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

[AwesomO4000]

Brought over from the "Bitter Spoilers" thread. Not really any spoilers. Mostly speculation:

5 hours ago, Aeryn13 said:

That cements for me that this thing at the end of Season 12 WAS supposed to play into a big theme of Leader!Sam but the writers couldn`t come up with the right circumstances for it. Now the AU folk are around, they can get their wish. 

Now I do understand the need for someone to give them the headsup on this world but they have been fighting as units in a guerilla war so the idea that they need to be taught hunting/tactics and all that is pretty silly. They might not have experience with the day-to-day in our world but their experience as soldiers/warriors outclasses any humans from this Earth.

And since they don`t seem to want to leave any way, why are they living in the bunker and being "wrangled" by Sam? In AU-world, fighting was a necessity of survival. In this world, they could go off and lead normal lives or at least rest a bit if they so desired. Besides, isn`t Bobby their de-facto leader? Guess Mary is considered useless now that she doesn`t come with a Nephilim in tow 

The whole construct is one of convenience to play with the General Sam Winchester trope. 

I really wish they wouldn't, because as far as I can tell, when they have done this in the past, all they tend to do is have things go terribly wrong for Sam. When was the last time that Sam was a leader of a group of people where a leader was really necessary (I don't think a leader was really needed in "Who We Are") and where he actually lead and had a positive result? "Two Minutes to Midnight" maybe? I guess there was "Plucky Pennywhistle's Magical Menagerie," but that was played as much for comedy - good comedy, since I liked that episode - as anything else. In "Survival of the Fittest," Kevin was more the leader of the non-Dean / Castiel faction, so pretty much I got nothing. "Taxi Driver" Sam screwed it up, so Benny could be the hero. "Regarding Dean" - same so Dean with no memory even, could be the hero. Then they had their big chance last season and not only did Sam screw it up and half the people he was supposed to be saving got killed - and the other one either saved herself or Dean did, I don't remember which - but Sam got himself killed and had to make a deal with the Devil - literally - to not be dead.

If that is the writers' idea of Sam being leader, please, please don't. Just let Sam be Sam. He's not somehow "lazy" or "less than" just because he isn't a natural leader. I find that notion insulting to Sam as a character... not as insulting as Carver's "who gives a shit" Sam from season 8 that seemed to also come flying out of nowhere character development-wise, but still insulting none-the-less.

I am perfectly fine with Sam being the leader when he has to be, but still being uncomfortable with it and being relieved when Dean returns, and Dean can be the leader again, and straying from that leads to badness for Sam. However this has already been established character-wise for Sam more than once starting from way back in "All Hell..., pt 1" (season 4 was a whole year-long arc showing exactly that), so I really don't see why we'd have to revisit that again. For me it would just seem to be an excuse for Sam to mess up being leader - like in season 13 - just to prove this point again and mainly to make Sam look bad -  like season 8 and 9 did to just for Sam to learn that he really did want to be hunting with Dean. Again. Some more. Just like he learned in season 2 - 3 and 5 and 6.5 - 7.

My main problem: I like Sam the way he is (or was.) I wish the writers would stop trying to make him into something he's not (Season 8 and 12), and pissing off not only me, but everyone else who sees it as an affront to their favorite characters as well. Let Sam be smart. Let Sam be detail orientated. Let Sam have a backup plan should things go wrong. All that's fine. Sam wanting to be leader - to me - makes no sense since it's not what I've ever seen before from the character. And there's nothing wrong with that either.

[Aeryn13]

Quote

I really wish they wouldn't, because as far as I can tell, when they have done this in the past, all they tend to do is have things go terribly wrong for Sam.

Since they seem to be making it into a big point this Season and we already know he succeeds in both a) getting the AU folk to not kill Michael and b) get Dean back, I`m pretty sure they are making it into a pimping storyline. And furthermore, once Dean gets back, I don`t think they`ll drop it. Either Dean will be emotionally weak in the aftermath of Michael (and of course the others don`t trust him and don`t really know him) and in need of "wrangling" himself or Sam will have decided that he likes leadership and is obviously great at it so Dean needs to fall in line (with the narrative saying so and berating him for not doing it immediately) or a combination of both. 

This might ultimately be used to bring Dean to a permanent flunky-place. I`m incredibly apprehensive about that. And I mean noticeably so, not that they would work mostly as equals as I think the characters have day-to-day on hunts or that they would be joint leaders. I meant, like sitting among the other drones like in the Season 12 penultimate episode. God, did I hate how Dean was grouped during that scene, It gave me bad foreshadowing.  And Sam expected to have him be a soldier in his squad, too, so they might play this out in Season 14.

Ironically, we are right back to being worried about how this will play out for our respective fave. And the writers might yet find a way to make is bad for the both of us, despite worrying about different scenarios.  

[DeeDee79]

9 hours ago, gonzosgirrl said:

 

Funny, that's what his scripts sound like to me all the time.

*snicker*

[AwesomO4000]

Brought over from the "Unpopular Opinion" thread, just in case:

2 hours ago, BabySpinach said:

Those things you mentioned come back to my original point, that Dean never did any of these things for hubristic reasons and was motivated by desperation rather than an arrogant need to be special or right. And they all involved saving Sam, without any other motive. So I don't see how Dean deserved to be knocked down the same way that Sam and Cas have been in the past. I actually would have loved to see something come of Dean pledging himself to the angels for Sam's sake back in season 4, for instance, but not because he deserved to be punished. It would've just been interesting to watch Dean confront and deal with this new, personal problem. Same goes for him killing Death. Something should have come out of that, and I would have enjoyed seeing how Dean handled it.

I don't know if I agree with you that hubris is never involved for Dean nor that his motives always involved saving Sam... not that that is even an excuse in my opinion. Sam's reason for trying to get rid of the mark on Dean was solely for the purpose of saving Dean, in my opinion. Sam did it because he saw Dean become a demon and he didn't want that to happen again. Before Dean became a demon, and that danger wasn't there, Sam didn't try to intervene. He even supported Dean's choice to take on the mark ("Mother's Little Helper"). But his motive of saving Dean still didn't mean that he didn't end up with consequences, because he was reckless while doing. But Dean was also reckless, in my opinion, when he killed Death, and since that is one of his flaws, (I agree with @Myrelle on that), I would argue that it makes sense to me that there should have been consequences also.

I've seen arguments that Sam was just being arrogant and taking away Dean's agency, because Dean was doing just fine handling the mark, but how did that remove the threat of Dean becoming a demon again? Just because Crowley no longer wanted a Demon Dean second in command doesn't mean some other big bad might not decide he wanted one and kill Dean to make that happen. The threat was still there. And the threat was there because Dean made a reckless choice to take on the mark to begin with. And for me this also might have involved a bit of hubris since Dean thought he could handle it, and if he didn't think that, then it was even more reckless.

So going back to the darkness and Death, it's even more odd, in my opinion, that these reckless decisions by Sam and Dean came to fruition in the exact same scene. The result was consequences for one, but none for the other. So this goes back to my discussion over on that other thread of Dean's character arc and his flaws not being treated as "actual flaws." if recklessness is suposedly one of Dean's flaws, in my opinion, there should be more consequences for it - and not just personal consequences - until Dean gets to learn the lesson of being less reckless. It shouldn't just be other characters who get horrible consequences for being reckless. In my opinion anyway.

Actually, I would even be fine with the message being that recklessness isn't considered a flaw on this show if that is indeed what the writers think... if it applied more evenly to all of the other characters as well. I don't think the message should be recklessness is bad and comes to awful consequences (like the Darkness or angles falling) unless Dean does it, in which case it's entirely no problem or might even have good consequences - like Gadreel... and yes that decision though desperate and actually one I agree with (at least the initial letting Gadreel in) was reckless, and the lying made it downright dangerous in my opinion.

In my opinion that's kind of messed up and why I sometimes think that Dean's flaws aren't necessarily being presented as flaws.

