kind of demon/human hybrid. Dean fighting to keep the human side dominate would have given Jensen a challenge. Again adds another element to MOTW eps. Or it would have been cool to see Dean disappear in the middle of a hunt because he was summoned to make a deal. Or the simplest thing of all is change theme of episode 200. It wasn't written in stone that Fan Fiction had to be the 200th, and have it focus on Demon Dean rather than teenagers pretending to be be Sam and Dean. If they can think of a reason why Souless Sam, who wasn't supposed to have emotions, would suddenly decide hunting with Dean was better than hunting alone they could come up with a reason why Demon Dean would hunt with Sam. If they can't think of anything say he decided to do it for shits and giggles. Plain and simple they didn't want to. The writers just had no interest in the demon Dean storyline. No one was even on the same page about how long Dean was gone from the bunker. One said one week, another said a couple, and I think Carver said 6 weeks. It sounds like they left it up to Jensen to chose the direction. While flattering on one hand, its also reeks of the writers pure laziness. IIRC this was also a contract year. As it was, Dean didn't even need to be a demon to make that story line happen. They could have had Dean just get fed up and walk away. Then after they dropped it they had no plan for the rest of the season. No one sat down and discussed exactly what the mark was or what it did. It kept changing to suit a particular writers whims. So this is why I don't have faith in the writers to do the Michael Dean story justice. Given the lack of build up and the cheesy way the finale was filmed I still think it was about offering Jensen extra incentive to sign a new contract. It wouldn't surprise me if they dropped it after ep 3 (or even before) because there is some quirky concept the writers want to go with or if the writers decide that a wayward sisters ep just had to go there. I agree with pretty much every word of this. They wasted Demon Dean when they still had a few decent writers. I have zero faith the Dabb and the writers that remain have the imagination or the talent to pull off a long arc with Michael!Dean. They are not a 'team', they are a bunch of individuals who seem to write whateverthefuck they want, regardless of canon or even current storytelling. I will not only eat my words, I'll tweet a public apology if they don't have Dean doing something 'funny' and oh-so-one-dimensional while Michael keeps him subdued and goes about his business, until Sam/Cas/Jack save him. Even money says it will involve drinks on a beach, sloppy eating, and being rejected by a beautiful woman or two. If that fight scene and freeze frame are the benchmark, I shudder to think what they'll produce when they have to actually write for the character(s). I sincerely hope they didn't dangle a meaty storyline to get Jensen on board - because I don't like to think about the fallout when they fail to deliver. I actually wonder if they've already back-tracked - or else they outright lied with their hints and teasers. 5 Link to comment
ILoveReading July 6, 2018 Share July 6, 2018 (edited) 14 hours ago, companionenvy said: The only reason I think Soulless Sam was able to go on as long as it was is that for a good chunk of the run, we didn't actually know that we were, in effect, dealing with a different character. We knew something was up with Sam, but not only did we not know what it was, Soulless Sam was deliberately trying to act as much like ordinary Sam as possible. So it didn't fundamentally change things up; we still had Sam and Dean hunting together. There wasn't the appearance that one of the two mains was MIA for half the season. The problem is that after the reveal there is no good story reason, IMO, why a guy who wasn't supposed to care, tried to act like Sam. Or would want to suddenly have a hunting partner he would have to answer too. If Souless Sam can suddenly need Dean for....reasons then the writers can do the same with with Michael Dean. 14 hours ago, companionenvy said: there's not going to be any pretending There could be. Michael could give Dean control back. Or he could lie and say that Dean's body was damaged by Lucifer's smiting and he's the only think keeping Dean alive. But reality is its actually Michael the whole time. Jensen would excel at playing Michael pretending to be Dean. (I don't care if its a repeat of Gadreel. They repeat Dean's stories with Sam often enough). There are plenty of ways to maintain the status quo but still have Michael around for an extended period. If its dropped after an ep or two its because the writers were too lazy to put any kind of effort into things or they don't actually want to. Edited July 6, 2018 by ILoveReading 4 Link to comment
companionenvy July 6, 2018 Share July 6, 2018 10 minutes ago, ILoveReading said: The problem is that after the reveal there is no good story reason, IMO, why a guy who wasn't supposed to care, tried to act like Sam. Or would want to suddenly have a hunting partner he would have to answer too. If Souless Sam can suddenly need Dean for....reasons then the writers can do the same with with Michael Dean. I think what is still somewhat different for me here is that Soulless Sam, like Demon Dean, wasn't a totally different person. He was Sam with a really crucial piece missing. But he had all of the memories of Sam Winchester, and so I bought that, while caring was no longer natural to him, he might remember caring and wish to be closer to the person he was before. It therefore made sense to me that SS, after over a year of living a life that wasn't bringing him satisfaction or real happiness, but remembering times in which he was -- however shitty his circumstances often were - capable of feeling real emotions, would be on-board with Dean's "restore your soul" plan, and in the meantime do his best to fake it till he makes it. That wasn't enough for him to stay on board with the plan once he heard about the risks involved, but it was enough to carry things on for a few more episodes. The same applied to DD, and there's no reason he shouldn't have been able to last at least the five episodes SS did between revelation and cure - more if they were going to make him more complex, as I indicated above. I don't think it really applies for Michael Dean, because that's a totally different being inhabiting Dean's body, with a personality and mind of his own. I do think, as you suggest, there are ways of making Michael Dean work as a long-term arc. I just don't think having Jensen Ackles playing the character of Michael - and all of us knowing that he's playing the character of Michael -- for 11 or even 5-6 episodes is one of them. It also seems to me that that would be the last thing someone strongly preferring Dean (as opposed to just Jensen Ackles) would want. If Jensen is playing Michael and just Michael for 11 episodes, than Dean simply isn't there. Any Winchester MOTW kill goes to Sam (and Mary, I guess, but let's call her a Campbell for the purposes of this discussion). Any Winchester character development goes to Sam. Any Winchester plotting to save Dean from Michael goes to Sam. Even if Dean ultimately freed himself from Michael down the line, for however long it took to get there, Sam really would be the sole and unambiguous main hero of the show. Even if you think that Sam's already getting the bulk of the attention, taking Dean totally off the board for a half-season can only compound that. It might be great for Jensen; not for Dean. Link to comment
gonzosgirrl July 6, 2018 Share July 6, 2018 18 minutes ago, companionenvy said: It also seems to me that that would be the last thing someone strongly preferring Dean (as opposed to just Jensen Ackles) would want. If Jensen is playing Michael and just Michael for 11 episodes, than Dean simply isn't there. Any Winchester MOTW kill goes to Sam (and Mary, I guess, but let's call her a Campbell for the purposes of this discussion). Any Winchester character development goes to Sam. Any Winchester plotting to save Dean from Michael goes to Sam. Even if Dean ultimately freed himself from Michael down the line, for however long it took to get there, Sam really would be the sole and unambiguous main hero of the show. Even if you think that Sam's already getting the bulk of the attention, taking Dean totally off the board for a half-season can only compound that. It might be great for Jensen; not for Dean. That entirely depends on the writing, and how much of a villain they want to make Michael. If Dean can influence him from within, and do some good along the way (like, say, save Heaven) or help with whatever other big bad they come up with for S14, then Dean remains in play and in the role of hero. It's only if, likely when, they have him be Deansel in distress, awaiting rescue, or worse, completely unaware Dean, living the good life on a beach somewhere, that the role(s) breaks down. They didn't have Soulless Sam be a total dick while soulless, he still saved some people. There is room for good writing and characterization in Michael/Dean - I'm just not sure there is the talent in the writing room to pull it off. So ultimately, if reluctantly, I agree - I don't want the arc to last very long under those conditions. I'd love to be pleasantly surprised and proven wrong. 5 Link to comment
Aeryn13 July 6, 2018 Share July 6, 2018 The bare minimum I would want out of Michael!Dean is none of those stupid comic relief moments that are painfully unfunny, no slapstick, no "haha, old and unattractive" jokes, no dumb jokes, none of that. But they`ll probably gonna find a way to put even that in with that beach-side scenario.. Once Dean gave that speech in the Finale, I cringed internally because what else was this for? They already botched up the material so far - AU!Michael isn`t Michael, Singer, thus he is not "a character we haven`t seen in a few years", the AU people and our world people are not interchangeable, even Arrow which had some hideous writing with AU!Laurel didn`t make that completely so. Dean saying yes felt rushed and it was left very debatable how much of the reason he did so was heroic or how much it was pathetic and in service of Sam, Sam, Sam. They botched the fight choreography and made Michael look quite weak, then that freeze frame was directing from the 80s - and not in a good way. And I`m sure Lucifer will be back anyway, to be defeated in a super-special. this time cool-looking way by Sam so to further devalue and invalidate Dean`s role here. With all that background, why would they even care or even know how to make Michael!Dean an engaging, cool storyline? It would absolutely be possible, provided you had talented writers who cared about the character. 5 Link to comment
ILoveReading July 6, 2018 Share July 6, 2018 Also its possible to make someone's presence felt even when they aren't on screen. Even though Misha wasn't in the early episodes, Cas was still very much a part of them. We saw Dean struggle to cope and put one foot in front of the other. I would like too see something similar with Cas, Sam and Mary. Let's see them talk about Dean. Actually voice some of the good things he's done, show them struggling to cope with Dean's absence. Gone but not forgotten. As @gonzosgirrl said, there are ways to show Dean as not being a passive victim. Not to mention several opportunities they have use MOTW eps creatively. They could do pretty much anything if its an ep taking place in Dean's head. It could be how Michael is burying Dean. By sending him on "hunts" but there could be little small difference that Dean notices to show him something isn't quite right. The possibilities and opportunities for creativity are there if the writer choose to take advantage of it. I don't think they want to. 5 Link to comment
Aeryn13 July 6, 2018 Share July 6, 2018 (edited) Quote Also its possible to make someone's presence felt even when they aren't on screen. Back on Fringe, Peter Bishop was my favourite character. After was "erased" from existance in Season 3, I was not exactly happy that the character wasn`t around for the first few episodes of Season 4 but his non-presence was still felt and I didn`t think those were bad episodes. If SPN had the Fringe writers and their ballsiness (I think they revamped the formula of the show three times), I would look forward to it. Quote As @GONZOSGIRRL said, there are ways to show Dean as not being a passive victim. Not to mention several opportunities they have use MOTW eps creatively. They could do pretty much anything if its an ep taking place in Dean's head. It could be how Michael is burying Dean. By sending him on "hunts" but there could be little small difference that Dean notices to show him something isn't quite right. The possibilities and opportunities for creativity are there if the writer choose to take advantage of it. I don't think they want to. Exactly. So what if those weren`t real. You could put exciting little clues in those hunts that would make Dean think something isn`t right. Being on to Michael. You could overlap it with what Michael does in real time and somehow it bleeds over into the dream scenario and because you see Dean pushing back or doing something in the dream, it even effects what Michael does or doesn`t do in the real world. You could do split episodes of such a mind-hunt and Sam, Cas and Jack on their end. It`s really not that hard. BUT for any of that, the writers would have to have some balls not to be entirely formulaic with the show. And communicate with each other. Not each write whatever anthology episode, loosely based in a show called Supernatural, they want. Edited July 6, 2018 by Aeryn13 9 Link to comment
ILoveReading July 6, 2018 Share July 6, 2018 (edited) 49 minutes ago, Aeryn13 said: And I`m sure Lucifer will be back anyway, to be defeated in a super-special. this time cool-looking way by Sam so to further devalue and invalidate Dean`s role here. This is what I'm expecting. Dabb is saving real Michael so that when the time comes for the real battle Sam will say yes with a big build up, and he'll take out Lucifer, AU Michael before heroically sacrificing himself by killing Real World Michael by stabbing himself. Dean will gaze adoringly, he certainly won't get an active save. Using this to set Dean up to fail so that there is a valid in show reason as to why Sam should be the one to say yes would be right up Dabb's alley. He couldn't even let Dean hold his own with Lucifer. Sam had to save the day. In the aftermath I don't expect anyone to thank Dean for "stepping up." Bobby will lecture Dean for being an idjit. Mary will be concerned at how this effected Sam and lecture Dean on how he didn't take Sam's feelings into account. Cas will lecture Dean on how much he disappointed him. Sam will lecture Dean about the kiddie table thing again and complain that Dean promised to let him take care of Lucifer. Edited July 6, 2018 by ILoveReading 3 Link to comment
companionenvy July 6, 2018 Share July 6, 2018 8 minutes ago, ILoveReading said: This is what I'm expecting. Dabb is saving real Michael so that when the time comes for the real battle Sam will say yes with a big build up, and he'll take out Lucifer AU Michael before heroically sacrificing himself by killing Real World Michael by stabbing himself. Using this to set Dean up to fail so that there is a valid in show reason as to why Sam should be the one to say yes would be right up Dabb's ally. He coudn't even let Dean hold his own with Lucifer. Sam had to save the day. In the aftermath I don't expect anyone to thank Dean for "stepping up." Bobby will lecture Dean for being an idjit. Mary will be concerned at how this effected Sam and lecture Dean on how he didn't take Sam's feelings into account. Cas will lecture Dean on how much he disappointed him. Sam will lecture Dean about the kiddie table thing again and complain that Dean promised to let him take care of Lucifer. Well, maybe, but this time last year, a lot of people were predicting that Sam was going to spend S13 being the unquestioned leader of a community of hunters, which didn't happen, and that he would wind up killing whatever Big Bads came up while Dean was relegated into irrelevance. Instead, the "community of hunters" was never a thing, Dean killed Lucifer (it may not stick, but that's what we're left with for now), Sam failed to kill Lucifer and got killed the one time he took leadership, and the season ended with Michael!Dean, a plot that Dean fans have wanted to see for years. That's not to say the writers always portrayed Dean well - but it does suggest that maybe reserving judgment is in order. 3 Link to comment
ILoveReading July 6, 2018 Share July 6, 2018 2 minutes ago, companionenvy said: Well, maybe, but this time last year, a lot of people were predicting that Sam was going to spend S13 being the unquestioned leader of a community of hunters, which didn't happen, and that he would wind up killing whatever Big Bads came up while Dean was relegated into irrelevance. Instead, the "community of hunters" was never a thing, Dean killed Lucifer (it may not stick, but that's what we're left with for now), Sam failed to kill Lucifer and got killed the one time he took leadership, and the season ended with Michael!Dean, a plot that Dean fans have wanted to see for years. That's not to say the writers always portrayed Dean well - but it does suggest that maybe reserving judgment is in order. I have wanted to see Jensen play Michael for years. But he's not playing Michael. He's playing a facsimile of Michael. With Michael there was two things i wanted to see. That Dean saying yes wasn't about saving Sam (or even just about saving Sam), and that Dean being Michael's true vessel meant something. Not things I believe are unrealistic or unreasonable expectations. What I get, a rushed story. Dabb litterally waited until the last possible second he could wait before he introduced Dean saying yes. It was rushed and was about Sam. It was just more of the co-dependcy. There has to be a reason why all this "kiddie table" save Sammy stuff came up again. Lucifer wiped the floor with Michael. He got in one punch. He would be dead if Sam hadn't saved the day, so this seems more Sam's kill then Dean's. So being Michael's true vessel meant nothing. When Lucifer comes back, it will all have been pointless anyway. So yes, I'm a big Dean fan but its also why I'd be more than okay with the character being off screen or away. Because its not like he's going to get many heroic moments anyway. Dabb sees the character as the sloppy, needy comic relief guy. 6 Link to comment
Jonesy July 6, 2018 Share July 6, 2018 Yeah, I never got Dean never gets heroics--he gets tons of it and overall probably edges out Sam...and Dean humor is great imo, it doesn't diminish hero Dean. I see this a lot where certain proponents of Dean, Sam and Cas thinks their favorite is not appreciated nearly enough. IMO in all 3 cases this is way overstated--they all get to shine and are the heroes of the piece....especially Dean and Sam. I like all 3 and many of the supporting characters--so I don't laser focus on just one and measure every so called slight. I can enjoy the show with all 3 being imperfect but in the end being heroes but none of them have to be in the center of all heroics(it's fine with me when side characters shine from time to time also). And IMO they are all portrayed as heroes, faults and all...imo Dean is portrayed as the center of the show and clearly does many heroics--which is different than everything he does is all roses and perfect. So yes things aren't perfectly portrayed but all 3 heroes are shown as heroic. 3 Link to comment
gonzosgirrl July 6, 2018 Share July 6, 2018 4 hours ago, ILoveReading said: I would like too see something similar with Cas, Sam and Mary. Let's see them talk about Dean. Actually voice some of the good things he's done, show them struggling to cope with Dean's absence. Gone but not forgotten. Honestly, for this Dean girl, that would be almost as good as having Dean on screen. I can't actually recall the last time Sam praised Dean to another person*. Cas either, for that matter. Mary, never. It would do my heart good, and go a long way to making me not hate Mary, if she actually showed some concern for Dean in all this. And I don't mean concern masked as anger for what he did - though I'm 100% certain that's what we'll get from all of them. I don't count the speech to Charlie in BotD - that was all about Sam. And yes, Death was 'in the room' when Sam said Dean would 'never hear me say you're anything but good' because I was too busy picking my eyeballs up from where they landed after they rolled out of my head. So yeah, if losing Dean for a few episodes would allow me to hear and see some love for him from his family, then bring it on! 6 Link to comment
gonzosgirrl July 6, 2018 Share July 6, 2018 3 hours ago, companionenvy said: Well, maybe, but this time last year, a lot of people were predicting that Sam was going to spend S13 being the unquestioned leader of a community of hunters, which didn't happen, and that he would wind up killing whatever Big Bads came up while Dean was relegated into irrelevance. Instead, the "community of hunters" was never a thing, Dean killed Lucifer (it may not stick, but that's what we're left with for now), Sam failed to kill Lucifer and got killed the one time he took leadership, and the season ended with Michael!Dean, a plot that Dean fans have wanted to see for years. That's not to say the writers always portrayed Dean well - but it does suggest that maybe reserving judgment is in order. This is absolutely not the plot that this Dean fan has wanted for years. As @ILoveReading said, this is not Michael, and the arch-angel that he is got his ass handed to him by Lucifer during one of the most ridiculous scenes ever to air in 13 seasons before Sam saved the day. If that is Dabb giving me what I want, then please Chuck, never let him be so generous again. As far as Sam leading the hunters - that was absolutely the through-line Dabb presented, so the lack of follow through doesn't mean that fans were unrealistic to predict it. 7 Link to comment
catrox14 July 6, 2018 Share July 6, 2018 6 hours ago, companionenvy said: It also seems to me that that would be the last thing someone strongly preferring Dean (as opposed to just Jensen Ackles) would want. If Jensen is playing Michael and just Michael for 11 episodes, than Dean simply isn't there. Any Winchester MOTW kill goes to Sam (and Mary, I guess, but let's call her a Campbell for the purposes of this discussion). Any Winchester character development goes to Sam. Any Winchester plotting to save Dean from Michael goes to Sam. Even if Dean ultimately freed himself from Michael down the line, for however long it took to get there, Sam really would be the sole and unambiguous main hero of the show. Even if you think that Sam's already getting the bulk of the attention, taking Dean totally off the board for a half-season can only compound that. It might be great for Jensen; not for Dean. I've seen this argument for limiting Jensen playing "other" than Dean fairly often here. It's kind of a strawman IMO, because Dean is IMO the most well developed character in the show. He didn't have the same journey as Sam but the layers on Dean are peeled back little by little and the character has changed, sometimes for the better and other times not so much. Regardless, it's still character development one way or another. And there are so many and deep layers to Dean that Jensen himself puts into the role that defies poor writing and elevates the character to much more than he would have been on paper IMO. It would take me hours to write about Dean's characterization but in short if the argument against extended "other than Dean" is that he won't get some saves, I'm okay with that because he already HAS saved the world many times over and all the people he's is too many to count really, (even though I like counting them). He was deemed by God to be the firewall between Light and Dark. He was the soul bomb to save the world from Amara's destructive actions. Even though I hated the outcome of Swan Song, and do not agree with it, the show says that Dean helped Sam save the world by going to his side. This is totally different than s4 and s5 because Dean didn't do it because the angels made him do it or because it was the same destiny as s4 and s5. He did it of his own choice with a different Michael, not OG!Michael. That destiny was subverted in s5. It wasn't delayed. It was ended and altered. So for me, Dean being Michael, and even being somewhat subsumed by AU!Michael doesn't regress Dean because he said yes to AU!Michael to save NOT only Sam and Jack but also the entire world/SPN-universe/maybe even the multiverse from a Jack-powered Lucifer. I'm still an A+ Dean Girl even if I am okay with Dean being off screen for more than 3 episodes. Besides, absence makes the heart grow fonder, doesn't it? Jensen deserves this shot to play OTHER. He's more than earned it. And he'll make it great regardless if the writing is not good. And being a Dean girl and a Jensen fan are things that co-exist in me and they are not opposites. 10 Link to comment
AwesomO4000 July 8, 2018 Share July 8, 2018 On 7/6/2018 at 2:20 PM, gonzosgirrl said: As far as Sam leading the hunters - that was absolutely the through-line Dabb presented, so the lack of follow through doesn't mean that fans were unrealistic to predict it. I don't agree with "absolutely" at all. For me, that wasn't the throughline that Dabb presented. For me it was more set up as a Sam screws up and has to apologize plot... complete with Sam having a turn-around that made no sense in order to set it up. (I don't think Sam joining the BMoL made sense even within that one episode, never mind in general). And there was no doubt when Sam did it that he was wrong, because we already knew the BMoL were bad, so I just didn't see the set up for Sam as some future leader. I - and several others - even predicted in the "Who We Are / All Along the Watchtower" episode thread and this thread at the time that it was something we would never see or hear from again... and we didn't. And this was my reasoning for it at the time: Quote And the purpose - in my opinion - of Sam being the leader this time was to show that Sam was somehow taking the "easier" route by not being the leader before. Now that that has been established - i.e. Dean's role as leader = brave and good, Sam's role as usual follower = "easy" and lame - I don't expect Sam as leader to continue. It was done to show that Sam was "wrong" in my opinion, but once he realized that, and it was shown that being the leader is the "right" way... Sam will likely - in my prediction - go back to not being the leader. I was bitter at the time that the show was seemingly saying - to me - that Sam as follower was somehow a "less than" and lazy role and only being a leader is noble and good. I happen to think someone who is good at being a second and knowing when to follow is also a critical part in a team. I don't think the current show writers (starting with Carver) think this however, and for me that's what the Sam as temporary leader was trying to show. And it hasn't much changed I think... generally Sam as leader = stuff goes wrong, but the show has to have him try and fail to show how wrong he is for trying to be leader. It annoys me. I never for a moment thought that the Sam as leader of the hunters plot was going to go anywhere, because I never thought that was the purpose in the first place. 1 Link to comment