[Myrelle]

6 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:

But his motive of saving Dean still didn't mean that he didn't end up with consequences, because he was reckless while doing. But Dean was also reckless, in my opinion, when he killed Death, and since that is one of his flaws, (I agree with @Myrelle on that)

The descriptor I used was impulsive, not reckless and while some might see them as synonymous, I don't. To me, impulsive implies an almost automatic response with no thought whatsoever going into the consequences, especially to the personal harm involved with those consequences, whereas reckless(again IMO) implies a complete disregard of even known consequences of any kind/sort that could also involve a burying of the head in the sand type of mentality-and while I'm sure there have been instances of Dean doing this throughout the series-cheating death, being one of those-I think Sam is actually the more reckless of the two, in truth, and especially where it concerns known cosmic consequences;

And no one will ever convince me that Dean skates away from his mistakes as unscathed as Sam has over the seasons because no fallout for things like killing Death just tell me that the writers had no interest in writing for the character unlike S8  and 9, which not only painted Dean as the bad guy, but also allowed Sam to skate away unscathed on things like Martin and Benny and his cold and uncaring treatment of Dean upon Dean's return from Purgatory, and in his failed promise to lead Dean to the light which lead to the whole Gadreel mess that lead to nothing of worth for Dean(even while Jensen gave us an emmy-worthy performance, IMO), but it did lead to the Purge speech and all those "hard truths" that the writers of that episode put in Sam's mouth, of which the worst of them still to this day have never been redressed and likely never will be now, but that we know had to have had a profoundly negative effect on Dean's already screwed to hell psyche. And I know we've gone round and round on this, but I don't for one minute think that that speech was written to make Sam look bad. IMO, it was written strictly to punish Dean and as a consequence for allowing Gadreel to possess Sam and as Baby Spinach said in the UO thread-Gadreel becoming an instrument of good was never tied to Dean's decision at all through any actual reminder within the writing; but oh yes, Sam could forgive the traitorous angel before he could forgive his own brother. And there are still fans out there, and even at this site, who think Dean should share in the blame for releasing the darkness and point to that as a consequence of and punishment for wanting to close the gates of hell which while  I  don't believe WAS the authorial intent, that someone could actually head canon that tells me that Dean gets more than his share of consequences and punishments from the writers of this show and this in spite of not directly inflicting even half of the damage on the world that Sam and Cas have through the actual storytelling AKA the "tell" to me.

But still at the end of all things and in the usual aftermaths, Dean forgives all, except himself; and from the others as regards Dean's transgressions we usually get crickets. This is what I'd like to see change in S14 through the Michael/Dean storyline, but I'm not hopeful because with Dean it's always seemed to me that the writers on this show would much rather apply schooling and hard truths and lessons than the compassion and understanding that they give so freely to so many of the other characters on this show(and often through Dean, himself).

[devlin]

I personally think that sam has consequences of his actions which actually become storylines, like the world ending, is coz the writers see him as the main character and therefore must write the story around him. whereas all of the consequences from dean’s bad decisions also become a storyline for sam and all dean gets is the emotional fallout from sam

[AwesomO4000]

4 hours ago, devlin said:

I personally think that sam has consequences of his actions which actually become storylines, like the world ending, is coz the writers see him as the main character and therefore must write the story around him. whereas all of the consequences from dean’s bad decisions also become a storyline for sam and all dean gets is the emotional fallout from sam

I might see this more if those storylines weren't necessarily negative and it was only Sam, but it isn't just Sam. Castiel, who isn't a main character and isn't even in a majority of the episodes I think also often has huge negative consequences for his actions. And the Darkness storyline wasn't even Sam's. He had almost nothing to do with solving it - despite getting saddled with starting it - except to be almost a literal cheerleader. Neither was the mark of Cain storyline Sam's, so I'm not sure what you mean by Dean's consequences becoming storylines for Sam. The only storyline Sam got during that time was the trials storyline which promptly went nowhere. The Gadreel storyline wasn't really Sam's either, it was all emotional stuff that got ignored, Sam got benched, and it became a Gadreel redemption storyline. So I'm not sure which storyline you are talking about.

The way I see it, it looks like the other way around. The consequences of Dean's bad decisions became a storyline for Dean - the mark of Cain arc - and a storyline for Gadreel - his redemption arc - while Sam picked up both the emotional fallout from Gadreel and the emotional fallout from Dean becoming a demon. While the consequences of Sam's bad decision - the Darkness - also became a storyline for Dean while Sam got an emotional story arc with Lucifer that had little to do with the Amara arc and became yet another way for the writers to have Sam screw up again with a little help from Castiel... even though it had little to do with the main arc. And now Sam's latest screw up has resulted in another potential arc for Dean - the Michael arc where Sam's role will likely again be to get the emotional fallout from Dean's storyline.

6 hours ago, Myrelle said:

And no one will ever convince me that Dean skates away from his mistakes as unscathed as Sam has over the seasons because no fallout for things like killing Death just tell me that the writers had no interest in writing for the character unlike S8  and 9, which not only painted Dean as the bad guy, but also allowed Sam to skate away unscathed on things like Martin and Benny and his cold and uncaring treatment of Dean upon Dean's return from Purgatory, and in his failed promise to lead Dean to the light which lead to the whole Gadreel mess that lead to nothing of worth for Dean(even while Jensen gave us an emmy-worthy performance, IMO), but it did lead to the Purge speech and all those "hard truths" that the writers of that episode put in Sam's mouth, of which the worst of them still to this day have never been redressed and likely never will be now, but that we know had to have had a profoundly negative effect on Dean's already screwed to hell psyche.

It's al a matter of perspective, in my opinion. Yes, Sam was an asshole in season 8, and no he didn't apologize, but I don't know what you mean by the whole Gadreel mess not leading to "anything of worth" for Dean... Dean lied to Sam for months while he let an entity run around in his body, knowing that that entity was erasing his memories, invading his personal thoughts, and eventually killing people in it.. And not only did Dean not apologize for that - not even for the months of lying - but he got to be right about Gadreel being useful. Sam didn't "forgive Gadreel before his own brother"...the narrative voice changed Gadreel from being a "traitorous angel" into a "misunderstood" being and had Sam talk about how he didn't think Gadreel had been trying to hurt him. Never mind that we saw Gadreel threaten to kill Sam on more than one occasion, nope, he was just "misunderstood" just so Dean could be right about Gadreel. And of course Sam couldn't actually keep his convictions about not saving Dean under similar circumstances either, just so Sam would have to admit he lied about his speech about not saving Dean, so Dean could be right about that, too. And see - if Sam would also do it, how can what Dean did be all that bad? So Sam gets victimized by Gadreel and has to call him a friend and gets turned into a hypocrite so Dean can be right. On top of this you want Sam to apologize for being angry that he got betrayed and victimized too because he hurt Dean's feelings when Dean didn't even apologize for betraying Sam (by lying to him) and screwing Sam's head up (by making Sam think that he was just imaging stuff)? That seems kind of unfair to me.

Yes, what Sam said in "The Purge" was awful, but what some seem to forget - and the narrative certainly forgot it - is that what happened to Sam was also awful, so he had a right to be angry. And it went on for moths and also undoubtedly did awful things to Sam's psyche. And somehow Sam was still made to look badly as the camera lingered on Dean's devastated face to show how awful Sam was for hurting Dean's feelings. So still somehow even if I do go with "The Purge" speech being punishment for Dean, that was it. There was no other fallout from that for Dean. Gadreel didn't use Sam's body to gain access to some powerful weapon in the bunker and wreak havoc or give it to Metatron to wreak havoc or let Metatron into the bunker or instead of dismissing Castiel, kill him or harm him in some way. Heck Gadreel even saved people. You might think that the "tell" of Dean getting chewed out in a speech is worse, but remember Sam also got not only "hard truths" from Dean as a demon and in mark of Cain mode, but from the show's God himself... that in addition to starting another apocalypse for having the audacity to save Dean.

I guess I'm not seeing the "compassion and understanding" you are saying that the writers give so freely to other characters.

[ILoveReading]

23 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

Sam didn't "forgive Gadreel before his own brother"...the narrative voice changed Gadreel from being a "traitorous angel" into a "misunderstood"

The show tries to present Lucifer as misunderstood.  Does that mean that every bad thing he did do Sam no longer counts?  

Regardless of whether the narrative changed, Sam still held on to his anger at Dean through the rest of the season.  the only reason he let it go was becasue Dean died.  He attacked Dean viciously in The Purge, and disowned him.  Dean will forever feel guilty over Kevin, and thinks he's going to burn for it.

Yes, Sam had a right to be mad.  But it was Sam's choice to accept Dean back and continue to work with him.  It's like after Fallen Idols, Sam demanded that Dean stop being upset becasue they had to work together and Dean had to trust him.  So maybe he needed to take his own advice and let it go, because he certianly has no problem expecting Dean too.  He also didn't just leave it at Deans' actions.  He attacked Dean's whole character and basically called him a selfish coward.   That was too far.  Dean announcing that he would do it again shouldn't' be earth shattering news.  Sam keeps saying he understands why Dean does what he does but he obviously doesn't. 

I guess regardless of the fact that Gadreel wanted redemption it still doesn't change the fact that Dean faced did face consequences and pretty big one. 

Family is Dean whole world, Sam telling him they weren't brothers anymore would hurt Dean far more than an apocalypse type event.

So I say the consequences were pretty dire. 

[gonzosgirrl]

56 minutes ago, ILoveReading said:

The show tries to present Lucifer as misunderstood.  Does that mean that every bad thing he did do Sam no longer counts?  

Regardless of whether the narrative changed, Sam still held on to his anger at Dean through the rest of the season.  the only reason he let it go was becasue Dean died.  He attacked Dean viciously in The Purge, and disowned him.  Dean will forever feel guilty over Kevin, and thinks he's going to burn for it.