ILoveReading July 8, 2018 Share July 8, 2018 I guess I dont' see how the show was saying "Sam is wrong" when no one called him out of his actions. He joined behind Dean's back and manipulated him. Dean's response was to join up and play ball. He was reporting for duty and filing reports. When Sam gave his big leader speech they had Dean sit there and gaze adoringly. Sam said "follow me" not us, as in him and Dean. At that point he didn't know Dean was going to choose to say behind so he clearly was putting himself in charge. Then Dean verbally confirmed that "Sam had this." I just don't see the show saying that Sam screwed up by joining, if anything it sent a message that the real fault was not Sam joining but failing to take charge immediately. 2 Link to comment
Reganne July 8, 2018 Share July 8, 2018 I wasn't surprised that Sam wouldn't be shown to effectively be a leader while in Dean's presence. I do think that Dean has been shown to be more of a leader than Sam and I don't have a problem with that. However, I did have a problem with how weak they made Sam in season 13. Constantly getting hit on the head and getting knocked out or kidnapped etc. I think for me, by the time we got to Sam trying to be a leader and failing miserably by dying from some vampires, I was like really? Season 13 has to be Sam's weakest season by far in terms of hunting which I find ridiculous. He should be getting better, not worse. He shouldn't be shown as the biggest burden for Dean when he was set up to actually be one of the heros in the series. I'm kind of getting tired of burden Sam that season 13 has presented us with. I thought we had grown past this, but evidently they had not. It actually got worse in season 13. As such, I do think we will see some leadership from Sam in season 14. I think it's inevitable with Dean being possessed by Michael. I just hope they allow him to be successful sometimes. TBH though, I don't expect the leadership to continue with Sam once Dean returns. Link to comment
companionenvy July 8, 2018 Share July 8, 2018 33 minutes ago, ILoveReading said: I guess I dont' see how the show was saying "Sam is wrong" when no one called him out of his actions. He joined behind Dean's back and manipulated him. Dean's response was to join up and play ball. He was reporting for duty and filing reports. When Sam gave his big leader speech they had Dean sit there and gaze adoringly. Sam said "follow me" not us, as in him and Dean. At that point he didn't know Dean was going to choose to say behind so he clearly was putting himself in charge. Then Dean verbally confirmed that "Sam had this." I just don't see the show saying that Sam screwed up by joining, if anything it sent a message that the real fault was not Sam joining but failing to take charge immediately. From the 12.22 episode transcript: Sam (to Dean): Mom, what they did to her... I just fell for their company line. Man I...I saw what they were doing and I -- and I thought, Hunters on that scale, working together...how much good we can do. And once I was in, I...I just followed. 'Cause it was easy. Later (in the speech to the hunters): Most of you had the good sense to turn [the BMOL] down. I didn't. So, yes, there's a degree to which Sam is blaming himself for being a follower once he was already in the BMOL, but here he also explicitly says that he should have turned them down in the first place. Not doing so was "falling for their company line." Whether or not Sam is being arrogant in taking sole leadership, or Dean is propping him by saying that Sam "has this," is a separate issue as to whether or not Sam admits that he was wrong to join the BMOL. He does. 2 Link to comment
ILoveReading July 8, 2018 Share July 8, 2018 2 minutes ago, companionenvy said: From the 12.22 episode transcript: Sam (to Dean): Mom, what they did to her... I just fell for their company line. Man I...I saw what they were doing and I -- and I thought, Hunters on that scale, working together...how much good we can do. And once I was in, I...I just followed. 'Cause it was easy. Later (in the speech to the hunters): Most of you had the good sense to turn [the BMOL] down. I didn't. So, yes, there's a degree to which Sam is blaming himself for being a follower once he was already in the BMOL, but here he also explicitly says that he should have turned them down in the first place. Not doing so was "falling for their company line." Whether or not Sam is being arrogant in taking sole leadership, or Dean is propping him by saying that Sam "has this," is a separate issue as to whether or not Sam admits that he was wrong to join the BMOL. He does. But there was no negative consequences. Dean ended up joining too. Sam promoted himself to leader. No one called him out. For me words are meaningless without actions to back them up. 3 Link to comment
companionenvy July 8, 2018 Share July 8, 2018 2 hours ago, ILoveReading said: But there was no negative consequences. Dean ended up joining too. Sam promoted himself to leader. No one called him out. For me words are meaningless without actions to back them up. There weren't for Sam and Dean, but there were for Mary, who gets turned into a mindless puppet. In the short time that Sam and Dean work for them, the alliance doesn't cause any damage, but what Ketch does to the other Winchester who joined them- along with finding out about the BMOL's crazy friendly fire policy -- is pretty compelling evidence that joining up with or even working with these people is a pretty poor idea. In addition, Sam knows that there were no negative consequences at the point at which he makes the above quotation, and still declares himself wrong. No one contradicts him. That seems like the show is accepting Sam's assessment. Sam and Dean were lucky to avoid catastrophe. That doesn't validate the decision. That would be like saying it doesn't count as a screw-up if one of them messes up on a hunt and lets the monster escape as long as they manage to recapture it before anyone else is killed. At the very least Sam certainly proved wrong in his belief that working with the BMOL might be a good way to achieve a world without monsters. To add my standard caveat when this subject comes up: I don't think Sam (or Dean) were wrong to work with the BMOL to the extent that they did given what they knew at the time. At no point did either of them participate in unethical behavior or give the BMOL any intelligence they hadn't already had access to as a part of that agreement. The BMOL tipped the Winchesters off to some legitimate cases, and the Winchesters told the BMOL how things went. When they realized how far off the deep end the Brits were, they got out. The choice turned out to be wrong. It wasn't foolish in itself. I do think that part of the reason for having Sam be so on-board was to set up his leader arc. This is normal and natural, given that Sam is one of the two main characters of the show. As several people have pointed out, that arc is pretty crappily conceived on a lot of levels, and doesn't go anywhere after that episode. Dean isn't the only one whose arcs don't always end by fulfilling every fan's utmost desires; Sam's greatest hits include "I decided not to complete the trials" and "I saved my brother but started another apocalypse." Overall, I agree with Jakes that Sam and Dean both finally get their share of hero moments. But it doesn't take much to find fault with pretty much all of their main arcs for one reason or another. 1 Link to comment
ILoveReading July 8, 2018 Share July 8, 2018 10 minutes ago, companionenvy said: There weren't for Sam and Dean, but there were for Mary, who gets turned into a mindless puppet. I don't really care what the consequences were for Mary. It's the lack of calling Sam out for lying and manipulating Dean and then Sam promoting himself to General Winchester (again he did this before he knew Dean stayed behind). From a storytelling perspective that doesn't come across as the actions of a man the show thinks is in the wrong. If Dean was even given an "I told you so" then I might agree Sam was wrong but Dean played along like a good little boy following all the Brits rules. Sam also never told Dean about the colt. Something else the show glossed over and ignored. 14 minutes ago, companionenvy said: o add my standard caveat when this subject comes up: I don't think Sam (or Dean) were wrong to work with the BMOL to the extent that they did given what they knew at the time. They knew the brits were torturers. And had a see monster kill monster policy. Sam and Dean haven't been that black and white since bloodlust. I agree it made no sense for Sam to join, but he did and he lied about it. The episode just made a big point of making Dean learn a lesson about making decisions for others and then turn around and gave Sam a free pass for doing the exact same thing to Dean. Sam's words weren't "I'll ask him but give me time?" I can only imagine what inshow and fandom reaction would be if Dean did that to Sam. Sam certainly wouldn't have said "lets give it a shot." His response would be more "stop putting me at the kiddie table." 19 minutes ago, companionenvy said: The BMOL tipped the Winchesters off to some legitimate cases, and the Winchesters told the BMOL how things went. When they realized how far off the deep end the Brits were, they got out. They didn't get out. They witnesses sketchy behaviour in both Ladies Drink Free and the British Invasion and as of episode 18 they were still working for them. The were all kinds of clues. So I don't believe that Dabb had "Sam is wrong" in mind when he wrote the storyline. 6 Link to comment
catrox14 July 8, 2018 Share July 8, 2018 1 hour ago, companionenvy said: There weren't for Sam and Dean, but there were for Mary, who gets turned into a mindless puppet Mary being tortured IMO was a clear attempt by Dabb and company to redeem her or at least make her sympathetic and for the audience to feel sorry for poor pitiful Mary. I guess it worked on some viewers but not me TBH because she chose to ally herself with the people she KNEW tortured Sam extensively and tried to kill both of her actual children. Karma? Maybe a little bit? Dean NEVER really wanted to join the BMOL. He did it because Sam did. And Sam lied to him and it was never once called out in the narrative by anyone. Sam said he didn't/wouldn't/couldn't see the BMOL for what they were was just a lesson on his way to becoming General Winchester and that mistake is remedied/redeemed by him getting the hunters to follow him into battle. And that is what stands at the end of s12, not his mistakes getting to being a leader. IMHO 6 Link to comment
gonzosgirrl July 8, 2018 Share July 8, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, companionenvy said: To add my standard caveat when this subject comes up: I don't think Sam (or Dean) were wrong to work with the BMOL to the extent that they did given what they knew at the time. They knew that Lady-Glad-She's-Dead shot, kidnapped, mind-fucked and tortured Sam. They knew they sent Hench Bitch out with express orders to kill Dean. They knew they were willing to slaughter every supernatural creature in existence wholesale. Sam willingly deceived Dean about joining them because he knew what Dean thought of them, and Dean went along after he found out because, IMO, Dean being Dean, had no choice - go along to get along or lose what little relationship he had with his mother and brother. And then he validated Sam in all the ways @ILoveReading mentioned. Edited July 8, 2018 by gonzosgirrl 7 Link to comment