Yes, Sam had a right to be mad.  But it was Sam's choice to accept Dean back and continue to work with him.  It's like after Fallen Idols, Sam demanded that Dean stop being upset becasue they had to work together and Dean had to trust him.  So maybe he needed to take his own advice and let it go, because he certianly has no problem expecting Dean too.  He also didn't just leave it at Deans' actions.  He attacked Dean's whole character and basically called him a selfish coward.   That was too far.  Dean announcing that he would do it again shouldn't' be earth shattering news.  Sam keeps saying he understands why Dean does what he does but he obviously doesn't. 

I guess regardless of the fact that Gadreel wanted redemption it still doesn't change the fact that Dean faced did face consequences and pretty big one. 

Family is Dean whole world, Sam telling him they weren't brothers anymore would hurt Dean far more than an apocalypse type event.

So I say the consequences were pretty dire. 

Totally agree with this. Disavowing their brotherhood and the Purge speech are the single worst things Sam has ever done, ever could do, to Dean. And right up 'til a couple scenes before Dean's death, Sam was still pissed with him, yet again throwing the Gadreel possession in his face, at the same time he's berating him for trying to kill said angel, no less. It might have made some self-aware Sam fans feel like he was being a dick but I would bet my soul that wasn't the writers' intentions, any more than his not looking for Dean in S8 and his incredibly self-centered treatment of him when he did come back was. They (TPTB) have said as much.

[Myrelle]

3 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:

It's al a matter of perspective, in my opinion. Yes, Sam was an asshole in season 8, and no he didn't apologize, but I don't know what you mean by the whole Gadreel mess not leading to "anything of worth" for Dean... Dean lied to Sam for months while he let an entity run around in his body, knowing that that entity was erasing his memories, invading his personal thoughts, and eventually killing people in it.. And not only did Dean not apologize for that - not even for the months of lying - but he got to be right about Gadreel being useful.

 

Your first sentence is likely the only thing that we will ever be able agree on concerning this show and it's two main characters. 

That said, Sam might have been an asshole in the eyes of no few in the fandom but to the writers he was the one who was "shown" to be more in the right by his becoming the writers' mouthpiece throughout both S8 and 9; and this minus any supernatural influence affecting his character whatsoever; the same as he was in S5 with the episode Fallen Idols when everything(IMO) became about Sam being written as the one main character on the show and JP the "star" of it. And with Dean and JA(and pretty much every other character on the show, too, albeit to a lesser degree including MC and Castiel, who has been treated almost as disrespectfully by the writers as Dean and JA has been again IMO) becoming the biggest casualty of that mindset within the writers' room. Good storytelling went out the window after that one in favor of elevating Sam to the sole hero role that culminated at the end of that season with Sam's many faults and flaws that had been touched on in the previous seasons all of sudden forgotten and/or changed into "heroic traits" to facilitate that thought-even the demon blood drinking became a necessary and "cool" way(according to Kripke, the creator) to save everyone and the world and that, again according to Kripke, Dean had to learn to appreciate that and Sam more, even adding that at the beginning of the story, Dean would have probably never shown up at the cemetary. Pfffffffffttttttt!-a matter of perspective indeed.

As for S8 and 9 having nothing of worth for Dean-I'd like to know exactly what good came out of those seasons for Dean within the confines of what was actually written on the page. Was he elevated to leader status because of any of his mistakes? Was it ever pointed out within the actual writing or even in any writer/showruner interviews that Dean was "right" about anything he did in those seasons or that any of his questionable deeds were a "cool" way for Dean to have saved Sam-apparently all that Dean was good for within the confines of this show up to that point and just going by the writing, or the "tell" , and leaving out the "show" that IMO was all Jensen and literally all that saved his character in those two seasons. That he was gifted with the JP treatment in the second half of 9 likely had more to do with Jensen's unhappiness with his ever on-going role and constant relegation back to his "guilty cheerleader" and the chauffeur of Sam role that were taken to ridiculous heights in  S8b and even 9a. Robbie Thompson even likened Dean to Samwise Gamgee in onf of those s8b episodes. That was when I stopped watching live. God, that made me so angry.

After that it became a see-sawing of trying to please both actors more and in the indelible fashion of not being able to write for more than one of what finally became their two main characters  as far as being centrally, supernaturally connected to the myth-arc we got the MOC storyline for Dean in s10, that was really more about again redeeming Sam for the mistakes THEY had made within the writing of the character in S8 and 9, but that they only truly recognized too far in hindsight becaise i think they have completely forgotten about everything that Sam said to Dean in that Purge speech and thinking everything was fixed by sam finally saying tow seasons later that he'd never been able to forgive himself for not looking for Dean hard enough to which Dean replied 'Well, you should." and that was it. Everything was all better with the brothers again and now they could move on to Sam having visions and praying to God and with Lucifer and the callback to Sam's hell time thrown in there, again and some more, becasue obviously everyone in the fandom could never get enough of that storyline and yes, Dean had a connection to the darkness, but it wasn't even really worth exploring apparently, neither to the outgoing showrunner or to the incoming one and of which *I* think the incoming one had far more influence over. And yes, they did do something with Dean and Amara in the last episodes of S11(they kind of had to when they opened the season with it after all), but again, what came out of that that was of any real worth to Dean? He got his mother back and she turned out to be The Ice Queen instead of the warm human being he remembered her as? Oh, joy. He apparently lost his ability to lead because Sam(and JP) had to have a role and something to do in S12 while Dabb focused on Lucifer and Mary his and the nepotism duo's new favorites. And then we got 13 and The Nougat Baby and Saint Kelly in addition to Lucifer(still and some more) and the most awesome, badass mom in the world, who was also now elevated to General Mary to The Nougat Baby's all-powerful Prince of Goodness-and this in spite of his father being Satan AKA The Devil. Oh, and lets not forget about the two year in the making Wayward Sisters spin-off-Dabb's other baby.

And then, uh-oh contract time for the two leads again and at least one of them is possibly feeling unchallenged. Time to throw him and his fans a bone again, but luckily, only until the ink dries on those contracts again.

And that's where we are now, IMO, and it's why I have so little hope for anything of real "worth" happening for the Dean character(and JA) again, after Michael leaves him this season. It's the patterns within the writing on this show since s5 that have compromised the overall quality of it more than anything else, IMO, and more specifically, the refusal of the showrunners and producers to try and break those patterns especially where the two lead actors and their characters are concerned. All this just my opinion and perspective, of course.

Edited August 7, 2018 by Myrelle

[Myrelle]

1 hour ago, gonzosgirrl said:

Disavowing their brotherhood and the Purge speech are the single worst things Sam has ever done, ever could do, to Dean. And right up 'til a couple scenes before Dean's death, Sam was still pissed with him, yet again throwing the Gadreel possession in his face, at the same time he's berating him for trying to kill said angel, no less. It might have made some self-aware Sam fans feel like he was being a dick but I would bet my soul that wasn't the writers' intentions, any more than his not looking for Dean in S8 and his incredibly self-centered treatment of him when he did come back was. They (TPTB) have said as much.

+1000 to this post and especially the bolded part.

[ILoveReading]

2 hours ago, Myrelle said:

 

Your first sentence is likely the only thing that we will ever be able agree on concerning this show and it's two main characters. 

That said, Sam might have been an asshole in the eyes of no few in the fandom but to the writers he was the one who was "shown" to be more in the right by his becoming the writers' mouthpiece throughout both S8 and 9; and this minus any supernatural influence affecting his character whatsoever; the same as he was in S5 with the episode Fallen Idols when everything(IMO) became about Sam being written as the one main character on the show and JP the "star" of it. And with Dean and JA(and pretty much every other character on the show, too, albeit to a lesser degree including MC and Castiel, who has been treated almost as disrespectfully by the writers as Dean and JA has been again IMO) becoming the biggest casualty of that mindset within the writers' room. Good storytelling went out the window after that one in favor of elevating Sam to the sole hero role that culminated at the end of that season with Sam's many faults and flaws that had been touched on in the previous seasons all of sudden forgotten and/or changed into "heroic traits" to facilitate that thought-even the demon blood drinking became a necessary and "cool" way(according to Kripke, the creator) to save everyone and the world and that, again according to Kripke, Dean had to learn to appreciate that and Sam more, even adding that at the beginning of the story, Dean would have probably never shown up at the cemetary. Pfffffffffttttttt!-a matter of perspective indeed.

As for S8 and 9 having nothing of worth for Dean-I'd like to know exactly what good came out of those seasons for Dean within the confines of what was actually written on the page. Was he elevated to leader status because of any of his mistakes? Was it ever pointed out within the actual writing or even in any writer/showruner interviews that Dean was "right" about anything he did in those seasons or that any of his questionable deeds were a "cool" way for Dean to have saved Sam-apparently all that Dean was good for within the confines of this show up to that point and just going by the writing, or the "tell" , and leaving out the "show" that IMO was all Jensen and literally all that saved his character in those two seasons. That he was gifted with the JP treatment in the second half of 9 likely had more to do with Jensen's unhappiness with his ever on-going role and constant relegation back to his "guilty cheerleader" and the chauffeur of Sam role that were taken to ridiculous heights in  S8b and even 9a. Robbie Thompson even likened Dean to Samwise Gamgee in onf of those s8b episodes. That was when I stopped watching live. God, that made me so angry.