companionenvy July 8, 2018 Share July 8, 2018 2 hours ago, ILoveReading said: I don't really care what the consequences were for Mary. It's the lack of calling Sam out for lying and manipulating Dean and then Sam promoting himself to General Winchester (again he did this before he knew Dean stayed behind). From a storytelling perspective that doesn't come across as the actions of a man the show thinks is in the wrong. If Dean was even given an "I told you so" then I might agree Sam was wrong but Dean played along like a good little boy following all the Brits rules. As I noted in a previous post, I am specifically not talking about whether or not Sam is "in the wrong" in a global sense. Whether or not Sam should have lied to Dean, whether or not Sam should have taken leadership to the exclusion of Dean are, like "should Sam have looked for Dean in S8" all valid questions that are nonetheless distinct from the question of "Was Sam shown to be wrong about trusting/agreeing to work with the MOL." That is the only question my post is addressing. When the character says "Most of you had the good sense to turn [the BMOL] down, I didn't," that is a direct admission of wrong on Sam's part for the specific fault of working with the BMOL. No one contradicts this. 2 hours ago, ILoveReading said: They knew the brits were torturers. And had a see monster kill monster policy. Sam and Dean haven't been that black and white since bloodlust. If you're referring to Lady Toni, they had been told that she was a rogue agent, and had not seen evidence to the contrary. At the end of the season, they also work with Walt and Roy, people who, as the dialogue recalls, killed both Sam and Dean in their last encounter. They have the King of Hell and his witch mother on speed dial. Ketch isn't even close to the first killer or torturer they've worked for. How is setting up a limited partnership of convenience with the BMOL, on this basis, any worse than routinely working with Crowley and Rowena on issues of cosmic importance? If you're talking about the torture of monsters, read on, as the same reasoning will apply. As for the see monster kill monster policy - in the first place, I think there's sometimes a tendency to overstate how tolerant Dean or even Sam are of the average monster. They are willing to make exceptions when they become aware that exceptions are warranted, and have come to understand that certain species (i.e, werewolves) shouldn't get the automatic kill treatment. But Sam and Dean aren't holding trials for every ghost or vampire. As the series has gone on, we've seen less and less of these run of the mill cases, but when Sam and Dean hear about a vampire nest killing people, they take it out. I'd wager that on conservatively 90 % of cases, they'd agree with the BMOL's definition of monsters, as they evidently did in every case that came their way up until the werewolf hunt involving Claire (they never found out about Magda). And we never actually get clarification on how far that definition extends. They don't try to take out Cas, so apparently it isn't "anything supernatural." Beyond that, there's really no basis for believing, until we get to things like the Hunger Games Hogwarts and taking out hits on people who won't join them, that the BMOL are actually worse than a ton of American hunters are. We know Gordon and Kubrick took an absolutist line on all monsters. So, evidently, did John. Even Bobby's idea of a compassionate approach to dealing with a shifter baby at one point was "hide it in the attic forever." Black and white thinking on monsters is something the Winchesters develop from the beginning of the series on. It isn't something that is presented as a part of the hunter's ethos that they were raised in. Mick kills the werewolf girl and wants to kill Claire - but I suspect tons of other hunters would have considered that the regrettable but responsible choice. That the BMOL are better at killing monsters than the American hunters doesn't mean they're less ethical. In any case, Sam and Dean themselves never cross an ethical line while working with them. They hunt in exactly the same way they've always hunted, but supposedly with a more effective system for finding cases. 1 Link to comment
ILoveReading July 8, 2018 Share July 8, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, companionenvy said: How is setting up a limited partnership of convenience with the BMOL, on this basis, any worse than routinely working with Crowley and Rowena on issues of cosmic importance? If you're talking about the torture of monsters, read on, as the same reasoning will apply. Because their partner ship with the BMOL wasn't limited. It was full on "in" with them. Limited, IMO would have been them taking cases and that was it. Not filing reports and asking how high when the Brits said jump. Despite Dean saying if things seemed sketchy, they'd bail. They didn't. They should have bailed after Ladies Drink Free, and definitely after The British Invasion. They didn't. They dug in deeper. Like Sam said he followed, willingly. IICR, the first time Sam and and Dean worked with Crowley they were blackmailed by him. Once of the excuses I've seen used to excuse Sam's behavior time and time again was that he didnt' trust Benny because of the whole Ruby situation. So it seems like once again Sam's double standards are at work. He wants to work with them so they get a chance. IMO, the difference is that Dean tends to be weary. I don't think he ever full on trusted. Sam does. 2 hours ago, companionenvy said: "Was Sam shown to be wrong about trusting/agreeing to work with the MOL." That is the only question my post is addressing. This is exactly what I was addressing. The show excused Sam for lying and manipulating. There was one throw away line about how he shouldn't have joined that was easily dismissed in that big "follow me" speech. Because why that speech even necessary? None of there other hunters joined the Brits. The fact that that speech left out Dean entirely and had Dean gaze adoringly, doesn't suggest Sam was wrong to me. There were no negative consequences to Ketch going with Dean in the AU. Dean saved "Charlie" and Sam with his super special, never seen before profound bond with Gabe pulled him out of his catatonic state. Despite that, they certainly allowed Sam to be vocal about how wrong Dean was to go without Sam and put Sam at the kiddie table. The show doesn't tend to shy away from giving Sam a POV if he's unhappy with Dean's actions. So we will have to agree to disagree here. IMO, nothing about Sam's actions with regard to joining the Brits and how he chose to go about it was shown to be wrong. 2 hours ago, companionenvy said: But Sam and Dean aren't holding trials for every ghost or vampire. They sort of do this. If they find the monster isn't killing humans they usually allow it to live. They go on a case by case basis. Edited July 8, 2018 by ILoveReading 3 Link to comment
AwesomO4000 July 8, 2018 Share July 8, 2018 8 hours ago, ILoveReading said: I just don't see the show saying that Sam screwed up by joining, if anything it sent a message that the real fault was not Sam joining but failing to take charge immediately. In my opinion, yes, but not exactly. Yes, the narrative seemed to be saying that Sam was "wrong" for not taking a leadership role. If you read my old quote from above... that was the point. The narrative seemed to be saying that because Sam hadn't been the leader, he was just "taking the easy way out" (as they had Sam say) and not stepping up somehow, because he was a scared loser or something. Not that Sam was choosing to follow Dean because their dynamic worked, or he trusted Dean, or any of the other things that generally appeared to be the case beforehand. Nope it seemed to be saying that Sam was just following because he was lazy or scared and obviously he should have stepped up before and not been such a loser. That might not be what they were trying to say - I'm not so sure about that, because it was pretty much what they had Sam say - but that's what they ended up showing. And once they established "Sam was a loser before for being a follower," then that was that, and they could have Sam go right back to not leading, or if he did lead, they'd have him screw up - as with the AU vampires this past season - so therefor the message that Dean is awesome for generally being a good leader and Sam is a loser, because he's either too lazy or incompetent to be one now appears to be established. The original Dean is the leader and Sam is his good second in command was demeaned, because apparently Sam was only following Dean all this time because he was a lazy, scared loser who couldn't assert himself (which I don't believe, by the way, but that's what the narrative seemed to be saying.) If the narrative had actually wanted Sam to be a leader - which I knew at the time wouldn't happen as I said in that old quote - it would have let him continue being one... without showing that when Sam does lead, he's bad at it. So now not only is Sam a bad leader, but his previous role as follower was "wrong" because he was only being lazy and too timid to try. Thanks Show. So to answer your question as to what Sam was being shown as being "wrong" about was his being Sam previously. Apparently his being Sam and following Dean on hunts and such is "wrong" and lazy or being too scared to take initiative or something. He really should have been asserting himself more. And as someone who thought Sam was great being the second in command, I found this message not at all positive for Sam, but saying that Sam has previously been a loser and only has worth if he's the leader.... which the narrative then later shows Sam either not doing or failing at. So no, I'm not seeing that as positive for Sam, but saying that Sam should be more like Dean in order to have worth, but since he isn't - and the narrative shows us this - this supposedly "leader Sam" was just to show us what Sam should or could be, but isn't... therefor loser and/or just not trying hard enough. I fail to see the positive in that. 8 hours ago, ILoveReading said: I guess I dont' see how the show was saying "Sam is wrong" when no one called him out of his actions. Well yes, this time Sam didn't start an apocalypse, so in that sense I guess I agree with you... And I know "but Deeeean" examples are lame, but not "calling characters out" on lying to each other and such has been fairly standard operating procedure, in my opinion, since Carver took over. Dean's lying to Sam about Gadreel was entirely swept under the rug with "but I was ready to diiiiiiie!" - which was stupid to have Sam focus on, in my opinion, since it was shown that it was the lying, not the original Gadreel save which caused the problems. The narrative even established this by having it be that if Sam had known, he could've kicked Gadreel out. But when it came down to it, the lying part was ignored and it was turned into the Gadreel possession part was the bad thing - which I entirely didn't agree with. I actually thought the Gadreel part was fine and a quick thinking thing by Dean. It was not letting Sam make up his own mind after he was conscious that I thought was the wrong part, so I wanted the lying part addressed, but nope. 1 Link to comment
DeeDee79 July 8, 2018 Share July 8, 2018 (edited) 56 minutes ago, ILoveReading said: IICR, the first time Sam and and Dean worked with Crowley they were blackmailed by him. Sorry to nitpick since I largely agree with your point but actually I think the first time was in The Devil You Know when they worked with him to get info on Pestilence. I believe it was in All Dogs Go To Heaven that they were blackmailed. 56 minutes ago, ILoveReading said: They sort of do this. If they find the monster isn't killing humans they usually allow it to live. They go on a case by case basis. This is true. With obvious exceptions ( Meg, Ruby, Crowley ) I think that demons are the only ones that we've seen them kill without asking questions. Edited July 8, 2018 by DeeDee79 2 Link to comment
gonzosgirrl July 10, 2018 Share July 10, 2018 14 minutes ago, Casseiopeia said: Except that wasn't what Sam said. He said he wouldn't save Dean "same circumstances", he didn't say under any circumstances. If Dean were dying and the only way to save him was to do something that went against everything that Dean believed in Sam would respect that. Fair enough*... Except Quote Can you imagine if the tables had been turned how pissed Dean would have been with Sam? Especially if having Dean possessed caused the death of a protected family member? Sam would have been in the doghouse for the rest of the season. The tables were turned and this is exactly what Sam did with the MoC and Dean not only didn't put him in the doghouse beyond an admittedly cruel statement (it should be you up there), Sam's 'punishment' didn't even last an episode. By 12x01 Dean was taking the blame along side him. *I don't agree that this was Sam's intention with that statement and especially what followed it - and if that was the writer's intent, then I have to say that Jared's delivery did not put that out there for me. 3 Link to comment