After that it became a see-sawing of trying to please both actors more and in the indelible fashion of not being able to write for more than one of what finally became their two main characters  as far as being centrally, supernaturally connected to the myth-arc we got the MOC storyline for Dean in s10, that was really more about again redeeming Sam for the mistakes THEY had made within the writing of the character in S8 and 9, but that they only truly recognized too far in hindsight becaise i think they have completely forgotten about everything that Sam said to Dean in that Purge speech and thinking everything was fixed by sam finally saying tow seasons later that he'd never been able to forgive himself for not looking for Dean hard enough to which Dean replied 'Well, you should." and that was it. Everything was all better with the brothers again and now they could move on to Sam having visions and praying to God and with Lucifer and the callback to Sam's hell time thrown in there, again and some more, becasue obviously everyone in the fandom could never get enough of that storyline and yes, Dean had a connection to the darkness, but it wasn't even really worth exploring apparently, neither to the outgoing showrunner or to the incoming one and of which *I* think the incoming one had far more influence over. And yes, they did do something with Dean and Amara in the last episodes of S11(they kind of had to when they opened the season with it after all), but again, what came out of that that was of any real worth to Dean? He got his mother back and she turned out to be The Ice Queen instead of the warm human being he remembered her as? Oh, joy. He apparently lost his ability to lead because Sam(and JP) had to have a role and something to do in S12 while Dabb focused on Lucifer and Mary his and the nepotism duo's new favorites. And then we got 13 and The Nougat Baby and Saint Kelly in addition to Lucifer(still and some more) and the most awesome, badass mom in the world, who was also now elevated to General Mary to The Nougat Baby's all-powerful Prince of Goodness-and this in spite of his father being Satan AKA The Devil. Oh, and lets not forget about the two year in the making Wayward Sisters spin-off-Dabb's other baby.

And then, uh-oh contract time for the two leads again and at least one of them is possibly feeling unchallenged. Time to throw him and his fans a bone again, but luckily, only until the ink dries on those contracts again.

And that's where we are now, IMO, and it's why I have so little hope for anything of real "worth" happening for the Dean character(and JA) again, after Michael leaves him this season. It's the patterns within the writing on this show since s5 that have compromised the overall quality of it more than anything else, IMO, and more specifically, the refusal of the showrunners and producers to try and break those patterns especially where the two lead actors and their characters are concerned. All this just my opinion and perspective, of course.

I wish I could like this more than once. 

Perfectly stated

[FlickChick]

@Myrelle, rather than quoting your entire post, I just wanted to say how much I agree with everything you wrote. And in the process of reading it, I couldn't help feeling bitterness toward the showrunners and writers who have failed us, the fans, Dean, the character and Jensen, the actor. (I also believe that the writers have also hurt other characters/actors as well, but that's another post) I can't believe that the writers/showrunners don't know what a talented actor Jensen is, so it always boggles my mind why they give him crumbs to work with. And yes, they are slowly, surely ruining this show and how it pains me to witness it. Great post Myrelle!

[AwesomO4000]

4 hours ago, Myrelle said:

That said, Sam might have been an asshole in the eyes of no few in the fandom but to the writers he was the one who was "shown" to be more in the right by his becoming the writers' mouthpiece throughout both S8 and 9; and this minus any supernatural influence affecting his character whatsoever;

How was Sam shown to be "more in the right?" Benny was good. Gadreel was good and supposedly not really trying to harm Sam. Sam would do the same thing to save Dean just like Dean said. Dean did use his powers to kill Abbadon and there wasn't an apocalypse afterwards. Technically by taking on the mark to kill Abbaddon, Dean did end up making another sacrifice that hurt him, because he got turned into a demon, so Sam was wrong about that, too. So exactly what was Sam a "mouthpiece" for? Everything he "mouthpieced" about was shown to be wrong by the very same writers who had Sam say it, so unless the writers were showing that they, too, were wrong, that's why I'm thinking they were setting Sam up to be wrong to begin with.

If Sam was supposedly a "mouthpiece" then why not have him actually be right - have Benny be evil, have something go wrong while killing Abbadon, have Gadreel be evil, have Sam actually not do exactly what he said he wouldn't and get to keep his integrity rather than being turned into a hypocrite... it's so easy it writes itself if Sam is supposedly the "mouthpiece". Any one of those things might have convinced me that Sam wasn't being set up to be the devil's advocate that Dean proves wrong despite all the obstacles thrown at him, even a brother who doubts him (but in the end gets to see Dean was right,) but we didn't get a single one. The narrative made sure that Sam was wrong every time. To me it makes no sense to have a supposed mouthpiece who never gets it right, since that seems to be rather counterproductive to me believing the mouthpiece isn't just full of shit to begin with, but apparently miles vary on that.

5 hours ago, Myrelle said:

As for S8 and 9 having nothing of worth for Dean-I'd like to know exactly what good came out of those seasons for Dean within the confines of what was actually written on the page. Was he elevated to leader status because of any of his mistakes? Was it ever pointed out within the actual writing or even in any writer/showruner interviews that Dean was "right" about anything he did in those seasons

I don't read writer interviews, because writers don't necessarily tell the truth, in my opinion - I look at Joss Whedon as my first introduction to that - but in the writing yes, definitely, to both.

Dean was elevated to leader status during the plan to kill Abbadon. Sam acknowledged Dean was right that Abbadon needed to be stopped. There was a whole very special episode for Sam to learn this ("Mother's Little Helper") which also happened to be one of a small handfull of wins Sam actually had that season in terms of actually hunting something (rather than being the damsel in distress). But the main point of the episode was for Sam to find out Dean was right and then come back and tell Dean so and get on board with Dean's leadership. The writers even set up the beginning of the episode where Sam questions if Dean is being too obsessed about Abaddon and maybe they should just let up and take some regular case, just to make sure to show that Sam was wrong to question Dean's motives and leadership and then have Sam admit so at the end of the episode with Sam's "You were right." So yes, they did put it in the actual writing.

5 hours ago, Myrelle said:

Robbie Thompson even likened Dean to Samwise Gamgee in onf of those s8b episodes. That was when I stopped watching live. God, that made me so angry.

Funny, I didn't read the books, but in the movies, Samwise Gamgee was my favorite character and I thought that he was the real hero of the story. Without Samwise, Frodo never would've made it to the end and everything would've been lost. Samwise literally saved the day multiple times, often literally through the strength of his own character and determination. And Samwise did it all even though he wasn't the supposed "chosen one." In my opinion, Samwise was awesome, so yeah, miles vary on that, too, I guess.

5 hours ago, Myrelle said:

We got the MOC storyline for Dean in s10, that was really more about again redeeming Sam for the mistakes THEY had made within the writing of the character in S8 and 9,

Again, I'm not sure it's considered a good thing or redeeming a character if what they have the character do starts an apocalypse and then they have the show mouthpiece - God - then literally state that it's all his fault. And if there was ever any doubt, we got the "who's the real demon?" message the writers had various characters say throughout the season, just so we would know that Sam was going to be the one in the wrong for what he was doing. That's not redemption as I see it - that's setting the character up to be "wrong"*** and then blaming him.

And weirdly despite all of that I liked season 10, so go figure.

*** I put wrong in quotations, because apparently it's only wrong when Sam does it.

6 hours ago, Myrelle said:

And yes, they did do something with Dean and Amara in the last episodes of S11(they kind of had to when they opened the season with it after all), but again, what came out of that that was of any real worth to Dean?

He got to be a hero and be acknowledged by God?

9 hours ago, ILoveReading said:

Sam still held on to his anger at Dean through the rest of the season.  the only reason he let it go was becasue Dean died. 

I disagree. Sam was starting to forgive Dean and let it go by "Mother's Little Helper" in my opinion... 4 episodes after "The Purge."

9 hours ago, ILoveReading said:

Yes, Sam had a right to be mad.  But it was Sam's choice to accept Dean back and continue to work with him. It's like after Fallen Idols, Sam demanded that Dean stop being upset becasue they had to work together and Dean had to trust him.  So maybe he needed to take his own advice and let it go, because he certianly has no problem expecting Dean too.  He also didn't just leave it at Deans' actions.  He attacked Dean's whole character and basically called him a selfish coward.   That was too far.  Dean announcing that he would do it again shouldn't' be earth shattering news.  Sam keeps saying he understands why Dean does what he does but he obviously doesn't. 