AwesomO4000 July 10, 2018 Share July 10, 2018 1 hour ago, gonzosgirrl said: The tables were turned and this is exactly what Sam did with the MoC and Dean not only didn't put him in the doghouse beyond an admittedly cruel statement (it should be you up there), Sam's 'punishment' didn't even last an episode. By 12x01 Dean was taking the blame along side him. I'm assuming you meant 11x01, and a few points... 1) Arguably Dean wouldn't have had much of a leg to stand on in 11x01 anyway if he objected, because it was just Sam's dumb luck that only his "screw up" lead to starting an apocalypse, considering Dean, in the very same episode Sam screwed up, did something that could - and probably should - have had just as worldshaking consequences as what Sam did, but didn't for... reasons. In my opinion, it would've been pretty hypocritical for Dean to have stayed angry at Sam for taking a huge risk to save him, when Dean did exactly the same thing not just a few minutes beforehand to save Sam. Considering Dean's earlier lessons from Death concerning balance in the universe and what happened when heaven's doors were closed in season 9 with ghosts getting stuck in the veil, in my opinion, there was no way Dean could know that killing Death wouldn't have had huge, potentially awful consequences. Just because Dean didn't have people telling him repeatedly throughout the season "this is dangerous!" doesn't - to me - mean that Dean shouldn't have known that what he did was going to be extremely risky. He just got lucky while Sam didn't. 2) Except for one admittedly cruel statement (or two depending on how you interpret "Sharp Teeth"), how long did Sam actually "punish" Dean in season 9? By 3 episodes after "The Purge" Sam is already researching the Mark of Cain trying to figure out how to save Dean and risking himself to save Dean from capture. By the episode after that, Sam is admitting that Dean is right and deferring to Dean's judgement. Arguably even during "Sharp Teeth" Sam is taking some crap from Dean - even though Sam should be the hurt party - so when Sam lays down his terms, I kind of get where he's coming from even if the effects to Dean are somewhat barbed. 3) Even though Sam lied to Dean and used the Book of the Damned after Dean asked him not to and risked the world, that course of action didn't involve decisions that openly mentally harmed Dean. What was underplayed later was that Dean's lies to Sam in reference to Gadreel actively harmed Sam, if not physically, then mentally. Dean knew that Gadreel was wiping Sam's memories and messing with Sam's mind and that this was making Sam think that he was crazy, and he chose to tell Sam that Sam was imagining things and nothing was wrong. In my opinion, this is not exactly the same thing as what Sam did to Dean with the Book of the Damned. Sam lied, but he didn't aide and abet a foreign entity inside Dean, allowing that entity to wreak havoc with Dean's body and to Dean's mind. Miles may vary on how similar those things are. In the grand scheme of things, yes, what Sam did was arguably worse*** but on a personal level, I don't think the two are as comparable. What Dean did involved a deeper betrayal, I think. There wasn't just lying, there was lying that mentally hurt Sam for an extended period of time. *** ...though I have given what I consider to be valid arguments that what Dean did was also potentially very risky grand-scheme-wise. I just think the writers didn't even think of or consider that angle in terms of potential risk. Brought over from the "Bitter Spoilers" thread. No spoilers: 3 hours ago, devlin said: Sam as far back as season 1 has been pushing back against dean and now is his perfect chance to become himself and not be in his brother’s shadow. I agree in season 1, Sam sometimes did... but he pretty much stopped doing this in season 2, in my opinion. How many times since season 2 has Sam proved that he would do almost anything to get Dean back? How many times has he said the equivalent of "I can't do this without you?" Even way back in season 2, Sam basically inferred that he wouldn't trade what he and Dean had now (then)... even if that meant he could've had his "normal life" and even had Jessica back. That's what "Well, I'm glad we do," (from "What Is...") meant. The times that most "broke" Sam were the times when Dean died in season 3. First in "Mystery Spot," Sam didn't just go off into the sunset or even try for a normal life. He hunted obsessively in addition to tracking down The Trickster. When Dean died for real, Sam became basically suicidal. With the exception of his downfall in season 4, Sam pretty much let it be known that he wanted to hunt with Dean and that that was what gave his life purpose. He made sure Dean knew that he was grateful for his brother and the partnership they had. That's where we left off in season 7. Sure as a showrunner, Carver decided to forget all of that, contradict everything he wrote in "Mystery Spot" and ignore any and all character growth in the later Kripke years and the Gamble years in season 8... only to show Sam as the bad guy for doing these, in my opinion, out of character things that Carver made him do. Just to in the end, have Sam reiterating exactly the same things from those seasons before. Basically Carver changed Sam's attitude and behavior, then punished Sam for that changed behavior, only to bring it right back to where it was before he changed it. For what purpose exactly? By season 10 there was no character growth or change really beyond what we'd already seen many, many times since season 3. The only difference was that Carver trashed the character to get back to that exact same spot. (Meh - I hate what Carver did character-wise... to both Sam and Dean (who was also dragged back to earlier times character-wise under Carver, in my opinion trashing Dean along the way also.)) My basic point is that throughout the series, the times Sam has "pushed back" against Dean have been far fewer than the times he didn't. Pretty much they are : season 1, some of season 4, and season 8. That's pretty much it, in my opinion. Even in season 9 when Sam had every right to be pissed beyond belief and could've broken off with Dean, but he didn't. 1 Link to comment
Res July 10, 2018 Share July 10, 2018 Quote 3 HOURS AGO, BABYSPINACH SAID: I mean Sam was pretty much forced to eat those sanctimonious words all throughout season 10. That's a matter of opinion which I really don't share but to each his own opinion, obviously. IMO S10 was yet another Sam redemption arc which really, really didn't work for me on several levels. Plus, S10 extended into S11's redemption arc for Sam which IMO is totally overdone in so many ways and is also why neither season worked for me at all. Quote 4 HOURS AGO, BABYSPINACH SAID: Sure, Dean was willing to lie to his brother about being possessed by an angel, for fear he would then immediately cast it out and die, but Sam was willing to fuck over the entire world to the Darkness to cure Dean of something that wasn't even threatening his life. This doesn't make me any less mad at The Purge, but Sam's proclamations have been thoroughly refuted since then. The writers probably realized they went too far in season 9 so they scrambled to overcompensate for that in seasons 10 and 11. I would've preferred that Sam never said any of that in the first place, and that he wasn't then forced into a really heavy-handed audience sympathy redemption journey, but it was better than letting those words stand. Actually it would have been even better if Sam had just legit and decently apologized for the calculated barbed words and they worked on a legit way of countering the "uncounterable" curse. (Yes, that still ticks me off severely, like Cain never heard of BotD, PLEEZE!) Maybe even support Dean, rather than constantly viewing him as a ticking time bomb and maybe not leaving him alone in a house full of bad, evil pedophiles, etc. Instead, it was all about curing instead of supporting or trying to actual find a way of dealing with the Mark while looking for a cure. I know several think S10 was more a Dean arc kind of season but I don't see it because we barely got any details about what the Mark was actually doing or saying or how Dean was feeling, etc. Instead it was focused on Sam's "quest" to find a cure. I still hate those two seasons for the wasted potential that they were, both with a hunter dealing with the Mark and what the bond between Amara and Dean actually was, etc. but that is of course only my opinion. Quote 4 HOURS AGO, BABYSPINACH SAID: I sure don't miss the dour, cranky, downright unpleasant brothers' dynamic of seasons 8 and 9. I understand and that's good for you but I honestly can't stand the way they constantly wash away conflicts without appropriately resolving them and then expect me to enjoy the IMO stupid BM, "brothers on the same page", "back to s1" crap they tend to sell when that is definitely not the way it is. It's unrealistic that none of it is festering and that they supposedly have this complete trust with each other after screwing each other over so bad all the time. It is really ridiculous to even pretend with so much water under the bridge. AND before I'm told, but this is a TV show, blah, blah, blah . . . they make these intentional conflicts to create drama but drama is only created if you care and you can only care if it's within the realm of your own viewing standards for that particular show, which is why all deaths mean absolutely nothing on the show anymore. Deaths do not create suspense or have people riveted because they know, especially if it's a main character death, that it won't hold at all. Which is why I would rather have the above relationship with the brothers completely worked out and not just brushed aside, only to have the same offense repeated in an episode or two. As I have stated before, I actually do not believe that Sam honestly likes Dean at all. Like if they weren't hunters, they really wouldn't talk to each other at all and Dean would be the last person Sam would want to introduce his friends to. But again that's how I see it after all the constant snide comments, bitch faces and "bossy" comments over the past 13 years. I'm sure part of it is trying to be his own man at 35+ yrs of age, which is hard to do with his older brother always there, leading, covering for him and "putting him at the kids' table". That's why I really think they would both do great if they were apart for a while. 2 Link to comment
BabySpinach July 10, 2018 Share July 10, 2018 45 minutes ago, Res said: Actually it would have been even better if Sam had just legit and decently apologized for the calculated barbed words and they worked on a legit way of countering the "uncounterable" curse. (Yes, that still ticks me off severely, like Cain never heard of BotD, PLEEZE!) Maybe even support Dean, rather than constantly viewing him as a ticking time bomb and maybe not leaving him alone in a house full of bad, evil pedophiles, etc. Instead, it was all about curing instead of supporting or trying to actual find a way of dealing with the Mark while looking for a cure. I know several think S10 was more a Dean arc kind of season but I don't see it because we barely got any details about what the Mark was actually doing or saying or how Dean was feeling, etc. Instead it was focused on Sam's "quest" to find a cure. I still hate those two seasons for the wasted potential that they were, both with a hunter dealing with the Mark and what the bond between Amara and Dean actually was, etc. but that is of course only my opinion. If the show were written by people with a more mature understanding of making amends, who knew that big gestures weren't necessarily the most effective, that would have been ideal. But this is the show that at its widely regarded "peak," season 5, had Sam fall hard from his hubris of believing himself to be the Chosen One but then redeem himself by insisting that he be the big hero in the end anyway. I would've also preferred that Sam and Cas not flail around like headless chickens around a generally well-controlled Dean. There's no way I was 100% happy with the execution of season 10 and 11. Season 10's finale fucking SUCKED. But they went in the general right direction in regards to damage-controlling Sam's likability and giving Dean a mytharc that involved him talking down God's sister, volunteering to sacrifice himself for the soul bomb, and pretty much single-handedly saving the universe. 55 minutes ago, Res said: I understand and that's good for you but I honestly can't stand the way they constantly wash away conflicts without appropriately resolving them and then expect me to enjoy the IMO stupid BM, "brothers on the same page", "back to s1" crap they tend to sell when that is definitely not the way it is. It's unrealistic that none of it is festering and that they supposedly have this complete trust with each other after screwing each other over so bad all the time. It is really ridiculous to even pretend with so much water under the bridge. My height of dislike for Sam was in season 9. After that, I would have taken pretty much anything that made him seem like a better person than who he was in The Purge. I also used to be passionately pissed off with what they did to the brothers' dynamic, for everything that was swept under the rug and reset, but I guess I don't have that kind of energy anymore. Right now, I'm just glad that even when they're fighting about serious things ie. Jack, it never feels like either of them crosses a line that they can't realistically come back from. Nothing feels broken between them anymore, which is a definite improvement. I'll still get plenty annoyed when the arguments are presented with a heavy bias, such as the therapist shapeshifter episode 13.04, but it's nothing close to what I felt in season 9, when they pushed it way too far. I'm not too into the BM moments, either. The draw of the mystical brotherly bond has lost its appeal to me, thanks to years of accumulated bitterness that I can't quite ignore. But it's also just nicer and more pleasant to watch Sam and Dean get along, exchange jokes, and not say terrible cutting things to each other for the sake of cheap drama. I'm not saying it's a masterpiece of writing or anything. It's just less contrived and more natural this way. But this is all just a SMALL aspect of the show's latest years that I actually like. I could write a 10,000 word essay on what I don't like about Dabb's run... 1 Link to comment
devlin July 10, 2018 Share July 10, 2018 I have trouble believing that sam likes his brother when he looks permanently annoyed with him and he leaps at the chance to think the worst of him. It makes it really hard to treat the grand gestures to save dean as genuine 4 Link to comment
Aeryn13 July 10, 2018 Share July 10, 2018 Quote In my opinion, yes, but not exactly. Yes, the narrative seemed to be saying that Sam was "wrong" for not taking a leadership role. If you read my old quote from above... that was the point. The narrative seemed to be saying that because Sam hadn't been the leader, he was just "taking the easy way out" But the episode never adressed Dean in terms of leadership at all. Either way. Sam speechified about leadership in their one-on-one-convo and Dean remained mute. Neither Sam nor Dean verbalized in any way that Dean usually leads or that he doesn`t have a problem grabbing leadership or that was their usual dynamic yada yada. The episode framed it as Sam grappling with leadership in and of itself. Dean was a bystander. And I highly doubt if you asked for example Singer about Dean usually leading, he would agree. The halfwitted comic relief? Perish the thought. IMO the current producers don`t see Dean as a leader which is why he doesn`t figure into conversations like that. Which is why when Dabb spoke about "the Winchesters (plural) becoming generals" and that turned out to be just Sam, that even makes sense from Dabb`s POV of Sam = relevant point. 1 Link to comment
AwesomO4000 July 10, 2018 Share July 10, 2018 5 hours ago, Res said: Actually it would have been even better if Sam had just legit and decently apologized for the calculated barbed words and they worked on a legit way of countering the "uncounterable" curse. (Yes, that still ticks me off severely, like Cain never heard of BotD, PLEEZE!) Maybe even support Dean, rather than constantly viewing him as a ticking time bomb and maybe not leaving him alone in a house full of bad, evil pedophiles, etc. Instead, it was all about curing instead of supporting or trying to actual find a way of dealing with the Mark while looking for a cure. Yes, it would've been nice if Sam apologized. It would've been nice if Dean had apologized also. Dean didn't have to apologize for Gadreel specifically, because he wasn't sorry about that and I understand that, but it might've been nice if he'd said that he was sorry for letting Sam think he was crazy and going bad again and for letting Gadreel screw with his head and invade his personal thoughts and take his agency away for months, but that's not what the show was about during the Carver years. As for trying to find a way to deal with the mark... Sam did at times try to support Dean in that regard. He even said a couple of times that he thought Dean could beat it. I agree that the show wasn't very good at portraying that Dean's powers were getting out of control - but then again they didn't do a great job when Sam had them in season 4 either at first, in my opinion, since we didn't know how dark the origins of that power were or how addicted Sam was until way later on - but I think it was likely due to the Angelus*** factor. And in in the long run, I think it would've contradicted the basic stance of the show, anyway. In season 4, even when Sam was apparently doing good things with his powers, both Dean and Castiel were saying "this is obviously bad! Evil!" even before they knew that the powers came from demon blood. I don't remember Dean being supportive of Sam's powers in any meaningful way, even when Sam was saving people with them. So to me, it would have been somewhat hypocritical of the show if somehow Dean's demon derived powers - powers that were just as addictive in their own way as Sam's had been, and arguably more dangerous even than Sam's and with even a know really bad consequence - were now supposed to be seen as controllable just because it was now Dean who had the powers instead of Sam. Personally that would've ticked me off immensely. *** Where as - like in Angel: the Series - even though the audience knows that the protagonist's dark alter ego does awful, horrible things, upon having turned their protagonist into that dark, alter ego, the writers are suddenly squeamish about letting that alter ego actually do horrible things, sometimes - as in the case with Angel - to ridiculous levels, likely because they then think their audience isn't sophisticated enough to make then distinction between their protagonist and his altered state of being. (And they are generally wrong and usually just end up making their audience roll their eyes and think "lame." (TM Cartman). 17 minutes ago, Aeryn13 said: But the episode never adressed Dean in terms of leadership at all. Either way. Sam speechified about leadership in their one-on-one-convo and Dean remained mute. Neither Sam nor Dean verbalized in any way that Dean usually leads or that he doesn`t have a problem grabbing leadership or that was their usual dynamic yada yada. The episode framed it as Sam grappling with leadership in and of itself. Dean was a bystander. And I highly doubt if you asked for example Singer about Dean usually leading, he would agree. The halfwitted comic relief? Perish the thought. IMO the current producers don`t see Dean as a leader which is why he doesn`t figure into conversations like that. Which is why when Dabb spoke about "the Winchesters (plural) becoming generals" and that turned out to be just Sam, that even makes sense from Dabb`s POV of Sam = relevant point. I understand why this annoys you and why you see it as not acknowledging Dean's leadership abilities because Dean's abilities weren't addressed, but I'm not sure you are getting why I was annoyed about what this all seemed to be saying and it doesn't have anything to do with Dean. Maybe because many are thinking that I consider a "Look see now Sam is coming into his own and finally becoming a leader!" to be a positive message and an acknowledgement for Sam. But my whole point is that that is exactly the message that ticked me off. Maybe I wasn't clear so I'll state it this way - I don't want Sam to be the leader. I don't think that it's Sam's strength and I personally - based on everything I've seen from his character previously - don't think that that is what Sam is even comfortable being. And that clunky, stupid speech just highlighted that for me. And either the writers couldn't see how clunky that came across and how ridiculous it was - in which case they don't understand Sam's character very well in my opinion - or they knew it was kind of clunky and stupid and were doing it to make fun of "Sam a leader." Neither scenario of which makes me happy. And considering that the writers later on have Sam screw up royally while leading, it sometimes has me leaning towards the latter scenario even though I know I'm likely writing too much into it. That in itself is bad enough for me, but them throwing in the stuff about Sam not leading before because he was maybe too lazy or timid to do so? That really ticked me off, because I repeat. I don't want Sam to be the leader. I like Sam the way he is - backing Dean up and making sure Dean doesn't lose focus or get off track. I want Sam to be acknowledged as being good at that.. not having the speech imply that Sam was just "taking the easy way out" in his previous non-leader role that's pretty much defined his character for the 12 previous seasons... except when he did try to lead and generally got in over his head doing it... which Sam learned that lesson already. And again, I'm fine with that. What I'm not fine with is the narrative saying that unless Sam is the leader, the he's a loser. I hate that message, and that was the message I got from that whole thing. And even worse - they had Sam behave entirely illogically by joining the BMoL just to set up this stupid message that I hate. For me this isn't an insult Dean = make Sam look good issue. At all. I think the scenario did somewhat shortchange Dean... but considering Dean is generally show to be the leader in most cases anyway, I don't think this one episode supersedes all that, especially since the following episodes go right back to Dean in the leadership role. For me I'm looking at this as an insult to Sam entirely independent of Dean. I mean of course Dean is going to support Sam - duh, that's the right thing to do, so for me I don't find having Dean let Sam have a moment he maybe needed to be all that horrible myself. However, the narrative implying that Sam "realizing" that he was just holding himself back before - like a timid, shy girl taking off her glasses and letting her hair down to suddenly realize she was beautiful and could be confident all along, she just had to believe it - was really insulting to me, and not at all a positive message. All it said to me is that the writers thought that everything Sam had done before was inferior, because he wasn't leading. It was basically insulting Sam's general characterization previously... a characterization that I mostly liked (except when the writers tried to mess with that characterization - as Carver did in season 8) and saying "Look, see we fixed Sam! He's all better now and being a leader! Well until we just ignore all that and he goes back to not being the leader again that is." I didn't need Sam to be fixed, thank you very much, and am annoyed by the implication that the writers seemed to be saying that they had to do so to begin with. I hope maybe that made my complaint concerning that storyline more clear? Maybe? 2 Link to comment
ILoveReading July 10, 2018 Share July 10, 2018 (edited) I have no doubt that if Season 8 and 9 had been reversed and Dean had did the trials and told Sam, "who are you going to turn to next, another dog, another demon" The reaction would not have been "yay Dean standing up for himself." Had that happened and Sam tricked Dean into being possessed when Dean found out the truth, I have no doubt Sam would have been given a speech "You told me to put you first, dont get mad when I do it." Because the show is allergic to Sam saying sorry without adding a whole list of ifs, and, buts, and qualifiers how everybody's faults made Sam do it in the first place. Yes, Dean could have been more apologetic but at least Sam was allowed to hold on to his anger. When Dean told Sam he could come back after whole Ruby mess, Sam got a very special episode of manipulative writing to make Dean the bad guy and Sam got to lecture Dean about how if they were going to work together Dean had to change and not keep Sam in the dog house. Yet after Sharp Teeth, Sam made a choice to come back. He got to rake Dean over the coals and keep Dean in the dog house. So it seems Sam has clear double standards. When it comes to these situations. That's where my problem with the writing lies. Sam gets a lot of free passes where his behaviour is swept under the rug. The only outcome of the brother conflict I found satisfactory was when Dean called Sam a bitch over the Amy thing. When Dean came back from hell, and when he came back from purgatory Sam seemed to resent Dean both times. Because Sam doesn't like being told no. IMO, Sam doesn't want a brother or a partner he wants a yes man. So I would say Sam has his chance now to get away from sloppy needy Dean and be the big brother. Why would he want or need Dean back if all Dean does is put Sam at the kiddie table? Edited July 10, 2018 by ILoveReading 5 Link to comment
AwesomO4000 July 10, 2018 Share July 10, 2018 6 hours ago, ILoveReading said: I have no doubt that if Season 8 and 9 had been reversed and Dean had did the trials and told Sam, "who are you going to turn to next, another dog, another demon" The reaction would not have been "yay Dean standing up for himself." Had that happened and Sam tricked Dean into being possessed when Dean found out the truth, I have no doubt Sam would have been given a speech "You told me to put you first, dont get mad when I do it." I don't remember the reaction being "yay, Sam standing up for himself." I did say that Sam had a bit of a point about Castiel... because he did, in my opinion. Castiel wasn't exactly sanity boy at the time, and had made some questionable choices and betrayals of his own in the past. And I more remember a lot of reaction being "Sam is being a jerk" and "poor, woobie Benny is more reliable." I basically thought Dean overshot with his "don't ever think I'd put anyone before you" and was being a bit manipulative there myself, but ehn a lesser offense compared to the mess Carver made of Sam, so it's all a matter of perspective maybe. And I think based on show history during that time that Sam likely wouldn't have had a chance to say "...don't get mad at me...", because likely the thing that he helped possess Dean would've turned out to be Lucifer himself or some equally malevolent and dangerous entity that then would've started an apocalypse, so Sam would've had to be hearing that for the next few seasons... And Sam did get variations of "are you going to choose another demon or hit another dog" at various times... not only from Dean, but even more humiliatingly from Crowley... as if Crowley was a better BFF for Dean than Sam and deserved to call Sam out after everything he himself did to Dean. And instead of it being played as at least a supposedly touching moment - as ill conceived as it was - it was instead played for laughs. "We turned Sam into a huge bag of dicks. Ha, ha, ha isn't that hilarious?" No, no it isn't. And, in my opinion, much worse with how cavalierly they chose to trash his character. 