I agree, but Dean pissed Sam off in their encounter during "The Purge." Dean was annoyed that Sam was mad at him, had previously blamed everyone else for changing the rules ("Sharp Teeth") and didn't seem to be backing down from that, didn't admit he was wrong in any way, didn't apologize for how much Sam got hurt by the whole thing, and even instead tried to act like what happened to Sam was no big deal ("we're together now, what's the problem?"), and insinuated that Sam should be grateful that Dean "saved his ass in that church" and by helping Gadreel stay in his body. Yes, Sam went too far, but it's not like Dean was just innocently sitting there. He was acting like everything he did was justified and that Sam was being completely unreasonable for being angry at him. It's one thing to hear your brother say he'd do it again - which yeah Sam should've known that - and another to hear him pretty much dismiss everything you went through as "ehn you're back, I don't see the problem." (And all of that stuff was kind of glossed over, because the writers didn't have Sam call Dean out on that stuff... or even the stuff that had previously been important to Sam).

So to me, it's not like "Fallen Idols," because there Sam acknowledged why Dean was angry and told Dean he had every right to be angry. Sam actually told Dean that Dean could "be as mad as he wanted to be" at him, so Sam didn't "demand that Dean not be upset" that I saw. He insisted that Dean not let his anger at Sam effect a case or their professional relationship if they were going to work together.

So yeah, Sam was pissed off and went too far and made Dean hurt like he was hurting but not getting any acknowledgement for - not that we actually saw Sam's hurt, because the writers couldn't be bothered to show that or then we might sympathize with Sam or something.

It wasn't exactly that most mature or nice thing for Sam to do, but it isn't like it happened in a vacuum either. We just didn't get to see Sam's point of view on the issue. Was he sorry after he said it? Who knows, because we only got Dean's point of view after the encounter. It was all about his guilt and pain. Sam's part of the story was "done" now that we got to see how it affected Dean.

[gonzosgirrl]

3 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:

I disagree. Sam was starting to forgive Dean and let it go by "Mother's Little Helper" in my opinion... 4 episodes after "The Purge."

Sam was still throwing Gadreel in Dean's face hours before the Metatron showdown in 9x23. Granted, Dean was fully charged up by the Mark at that point, but Sam, angry that Dean had gone off with Crowley, didn't hesitate to go there again:

Quote

Sam: I guess one of us doesn't need a demon to help follow a clue trail. You're looking for miracle lady right? Yeah, she's gone. I had a nice chat with her though.

Dean: Sam whatever type of intervention you think this is, trust me it ain't. I'm not going to explain myself to you.
Sam: Yeah, I sorta got that. I just thought you might like to know while you two have been playing, uh Odd Couple. Your real friends, like Cas, like the angel you stabbed - Gadreel. They're out there right now risking their asses to help you win this fight.
Dean: The hell you talking about?
Sam: A fight I might add you made that much more complicated when you decided to stab the one angel who could actually get us to Metatron!
Dean: You mean the angel that took you for a joy ride? The angel that slaughtered Kevin, that angel?
Sam: Who you let in the front door in the first place. You tricked me Dean, and now I'm the who wakes up in the middle of the night with my hands killing Kevin, not you. So please when you say you don't want to explain anything to me, don't! I get it. And I also get that Metatron has to go. And I know you're our best shot to do that.

 

I will grant that Sam did agree, even insist, that they go after Metatron together, but this exchange sure didn't come across as a guy who has forgiven his brother for anything. Honestly though, I don't think Dean was looking to be forgiven at this point.  He never apologized for saving Sam because he wasn't sorry for that, only for the collateral damage - Kevin's death and Sam's mental state. For that, there was no forgiveness, and he was prepared to burn for it. I think he had come to terms with what he'd done and Sam's disdain - thus the question as he was dying.

In typing that, I thought of something I never had before. I wonder what Sam's reaction would've been if Gadreel hadn't gone over to Metatron's side. If he didn't kill Kevin, and left as promised after both he and Sam were healed. Would he still have hated Dean for saving him?

Edited August 8, 2018 by gonzosgirrl

[AwesomO4000]

40 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

I will grant that Sam did agree, even insist, that they go after Metatron together, but this exchange sure didn't come across as a guy who has forgiven his brother for anything.

Thank you for resfreshing my memory on that (I don't rewatch season 9 so I had forgotten some of that.)

I agree with you that it sounds like Sam is taking a few steps backwards here***, but I wouldn't exactly say he hated Dean. Sam had been showing concern about Dean from the mark. I'm also not sure how far forgiving vs angry goes. I think someone can start to forgive, but still have an angry setback when something triggers them - and Crowley's a pretty disruptive force when he wants to be. So you're right that it probably didn't help that Dean was off with Crowley again considering Sam hates Crowley (with good reason) and knows he's bad news. But I guess I wasn't as hard on Sam here, because I remember that Dean had his own "a few steps back" a few times in season 5. He was still getting set off 3/4 of the way into season 5, and it took Sam doing something potentially risky from the rest of the group's standpoint before Dean turned around. But I understood why Dean was angry back then and I think Sam did, too, because he seemed to try to be understanding about it. And so I also (maybe - see below) understand why Sam was angry here too, especially with Crowley around - who is not good for Sam's blood pressure. (And now I'm remembering "The Devil You Know" and Sam trying to stab Crowley and getting the back seat instead... I just know Dean either made Sam fix that or at least gave him some serious shit for that : ) . I could imagine after Dean asking "did you get him?" and Sam answering "no," that Dean was thinking "$%#^ that means he stabbed my Baby!" Sometimes I miss the old days and that I could imagine little details like that on this show.)

And as you pointed out, no matter how Sam had a backslide in terms of being angry with Dean, he still trusted Dean's abilities and conviction enough - even Dean influenced by the mark - that Sam wanted to go get Metatron working together with him^^^ ...which makes it kind of even more sad in a way that Dean cold-cocked him. Poor, dumb trusting his brother Sam. He should've seen that punch coming a mile away.

*** Though this episode was kind of hard for me to take seriously concerning how Sam was supposed to be thinking and feeling considering the inclusion of Gadreel in the "friends" category - and along with Castiel even... Why would Sam even say that? I mean, sure, if Sam was going for the sarcasm meaning of friend, but obviously not since he included Castiel in there too. "Ally" would already be a stretch, but at least that would sort of make sense since Sam is not one to say no to an ally in an important fight, even one who had previously worked against them (example: Gabriel). But "friend" and sounding indignant on Gadreel's behalf made no sense to me except within the context of the seeming (to me anyway) retcon with Sam now saying he didn't think Gadreel was evil or trying to hurt him. Previously Sam himself had been all gung ho "let's kill Gadreel!" so this turnaround seemed a stretch for me to have Sam say. It wasn't even consistent within the same conversation. Sam went from "how dare you try to kill poor Gadreel" to talking about how memories of what Gadreel did to him give him nightmares within the span of a few sentences. For me it's a disconnect in terms of tone.

^^^ Which is why I think Sam has a harder time understanding why the "Fallen Idols" and "Sharp Teeth" situation was so tough on Dean. Sam can be angry with Dean but still admire Dean's leadership and hunting ability and focus on that whereas I think Dean has a harder time compartmentalizing like that.

1 hour ago, gonzosgirrl said:

In typing that, I thought of something I never had before. I wonder what Sam's reaction would've been if Gadreel hadn't gone over to Metatron's side. If he didn't kill Kevin, and left as promised after both he and Sam were healed. Would he still have hated Dean for saving him?

The way the story was presented earlier in the season - no, I don't think Sam would necessarily have been as angry (hate is a strong word.) I honestly don't know why the writers shifted Sam's focus from one of the biggest things Sam was originally upset about - the lying (it was the first thing Sam was pissed about in "Road Trip") - to only the "you tricked me!" thing (Unless it was for the "parallel" reasons I mentioned below). The entire set up in the first half of the season was Sam thinking he was going crazy because he was losing time and him worrying that he was somehow backsliding and going "evil" again. Yeah, that logically doesn't make much sense, but kind of like Dean's self-esteem problems, Sam's worry that he's "tainted" is a thing for him and so Sam's torment over that did make a sad sort of sense. And it tied into both Sam's characterization earlier and being something that Dean wouldn't necessarily understand, so he wouldn't necessarily realize the issues Sam was having because of it. That's why I was annoyed that the writers maybe dropped all of that so they could instead make the parallel between Dean calling Gadreel to begin with and Sam calling Crowley in the season 9 finale and later using the Book of the Damned. Because then, for me, Sam's anger and feelings of betrayal didn't make as much sense. When the issues were hitting Sam's vulnerable zone - Sam insecurities that he's tainted - his feelings of betrayal and anger made much more sense to me.

So with that switch-of-focus monkey wrench thrown in there, I can't say for sure if Sam would still be angry, because all of a sudden it was "I was ready to die!" and "you tricked me!" when that hadn't been the issue as much before - or at least it hadn't been the main issue presented at the beginning. For me the issues should have been "you lied to me" and "you let me think I was going crazy" and "why didn't you just tell me about Gadreel?"

For all of the character analysis and "Sam-whispering" heh I try to do, I can honestly say I don't know, because I never really did understand Carver's "vision" for Sam. Almost everything he wrote character-wise for Sam from season 8 on made little sense to me. Which is odd considering some of his earlier episodes are among my very favorite Sam-centric episodes.

[catrox14]

16 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:

Again, I'm not sure it's considered a good thing or redeeming a character if what they have the character do starts an apocalypse and then they have the show mouthpiece - God - then literally state that it's all his fault. And if there was ever any doubt, we got the "who's the real demon?" message the

Chuck isn't the mouthpiece for the show, IMO. He might have been in S5 but that is all debatable IMO, in retrospect. And I can't take him as the mouthpiece now because IMO Dabb/Singer have  rolled out the red carpet of redemption and elevation for Sam since S11 started.

 

Chuck lies. He maniplulates. He's a bully. So IMO whatever he says about or to anyone, about themselves, I take with a giant grain of salt. Itmwas demon!Dean who questioned Sams morals in s10. Was it more morally wrong for Sam to use any tactic to save Dean or let Dean remain a demon? That was the question being posited throughout Carver's time IMO. It was the question posed when Dean allowed Gadreel in. IMO, Carver deliberately chose to leave that up to the audience.

And Chuck is an asshole. He didnt want to deal with humanity and it was much easier to tell Metatron the world was better off with demon!dean than accept responsibility for the mess HE started by locking away Amara and making Lucifer bear the Mark who he didnt have the strength to not br influenced by her.

So, fo me, whatever Chuck says is suspect...good or bad.

[Myrelle]

16 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:

I don't read writer interviews, because writers don't necessarily tell the truth, in my opinion - I look at Joss Whedon as my first introduction to that - but in the writing yes, definitely, to both.

Dean was elevated to leader status during the plan to kill Abbadon. Sam acknowledged Dean was right that Abbadon needed to be stopped. There was a whole very special episode for Sam to learn this ("Mother's Little Helper") which also happened to be one of a small handfull of wins Sam actually had that season in terms of actually hunting something (rather than being the damsel in distress). But the main point of the episode was for Sam to find out Dean was right and then come back and tell Dean so and get on board with Dean's leadership. The writers even set up the beginning of the episode where Sam questions if Dean is being too obsessed about Abaddon and maybe they should just let up and take some regular case, just to make sure to show that Sam was wrong to question Dean's motives and leadership and then have Sam admit so at the end of the episode with Sam's "You were right." So yes, they did put it in the actual writing.

I started reading writer interviews in the early seasons of this show to try and figure out why it seemed to me that when Sam leaves or left or wanted to leave Dean, it was usually painted by the writers as a desire by him to be more independent and/or "his own man", while when Dean leaves or left or wanted to leave Sam it was painted by the writers and their writing as Dean abandoning Sam and what I gleaned from my research is that these are the little boxes that the characters were placed in from the beginning and as the seasons went on that was when it seemed to me that no matter how much the BTS personnel in the writers room changed this was one of the things about the brothers that none of them would ever mess with or change. I'm  not sure why, but that was what I got and it hold true to this day, IMO. And the biggest problem with that mindset, IMO, is that it allows for growth for Sam, but Dean can only become stagnant under that rule. And I've come to hate that about this show. But at least I understand a little better why it's happening.

I think what the writers say in interviews and such is their form of the truth and what they are trying to impart to the audience through their writing and from all I've read and seen, I've come to believe the the writers idea of what is right or wrong isn't really morally centered, but more centered around whether family is truly everything, even worth giving up not only you life for, but your individuality on every level for, too-even on a personal level; and it seems to me that for at least the two main characters on this show there is a double standard that is often applied to both main characters that's been put in place in order for the the storytelling to eventually always return to those two basic character traits of the two main characters and that one tenet of the show-and any disagreements the brothers might have will always be "resolved" siimply by returning to the one tenet of family(no matter how it is defined or portrayed) is everything. and you don't give up on family. Even monsters on this show hold to it, somewhat, and as far as the Winchesters are concerned, that is the one truth that the writers of this show will always go back to as being "right" and their form of truth. We don't have to agree with it, but it IS their truth, IMO.

But that doesn't mean that it's wrong to push back against that thinking, especially if one feels that a family member is going about this in the wrong way-and that's where the double standard comes in, IMO-Sam is allowed by the writers to push back in that way, but Dean rarely is-so we get episodes like Fallen Idols and PONR and those last few episodes of S5 and entire seasons such as 8 and 9 and much of 11 and most of 12 for Sam and to highlight Sam's growth, but what about Dean's growth in the area of individuality? That was the question that lead me to wanting to know what and how the heck the writers of this show think. And now I think, I get it after following their interviews and such.

IMO, Sam was shown to be "right" in their minds in seasons 8 and 9 because they admire his desire to push back against Dean's belief in hunting and the family is everything motto, so we got episodes like the coin episode and Torn and Frayed that pretty much ignored much of what Sam did "wrong" in the early part of that season in order to focus more so on what Dean did "wrong"-top most being "abandoning" Sam again and daring to think that he could have friends outside of Sam-and Sacrifice drove that home for them more than any episode that season.

And then we got 9 with Dean apparently going OTT for family, too, but Sam was again allowed to push back something fierce before he was brought into the fold again, but only by almost losing Dean-which is usually how Sam has to be brought back into the fold.

From all I've read and seen of the collective writers'  and showrunners thoughts on this show, IMO, they admire the Sam character more than the Dean character, but the Dean character is necessary to hold to the basic storytelling of the early seasons that they simply don't want to mess with and refuse to even take the chance on changing.

So for me, the show would make no sense without having looked into these things. And now for me, it's become more of a search for hope that Dean might some day and in some way be allowed some character growth as an individual, too, and maybe for a writer here or there who might admire the Dean character as much as most of the others admire Sam or Cas or Lucifer or whoever. Sadly, I haven't felt that since S4.

We'll see what they do with Michael/Dean, but I'm afraid that the main reason that this storyline was allowed to even see the light of day was so that Sam fans could  be given Dean grovelling to Sam over the Gadreel business(because he wasn't shown to be sorry enough for them with the resolution of that one), while the attack on Dean's entire life from the Purge speech remains intact-and this because, IMO, they were trying to show Sam as being "right" about all of it at the time and his "I lied" while Dean was dying was enough for them to count it as refuting that speech. They never counted on the fandom backlash to any of that season, IMO, however; and this , mainly because of Jensen's acting prowess that undermined pretty much everything they were trying to convey. Were they trying to convey that Sam hurt Dean with that speech?-definitely-but so much so that we couldn't think of Sam's words as little more than angry BS?-I don't think so.

I'll just say that my feeling is that, as Flick Chick said, the writers on this show have underestimated JA's acting talent and ability, time and time again over the course of this series-especially his ability to mold and shape not just his character, but also the story surrounding Dean, but because of this, the character is begging for individual growth now that they seem hell-bent on not allowing.

I'll add that, IMO, simply telling someone that "You were right." does not in any way equate to recognizing them as a leader. Not for me, so nope to that being the "tell" of that exchange for me. And Sam had to be completely humbled into saying even that.    

[Myrelle]

1 hour ago, catrox14 said:

Chuck isn't the mouthpiece for the show, IMO. He might have been in S5 but that is all debatable IMO, in retrospect. And I can't take him as the mouthpiece now because IMO Dabb/Singer have  rolled out the red carpet of redemption and elevation for Sam since S11 started.

 

Chuck lies. He maniplulates. He's a bully. So IMO whatever he says about or to anyone, about themselves, I take with a giant grain of salt. Itmwas demon!Dean who questioned Sams morals in s10. Was it more morally wrong for Sam to use any tactic to save Dean or let Dean remain a demon? That was the question being posited throughout Carver's time IMO. It was the question posed when Dean allowed Gadreel in. IMO, Carver deliberately chose to leave that up to the audience.

And Chuck is an asshole. He didnt want to deal with humanity and it was much easier to tell Metatron the world was better off with demon!dean than accept responsibility for the mess HE started by locking away Amara and making Lucifer bear the Mark who he didnt have the strength to not br influenced by her.

So, fo me, whatever Chuck says is suspect...good or bad.

ITA. And I think Dean might have a similar opinion. Calling Dean the Firewall  was a great moment for the fandom, but I could definitely see Dean as seeing it as the hollow praise of just another deadbeat dad looking to unload his responsibilities onto someone else as Dean's human dad did to him; and that "hero" moment?-IMO, he was just seeing himself as being used as simply a "weapon" again vs a human being with any real feelings, and as he felt John often treated him(Daddy's Blunt Little Instrument) growing up. I can still see the look of sadness on his face when Rowena told him he would have to BE the bomb. Wonderful Ackting there.