6 hours ago, ILoveReading said: When Dean told Sam he could come back after whole Ruby mess, Sam got a very special episode of manipulative writing to make Dean the bad guy and Sam got to lecture Dean about how if they were going to work together Dean had to change and not keep Sam in the dog house. Except that's not really what happened in my opinion.*** Dean didn't trust Sam and it took over 3/4 of the season for Sam to even begin to get himself out of the doghouse. For me, the working relationship was an entirely different entity... and Dean maybe even only gave lip service to that part anyway -maybe to keep Sam "happy" - because when it came down to it, for me, he didn't trust Sam and made huge unilateral decisions about the task at hand to show that he didn't trust Sam... So was Dean even really meaning it when he was being agreeable in "Fallen Idols?" In my opinion, based on Dean's all too easy barb at Sam's judgement in "Abandon All Hope" and that he didn't really tell Sam the entire truth about why he agreed to come back with Sam in the first place after "The End", I think it's kind of questionable myself whether or not Dean was really being sincere in "Fallen idols" to begin with. Which for me changes the dynamic of what was going on - i.e. that Dean was saying that he agreed, but he really didn't, meaning Dean's actions were maybe more calculated for a result (to keep Sam around so he could keep an eye on him) than Dean actually being agreeable. And I think there was enough evidence in what happened later sprinkled throughout the following episodes to support that theory. *** (And I dispute that that episode "made Dean the bad guy" also - for me that's all interpretation - but that's not really the point here.) 6 hours ago, ILoveReading said: Yet after Sharp Teeth, Sam made a choice to come back. He got to rake Dean over the coals and keep Dean in the dog house. After Dean treated Sam like it was Sam's fault that Dean had left and that Sam hadn't forgiven him right away and then blamed the universe for what happened "Somebody changed the rules." In my opinion, what Sam said in "Sharp Teeth" was more equivalent to Dean's (paraphrase) "there isn't anything you can do to make this right" in "Sympathy for the Devil" rather than a "Fallen Idols" thing. "The Purge" is more the "Fallen Idols" comparison in my opinion, and while I hate, hate, hate what Carver did to Sam there and thought what Sam said was cruel and untrue, there is at least one important difference. Sam agreed that he was wrong for what he did concerning Ruby and said that he would take it all back if he could, whereas Dean didn't and then actually insinuated that Sam should have been grateful for Dean's aiding Gadreel and lying to him. Which is when Sam got really angry. 6 hours ago, ILoveReading said: Because the show is allergic to Sam saying sorry without adding a whole list of ifs, and, buts, and qualifiers how everybody's faults made Sam do it in the first place. I disagree that this happens even often - I basically remember the one time where it maybe could be interpreted that way - but Sam isn't exactly the only one who does this. See my above reference where Dean blames the universe for his Gadreel decision. Just say you messed up, dude. That's it. It's a criticism often leveled at Sam, but it could as easily be leveled at Dean as well in my opinion. 7 hours ago, ILoveReading said: So it seems Sam has clear double standards. And I'd argue so does Dean. He was pissed off at Sam for months concerning Ruby, but he expected Sam to be grateful for saving him via Gadreel and lying about it. How is that not also at least kind of a double standard? I mean, sure there are differences between the situations. Dean did what he did to save Sam, but there was still lying and Sam getting hurt. 7 hours ago, ILoveReading said: That's where my problem with the writing lies. Sam gets a lot of free passes where his behaviour is swept under the rug. And I see just as many for Dean. In my opinion, Sam didn't get to "hold on to his anger" concerning Gadreel. Maybe for 4 or 5 episodes, but it wasn't for most of a season... and in the end Sam had to renounce all of his anger and accept Gadreel as a "friend" and admit that maybe Gadreel wasn't so bad after all and watch Gadrel see the error of his ways concerning Metatron and be redeemed. Therefor all of Sam's, in my opinion, legitimate anger concerning what Dean did with Gadreel was downplayed and swept under the rug by turning Gadreel into a "good guy" who was "misunderstood" and just wanted redemption and went about it in the wrong way. (Aww, poor sympathetic Gadreel.) and then the narrative further justified it by having Sam not stick to his convictions and doing the same thing to save Dean, further justifying Dean's actions and sweeping his lying under the rug. For me, that would've been like the narrative nullifying Dean's objections to Ruby and Sam choosing her by turning Ruby into a good guy and her helping to defeat Lucifer rather than Dean getting to kill her. And no, in my opinion, Ruby was not just misunderstood because she was just trying to get Sam strong enough for the fight by having him drink demon blood. She was trying to make Sam Lucifer's meat puppet so that Lucifer could take over the world and that was her goal up until the end*** ... no "good" there in my opinion. That's not for me remotely the same as Gadreel in the end turning against the bad guy and helping to defeat him. Not even close. *** And kind of weirdly Ruby wanted Sam to be grateful about being possessed by Lucifer, too - what is it with this show having characters insinuate Sam should be grateful for entities possessing / inhabiting his body and taking away his agency? Lucifer did it, too. Even Soulless Sam had that attitude. So I think it pretty much comes down to how we each see the show. I think there are just as many examples to show that the writing justifies BOTH Sam's and Dean's actions at times at the expense of the other. It just happens that I think Dean's is generally given at least some thought - even if misguided - and is done as part of the "brotherly bond" whereas Sam, it seems anyway, is generally more cavalierly trashed for plot and angst purposes and then it's played for laughs to show how inconsequential it is to the writers. 1 Link to comment
catrox14 July 10, 2018 Share July 10, 2018 (edited) 49 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said: It just happens that I think Dean's is generally given at least some thought - even if misguided - and is done as part of the "brotherly bond" whereas Sam, it seems anyway, is generally more cavalierly trashed for plot and angst purposes and then it's played for laughs to show how inconsequential it is to the writers. I've thought about this a lot and in the end, I'm not so sure it is trashing Sam's character because for me, Sam wasn't all that great in the beginning of the show and he was always wanting out of the life and tended to blame everyone for his choices. So maybe s8 was really just more of the continuation of who Sam was in early seasons. I mean I have often wondered if maybe Sam isn't intended to be a "good" guy really at heart. That he's kind of passive aggressive about his life and it comes out like it did in s1 and s2 when the boys first reunited. I don't know if I'm right about this or not but I keep circling back to how Sam progressed in his journey to "General Winchester" but has he really changed his personality but more of changing his behavior when it comes to accepting the difficult task of leadership? I really don't know. At times I think he has and then something happens like s8 or even s9 when he did have the option to either leave the bunker or tell Dean to leave if he couldn't stand to be around him but he didn't do that. And he didn't try to communicate either after the Purge other than for business reasons. Yet when Dean turned that around on him and said he was only communicating for business reasons, Sam got pissed at Dean for Dean being a jerk. Maybe it's just who Sam is and that might be hard to accept as a character, but maybe he really does resent Dean and will always resent him and because he has this cloud of "I'm really bad inside but trying to do good" in his actions but not in what he really feels about Dean. That is to say, Sam seeks to do good for mankind but is not truly happy about his life as a Winchester. That he stays out of his own sense of obligation more than deep love for Dean. I dunno, I really do go back and forth on Sam like every season. Edited July 10, 2018 by catrox14 2 Link to comment
companionenvy July 10, 2018 Share July 10, 2018 8 hours ago, ILoveReading said: Because the show is allergic to Sam saying sorry without adding a whole list of ifs, and, buts, and qualifiers how everybody's faults made Sam do it in the first place. I had a post on the last page where I went back and came up with a list of Sam apologies. There were several in seasons 1-2, none with an apparent ulterior motive. This includes an apology for hurtful things he said while under supernatural influence during "Asylum," an apology for "giving Dean crap for following Dad's orders," and for his behavior in his relationship with John generally, with a "you're right" to Dean thrown in for good measure. Before the infamous Falling Idols scene, Sam apologizes to Dean (and Bobby) several times, in scenes that include the lines "Nothing I can say will ever make this right," and "This is all my fault. You guys [Dean and Bobby] warned me..." None of these occasions are followed by a self-justification. In fact, when Bobby - who is possessed - tells Sam to "lose his number" after the reveal about killing Lillith, he does not protest that they all thought that killing Lillith was a good idea (true), and the script direction reads that "this can't be much different from what he expected." Even to the extent that Sam later does shift some responsibility to Dean in Fallen Idols - which is debatable, given that he at least says he's NOT saying this is Dean's fault -- it does not erase the prior scenes, nor does it negate the fact that he later takes responsibility in the most active way possible in saying that as he started it, it is his responsibility to end it. You may see that as arrogant or wrongheaded. What it is not is a ducking of responsibility. Once I started looking for "I'm so sorry," I also found a couple of examples of Sam taking responsibility for something that is really, really NOT his fault - the things he did while Soulless. In 6.12, when he apologizes to Dean, to what he did to him and Bobby while soulless, Dean says it isn't his fault, and Sam rejects this: Sam: You know, I kind of feel like I got slipped the worst mickey of all time...and I woke up to find out that I had burnt the whole city down. And you can say it wasn't me, but...I'm the one with the zippo in my pocket, you know? So I'm not sure it's that cut and dry. And, look, I a-appreciate you trying to protect me. I really do. But I got to fix... What I got to fix. So I need to know what I did. In Unforgiven, he is even more direct. Dean says "None of it was you," and Sam says "Let's be clear. It was me." So the idea that Sam never apologizes or takes responsibility is at least an exaggeration. On a larger level, I think it is time for me to bow out of this thread. I think my view of the show is too fundamentally different to most of yours to make these conversations worthwhile, or particularly pleasant. At its heart, I see this as a show about two brothers who are both heroes, and both flawed. They are very different, and no, they probably wouldn't be particularly close if they had been raised in a normal family. But they weren't, and that has made all the difference. Despite periods of deep and real division, and more small-scale disagreements, fundamentally, they deeply love each other, and both have demonstrated willingness to go to extraordinary lengths for the other. Sam has said nasty and hurtful things to Dean on a few occasions. They are probably worse than anything Dean has said to him - but Dean has also said nasty and hurtful things to and about Sam, perhaps most notably deciding to list all of his faults as Sam was going in to purify himself before the trials. Neither of these things suggests that they don't love each other. One somewhat oddly acted and directed scene aside, every time that Dean has died, the show has shown Sam to be devastated, to the extent of self-destructive behaviors and attempts to trade his own life for Dean's. Dean has apologized to Sam. Sam has apologized to Dean. Dean has come around to Sam's position. Sam has come around to Dean's position. Sometimes, Sam doesn't apologize when maybe he should. Sometimes, Dean doesn't apologize when maybe he should. Sam is not always supportive of Dean, in a variety of ways. Sometimes, he is wrong in this. Sometimes, he is right in this - because Dean is not always right about everything, and when the show depicts him as not right about things, that isn't necessarily because the writers hate Dean and are being unfair to him. I simply do not believe it is remotely probable that every time the show seems to be painting Sam in a way many viewers see as obnoxious and negative, the writers actually think that Sam is right and mean to validate him, whereas every time the show seems to be painting Dean in a way