I'm so ready for Dean to be allowed some individual and personal growth via seeing himself as a leader in his own right and not just and only as Sam's personal bodyguard and support system and the glue that holds the family together. He is so much more than that. JENSEN has made him so much more than that, which is the main reason why I hated that Samwise comparison with the fire of ten thousand suns. As a literary character and a movie character, Sam Gamgee was a lovable and capable servant to his "master" and a terrific support system for him, too; and yes, he could be and I'm sure is seen as a hero in his own right, by some-but Dean is much more complex than that. Again, Jensen has made Dean much more than that character, IMO. To me, because of JA, Dean has always been much more akin to the Aragorn of that story if one is looking to pin it down in that manner.

15 hours ago, gonzosgirrl said:

In typing that, I thought of something I never had before. I wonder what Sam's reaction would've been if Gadreel hadn't gone over to Metatron's side. If he didn't kill Kevin, and left as promised after both he and Sam were healed. Would he still have hated Dean for saving him?

 At best, I think he would have yet again admitted(somewhat grudgingly, as he did concerning Benny), that Dean was "right" to do it, but IMO, that was not the main or real point that they were trying to make within the Gadreel storyline-not where it concerned what Dean did, anyway. And if it seems that way to some, I'd say that was because Jensen softened that storyline  for his character so much more than the writers ever thought he would or could have-and that's mainly why I think of his performance in that season as emmy-worthy.

Oh, I forgot about the bolded part-they did this with Dean in S4, too, IMO via Dean apparently "enjoying" torturing when he came down off the rack in hell vs Sam canoodling with Ruby-and I think that was another case of Jensen softening the writing for his character immensely.

Edited August 8, 2018 by Myrelle

[AwesomO4000]

4 hours ago, Myrelle said:

I started reading writer interviews in the early seasons of this show to try and figure out why it seemed to me that when Sam leaves or left or wanted to leave Dean, it was usually painted by the writers as a desire by him to be more independent and/or "his own man", while when Dean leaves or left or wanted to leave Sam it was painted by the writers and their writing as Dean abandoning Sam

This is interesting, because although I saw the same episodes you did, I didn't come to this conclusion. I always thought that this:

4 hours ago, Myrelle said:

I've come to believe the the writers idea of what is right or wrong isn't really morally centered, but more centered around whether family is truly everything, even worth giving up not only you life for, but your individuality on every level for, too-even on a personal level;

was pretty much their message and goal except that the answer is "yes." I never saw the writing as painting Sam's desire to be his own man as a positive thing. The words used were "abandoning" his family and not being mature enough to accept responsibility, and these concepts aren't really contradicted by the show, in my opinion. It's even the conclusion that Sam comes to in the end almost every time he does try to break out of this mold. Whenever Sam tried to be independent of his family, he either learned how futile that was (when Jessica got burned), how selfish it was ("Afterschool Special"), or he outright endangered the world because of it (his raising Lucifer). Sam's conclusion in seasons 4 and 5seemed to be that he never should've left his family

... And that was pretty much where Sam had been ever since until season 8 when it was time to shake things up again... And that attempt by Sam to be "independent" was not only poorly written with no attempt by the writers to make Sam's attempt in any way believable or sympathetic, it was then openly mocked by the show afterwards. "We thought maybe Sam hit a dog again" was shorthand for the show considering Sam being crappy for "abandoning" Dean / family in the first place. Similarly, Sam pushing back against Dean doing everything he could to save Sam - the "The Purge Speech" - was also shown to be the wrong way, when Sam learned the very special lesson that family was indeed worth such lengths when he almost lost Dean.

4 hours ago, Myrelle said:

But that doesn't mean that it's wrong to push back against that thinking, especially if one feels that a family member is going about this in the wrong way-and that's where the double standard comes in, IMO-Sam is allowed by the writers to push back in that way, but Dean rarely is-so we get episodes like Fallen Idols and PONR and those last few episodes of S5 and entire seasons such as 8 and 9 and much of 11 and most of 12 for Sam and to highlight Sam's growth, but what about Dean's growth in the area of individuality? That was the question that lead me to wanting to know what and how the heck the writers of this show think. And now I think, I get it after following their interviews and such.

Actually I think the show does think it is wrong to push back, because whenever Sam is "allowed to push back," the tone of the show isn't with him - it's with Dean - and Sam ends up learning a very special lesson about how his pushing back turns out badly. Sam's growth during the show has been away from independence and towards family, be that Dean or their extended family. And whenever Sam pulls away from that, it is depicted as "abandoning" them (in the case of season 8, this included Kevin) and leads to bad things. When Sam comes to his conclusion that he wants to hunt with Dean in season 10, he is content and at peace, maybe happier than he'd ever been in seasons 8 and 9, and I think this is exactly the show's message.

The reason I see for the "double standard" you talk about concerning Dean and independence is that the show doesn't have Dean try for that independence as often, because that isn't the way to go in their philosophy. And that's why when Dean does go to extremes to save Sam - like Gadreel - Gadreel isn't evil and it is actually something that ends up helping the world... because the writers agree that Dean was right to risk it all for family, so the "punishment fits the crime" so to speak (in that there isn't cosmic "punishment"). Sam on the other hand was crappy to Dean and didn't understand or get on board with the "family is worth all risks" train, so he is "punished" by almost losing Dean to teach him a lesson for not understanding Dean's very right position. The season 10 message is muddied, because even though Sam goes to great lengths to save Dean, he did so after Dean specifically asked him not to do so, so since Sam went against Dean's wishes, he gets "punished" with the darkness. So, I don't see the bias against Dean that you do... I more see a bias against Sam in terms of getting worse consequences for his actions, even when they are fairly similar.

And I don't think that the writers "admire his [Sam's] desire to push back against Dean's belief in hunting and the family is everything motto," because generally when he does, he is either mocked for it ("Eeeeat Me!" and "Sam hit a dog") or punished for it ("Lucifer Rising," the end of season 9). In my opinion, if they admired Sam's "independence" then "Sam hit a dog" wouldn't even be a thing and they would've made Sam's try for independence in season 8 more fleshed out and sympathetic. For me, the reason that the writers didn't - since when do the writers back away from angst and such? - wasn't because they thought we would just "get it" or "understand," but because they didn't want it to be sympathetic***, because the message in the end was going to be "family first" anyway, so why bother making Sam's try for independence sympathetic anyway? It would just cloud their message.

For me, the message of as you put it, "family (no matter how it is defined or portrayed) is everything" makes much more sense if both brothers are "punished" for going against this, and in my opinion that is pretty much what we see. Sure there was "Point of No Return" for Dean, but there was "Afterschool Special" for Sam and "Lucifer Rising" and Sam learning in season 8 that all he really needed and wanted was recognition from Dean and that hitting a dog and shacking up with a woman was lame and see how awesome loyal Benny is Sam?!? (I hated season 8 ), and "Mother's Little Helper" and everything that happened in season 9, and Sam learning that all he really wanted was to hunt with Dean in season 10.

Looking at it this way, the Michael/Dean story could go either way. Part of Dean's motivation was to save Sam and Castiel, so that will work in his favor. What else happens or if Dean is tempted by Michael in some way tat might change things.

*** That would've been so easy to do - have Amelia be a better character and have Sam try to find Dean but conclude it was too dangerous and save Kevin before "hitting a dog" - and boom! sympathetic try for "independence," but the point, in my opinion, was always going to be "independence baaad! Family gooood!" so they made Sam's try for independence suitable selfish-looking so that we would all get the "Family gooood!" message.

Edited August 8, 2018 by AwesomO4000

[Myrelle]

18 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:

The reason I see for the "double standard" you talk about concerning Dean and independence is that the show doesn't have Dean try for that independence as often, because that isn't the way to go in their philosophy.

And I think that it's predominantly because they just want to keep Dean in the little box of Sam being his whole world, while Sam gets things like the MOL storyline(which the writers once stated was written predominantly for the Sam character,so that he could be a happier, more satisfied hunter, I suppose) that Dabb has now taken into a LeaderSam arc-which leaves me again wondering(as I so often have since S5)-What about Dean?(in this specific instance and going into S14, after Michael leaves him, that is). It's worrisome for this fan, again going by previous writing patterns on this show.

And that's where I'm going to leave this so as to avoid an old argument and the added old circular disagreements that go along with it. I will add, however, that reading and watching  writer/showrunner/producer interviews-and even certain actor interviews-ie., Sam Smith's since Mother Mary Sue was brought back-may not always make me happy at all-but at least it's explained a lot to me about what could be going on in the writers' room; and the old saying forewarned is forearmed is the only way that I think I can continue to watch this show.

Oh, and that I'm thankful every day that the FF button was invented, too. 

Edited August 9, 2018 by Myrelle

[AwesomO4000]

1 hour ago, Myrelle said:

while Sam gets things like the MOL storyline(which the writers once stated was written predominantly for the Sam character,

Good thing Sam (supposedly) got the MoL storyline - such as it was - considering that he didn't really get a lot of other myth related storylines of his own during the past few seasons. Not that the MoL storyline went anywhere but to show "MoL baaaad" through the BMoL by having Sam foolishly - and nonsensically - join the BMoL just to show MoL baaaad... see what happens when you join other groups that aren't your family, Sam?