that many viewers see as obnoxious and negative, the writers also believe that Sam is right, and mean to validate him. Dean is not always supportive of Sam, either - and, like Sam, sometimes he is right in this, and sometimes he is wrong. Pre-series, Dean certainly didn't support Sam in his normal and natural desire to go to college, something he continued to periodically use as an accusation against Sam for years. Both brothers are sometimes disrespectful and dismissive of the other's feelings. Both brothers are heroes. Both have had significant victories. We can always look for reasons that any brother's respective victories weren't good enough, or didn't count, or wasn't really a victory for the brother who it seemed to be a victory for -- but Sam fans can do that just as easily as Dean fans can. Similarly, it is possible to interpret everything Sam says in the most uncharitable way possible, in which case Sam emerges as a pretty thoroughly unpleasant character. It is also possible - although, I think, far more rarely done, on this thread -- to interpret everything Dean says in the most uncharitable way possible, in which case Dean emerges as a pretty thoroughly unpleasant character. There is no reason to believe the writers always intend us to take the most uncharitable reading of Sam. There is no reason to believe the writers always intend us to take the most uncharitable reading of Dean. This is a show with wildly inconsistent writing. There are ways in which Dean bears the brunt of this, in ways damaging to his character. Their are ways in which Sam bears the brunt of this, in ways damaging to his character. Again, what I do not believe is that this is all part of a systematic attempt on the part of multiple writers and show-runners over a period of years to tear down one of the wildly popular leads of their show. It doesn't make business sense, and it isn't, to me, reflected in what we see on screen. I think any other post I could have in this thread would probably be a variation on the above points, so with that, I am going to (try) to be out - although it is possible that, like Sam and the hunting life, I am doomed to be drawn back in. In the meantime, I look forward to continuing discussing the show with all of you in other threads. 3 Link to comment
Aeryn13 July 10, 2018 Share July 10, 2018 Quote For me this isn't an insult Dean = make Sam look good issue. At all. I think the scenario did somewhat shortchange Dean... but considering Dean is generally show to be the leader in most cases anyway, I don't think this one episode supersedes all that, especially since the following episodes go right back to Dean in the leadership role. For me I'm looking at this as an insult to Sam entirely independent of Dean. I mean of course Dean is going to support Sam - duh, that's the right thing to do, so for me I don't find having Dean let Sam have a moment he maybe needed to be all that horrible myself. However, the narrative implying that Sam "realizing" that he was just holding himself back before - like a timid, shy girl taking off her glasses and letting her hair down to suddenly realize she was beautiful and could be confident all along, she just had to believe it - was really insulting to me, and not at all a positive message. All it said to me is that the writers thought that everything Sam had done before was inferior, because he wasn't leading. It was basically insulting Sam's general characterization previously... a characterization that I mostly liked (except when the writers tried to mess with that characterization - as Carver did in season 8) and saying "Look, see we fixed Sam! He's all better now and being a leader! Well until we just ignore all that and he goes back to not being the leader again that is." I didn't need Sam to be fixed, thank you very much, and am annoyed by the implication that the writers seemed to be saying that they had to do so to begin with. I hope maybe that made my complaint concerning that storyline more clear? Maybe? The reason I don`t think it connects back to how Sam usually operates and makes a negative statement about it is because I found the leadership message to be unbelievably clumsy. I mean when Sam joined the BMOL, did anyone think it was because he just has such a follower mentality, he couldn`t help himself but jump onboard with them? He was at least confident he could bring Dean along also, hardly the thought of such a meek follower personality. And speaking of, what would that say about Dean who got played the fool by Sam for weeks and then meekly got onboard also without even making a fuzz? No, each one obviously had other reasons for getting onboard. Then this penultimate episode comes along and Berens wants to write a big rousing General Winchester speaks to his adoring masses before he leads them into battle scene - and to later juxtapose baby-Sam (who Dean speechifies over how much he suffered) with images of grown-up leader Sam. But how to logically connect this? Oh, yes, lets invent some nonsensical thing on how Sam did it because he didn`t lead before so he has to do so now, right on cue for this episode. It wasn`t about making the past look bad, it was a super-clumsy set-up to make the present look positive. It was still the first and only time really they brought up the question of leadership like this in the show in general. And we hear bubkes from Dean or about Dean on it. At this point typical Berens for me. 4 Link to comment
AwesomO4000 July 11, 2018 Share July 11, 2018 1 hour ago, Aeryn13 said: Then this penultimate episode comes along and Berens wants to write a big rousing General Winchester speaks to his adoring masses before he leads them into battle scene - and to later juxtapose baby-Sam (who Dean speechifies over how much he suffered) with images of grown-up leader Sam. But how to logically connect this? Oh, yes, lets invent some nonsensical thing on how Sam did it because he didn`t lead before so he has to do so now, right on cue for this episode. It wasn`t about making the past look bad, it was a super-clumsy set-up to make the present look positive. Alright, but let's say that I buy this. As you often say, implying that a character is "weak" is in your opinion one of the worst things that the writers can do to a character... so how is implying that Sam is leading now - connection needed or not - because he was just too lazy or timid to do it before a positive thing? To me, it is saying - intended or not - that before Sam was just not applying himself or confident enough or brave enough to do it, and now that he is... well NOW he's really doing something. As someone who doesn't think a character has to be the leader to have worth, and actually prefers Sam because he isn't necessarily comfortable being the leader because I relate to that, I found that to be insulting. So I think that message was not only clumsy, but annoying. Kind of - "oh, you liked Sam before? But he really wasn't being all he could be... This is what Sam really should be... please ignore everything you liked about him before, because that was just Sam being a wimp / taking the easy way out / hiding in Dean's shadow / whatever... If they intended to make Sam look better with that leadership scene, then that is actually part of the problem for me, because it is seemingly telling me that Sam wasn't really good enough before... which I think you can probably imagine my response to that. And I don't care if that wasn't their intention. That is what they gave me. That is what Sam's words specifically said... And then once those words were said, the narrative apparently had no intention of having Sam actually be an effective leader after that point that I could see. The other hunters were never mentioned again and neither was that mission even really. Sam's one main "leader" stint after that couldn't have really been that much more of a disaster... well maybe Sam could've carelessly caused the death of both of the people he was trying to save before getting killed himself in a trap set by monsters who arguably were supposed to be running on instinct due to hunger - so how smart could they actually be? - but maybe that would've been too obvious of a message that they think Sam sucks at this. And if that wasn't bad enough, how was implying that Sam was just being a sheep-like follower to set this up in the first place - even though both you and I agreed that it made no sense that Sam joined the BMoL - showing Sam in a good light. For me it is a good example of what I was talking about in that piece of my post that @catrox14 quoted above. Making Sam do something that makes no sense - join the BMoL - in order to further whatever plot they had in mind whether it fits or not. Will it make Sam look like a jerk to lie to Dean to get him to go along with it? Enh, who cares!?! It gets the plot to move forward, so let's do it! We'll just ignore it later, characterization be damned!" That kind of thing actually illustrates my point point I had there about "trashing" Sam's character. In my opinion, little thought was given to how it would look to have Sam join the BMoL and lie to Dean about it. It was more important that it happen anyway to move the plot in the direction the writers wanted. My opinion on that one, I admit. For me, who cares if the writers' intentions are supposedly good if in order to get to these supposed "good intentions" they warp Sam's character and seemingly just make him do and say whatever it takes to get him there even if it makes little sense? To me that looks like they sometimes don't really respect Sam's character but rather want to use him by turning him into whatever they want him to be at a particular moment to illustrate some point or forward some plot. 4 hours ago, catrox14 said: I've thought about this a lot and in the end, I'm not so sure it is trashing Sam's character because for me, Sam wasn't all that great in the beginning of the show and he was always wanting out of the life and tended to blame everyone for his choices. So maybe s8 was really just more of the continuation of who Sam was in early seasons. Except for me there were 5 1/2 seasons in between those things where Sam was more complex than the simplification of him supposedly wanting to get away. Sam learned that "getting away" wasn't all that it was cracked up to be, that you can't force yourself to fit in when you don't feel like you belong no matter how much you might want to, that sometimes you have to accept you can't always get what you want, but that sometimes those sacrifices are worth it... which was what Sam told Dean in "What Is..." Sure sometimes Sam questions that on and off during the series - but don't most people do that at times? Even Dean does that. There have been numerous times throughout the series where Dean has expressed that he's wanted out of the life... some as far back as season 1 even up until season 6 and probably beyond. The purgatory arc itself was partially about that very same thing, actually, in my opinion. But that doesn't mean that such questioning is somehow seen as an intrinsic part of Dean's character as far as I can tell or proof that Dean doesn't really like hunting after all. I don't see why the few times Sam does it it's somehow proof that he's just pretending and really resents his life and Dean too for being a part of it. I just don't see it the same way as you do, because I don't see how they are that different in their sometimes questioning and / or sometimes wanting out of the life. To me, what Carver did with Sam looked more like a plot manipulation for drama and angst, because what do you know? By season 10, Sam is right back to where he was in the second half of season 6 and throughout season 7, wanting to be hunting and finding a purpose in life by doing so, just as Sam told Dean in "The French Mistake." When Dean suggested Sam would probably be happier staying in the alternate universe, Sam pretty much said (paraphrase) "Don't be stupid. We don't even make a difference here." Which was pretty much a reiteration of what Sam said at the end of season 2. For me, it wasn't coincidence at all that Sam ended up right back there again in season 10 once teh DRAMA was over. The only thing Sam really learned in season 8 through 10 - well the only thing he really learned again, in my opinion, since he actually already learned it in season 6 and 7 - was that he needed and wanted Dean to be doing it with him. I understand that for you there is a question about Sam's motivations, but from what I see, there really isn't one. For me, Sam has mostly been finding self-worth through hunting and falling apart without Dean at his side since at least late season 2.*** All the angst and questioning and waffling ends up in the same place again in the end. *** (The Amelia thing being arguably an anomaly - though I'm not exactly sure how stable/well adjusted Sam really was there truthfully *shrug*) 3 hours ago, companionenvy said: I think any other post I could have in this thread would probably be a variation on the above points, so with that, I am going to (try) to be out - although it is possible that, like Sam and the hunting life, I am doomed to be drawn back in. In the meantime, I look forward to continuing discussing the show with all of you in other threads. Your entire post was awesome, @companionenvy. I couldn't agree more. Well said. 1 Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.