I'm just not seeing the MoL as a positive message by the show either so far. And I suspect that any other "Leader Sam" arcs will go the same way as it did at the end of season 13, with Sam failing and learning his lesson that leading is difficult and something he would rather let Dean do... which I'm actually not opposed to, except that Sam already learned that lesson a long time ago, and I don't think it needs to be repeated.

[Reganne]

9 minutes ago, ILoveReading said:

I think they did this with the kiddie table line.  IMO, that was done for a reason. 

But that is off topic for this thread so I'll leave it there.

IMO, the narrative also showed Dean accepting Sam taking on a leadership role at the end of season 12 as well.  I think they just showed Dean being overprotective of the ones he loves in season 13 because of how much he lost at the beginning of the season.  If they wanted to show Sam as being right with the kiddie table line and that Dean shouldn't have worried about Sam's safety if he went to the AU, they would have written Sam as being successful in the AU.  That would have proved Sam's point.  That he can handle himself. 

As it was written, the narrative showed Sam fail exponentially and to the point that he died and if it weren't for Lucifer of all characters, he would still be dead.  In the end, the narrative showed Dean to be right to worry about bringing Sam to the AU in fear for his safety.  Come season 14, the vast majority of the audience will have forgotten that line.  Where as it would be fresh in their minds when Sam was present in the AU in season 13.

[gonzosgirrl]

I want to see the video, but this is an interesting perspective on both the S8 storyline and Dean's acceptance of Jack - both hotly discussed BvJ topics.

[Casseiopeia]

58 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

I want to see the video, but this is an interesting perspective on both the S8 storyline and Dean's acceptance of Jack - both hotly discussed BvJ topics.

As far as Dean/Jack goes, I think they had to rush that part of the story in order to launch Wayward Sisters.  The entire first half was just a set up for the pilot.  Dean and Jack had to get along so the brothers could end up in the Bad Place.

[gonzosgirrl]

39 minutes ago, Casseiopeia said:

As far as Dean/Jack goes, I think they had to rush that part of the story in order to launch Wayward Sisters.  The entire first half was just a set up for the pilot.  Dean and Jack had to get along so the brothers could end up in the Bad Place.

Just one more reason that I dislike Dabb and Co so much - sacrificing an important character beat of a lead on the altar of his beloved spin-off.

[ILoveReading]

I always like when Jensen validates my feelings about things. 

I think he's really the only one that gives a damn anymore. 

Reason 43430985 why I think the writers are lazy.  They have a beginning and an end point to so many storylines they skip the middle which is the most important part.  Jack didn't need to be accepted by episode 1.   They should have spent time exploring both sides of Jack.  Then when Lucifer caught up with him it woudn't have felt like a time waster becasue there was zero tension or suspense in those scenes.  It was obvious Jack wasn't going to side with Lucifer so the show didn't need to waste the final 3 episodes on it.  Michael was rushed with no build up. 

If the Wayward eps didn't fit then rework the concept of the wayward eps.  The main show should have taken priority instead of writing Sam and Dean out of character for girl power.

But that interview with Dabb and Singer was really telling.  Singer saying that it would be episode 18 and he would think we need to get to it but there was still 5 episodes left so how to they fill them.  Someone should tell them that there is no rule that everything has to be crammed into the final 3 episodes, thats its okay to start dealing with them in episode 18.  Especially when you have 26 plot points to wrap up. 

Dabb really is the worst thing to happen to this show.  If he doesn't care he should move on.

[Pondlass1]

37 minutes ago, ILoveReading said:

Michael was rushed with no build up. 

This is the maddening part.  I'd have liked to get to know Michael. Christian has more charisma and pizzazz in his little finger than the Waywards have combined.  Dabb was thinking future employment I guess?  

[FlickChick]

20 hours ago, gonzosgirrl said:

I want to see the video, but this is an interesting perspective on both the S8 storyline and Dean's acceptance of Jack - both hotly discussed BvJ topics.

Probably what Jensen meant is "..., but that's what fit the story they wanted to tell". In other words, this group lays out the story they want to tell, in the timeline they want to tell it, regardless of how the characters would actually evolve in a natural - instead of a forced - story. Can't say it enough, Dabb and Singer are NOT storytellers. And IMO are ruining the Winchesters' story.

8 hours ago, ILoveReading said:

If the Wayward eps didn't fit then rework the concept of the wayward eps.  The main show should have taken priority instead of writing Sam and Dean out of character for girl power.

Agree! Again, it just shows that the main focus of these showrunners (and I include Singer in this) is NOT the Winchesters' story. Same goes for all the focus on Lucifer and miscellaneous angels.

[AwesomO4000]

From the "The Purge" episode thread:

16 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

Couldn't agree more. As both you and @catrox14 point out, Dean has shown time and again that he can live without Sam. Does he want to? Of course not - what loving brother (parent) would say they would be happy to live without their sibling? But he was far from suicidal (or fratricidal) the times Sam left, and he supported Sam in his choice to sacrifice himself to re-cage Lucifer. Having Sam use 'selfish', of all the pejoratives they could have chosen, was the most ridiculous of all. And then doubling down, not only saying he was self-serving in saving Sam's life, but that his entire raison d'etre was just a lie he was telling himself.  Although I'm sure it was not the writers' intent, I hated Sam in that moment.

  Reveal hidden contents

And if I thought maybe I could forgive him it, along came the next two episodes and sealed the deal.

I've never been able to see Sam the same way again. 

Whereas I can not be that sure and think that it was pretty much the writers' intent. At least if not to make us hate Sam, then to make him look awful so that the "Family trumps all!!!!" message of later on could be hammered home. It was basically throwing Sam under the bus, so he could learn how very wrong he was in the finale. If the writers didn't know already by "The Purge" that they were going to have Sam go back on his "I wouldn't" [save you under the same circumstances] then I'd eat my hat and shoes. And if that was the case that they did know, then having Sam say everything he said here and put it in terms of Dean being selfish - since what? Isn't Sam also then selfish for doing the same later and endangering the world to boot? Well, duh! - was nothing more than throwing Sam's character under the bus to make a point. I don't think that the writers ever intended to do anything but make Sam "wrong" as a lesson for daring to question Dean's saving him in the first place. What, were they going to have Sam NOT try to save Dean after Dean got killed (like Sam said he wouldn't in this speech)? Yeah, right. Again, I'd eat my hat and shoes.

I didn't even like Sam - again *** - after this episode, and Sam was supposed to be my favorite character... so imagine how that made me feel.

I still say that Carver as showrunner was the worst thing to happen to Sam, and he wasn't that great for Dean's characterization either (season 8B anyone?). I generally thought that Carver's favorites were his own creations - like Benny and Gadreel - and that it showed.

*** I went through the same thing in season 8 and was annoyed that I had to do it all over again here in season 9.

[gonzosgirrl]

4 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

I didn't even like Sam - again *** - after this episode, and Sam was supposed to be my favorite character... so imagine how that made me feel.

I think I might have had to road-trip to Cali (or wherever the non-existent writers room is). This is when I'm glad I didn't see the show 'live' until mid-season 10. It was bad enough even waiting through a binge-watch for a glimmer of redemption for him. LOL!

[AwesomO4000]

1 hour ago, gonzosgirrl said:

This is when I'm glad I didn't see the show 'live' until mid-season 10. It was bad enough even waiting through a binge-watch for a glimmer of redemption for him. LOL!

Hee! Oh, it sucked watching this stuff live. During season 8, I  just gave up for a while and stopped watching. Then when I did come back - caught up to most of the episodes that I missed... and wished I hadn't - and things were juuust starting to get a little better... along came this shit ("Sharp Teeth," "The Purge," etc.). I imagined many horrible curses on Carver during this time. ; )

And even then when things finally gave me a glimmer of redemption in season 10, I attributed most of Sam's redemption to Dabb (and Robbie Thompson*** - I miss him), because Carver couldn't even help himself in season 10 with the everyone and his dog warning Sam not to remove the curse - when you totally knew Sam was going to, because what he's just supposed to not shoot that Chekhov's gun? - and then the darkness at the end. By this time, I was sooo over Carver's reign of soap opera angst and Petty Little Jerks (TM DittyDotDot).

*** Pretty much what @BabySpinach said here (from "The Purge" episode thread):

Quote

 

I still can't believe how far they threw Sam's character down the toilet in season 9. He could have been mad about Gadreel like a regular person and struggled to get past it without dunking his brother's life purpose and self esteem into the garbage, then waffling non-stop about how he WANTED TO DIEEEEE (even though we were shown that he clearly didn't). First Born 10.11 seemed to set him on a more sympathetic course, but I guess Robbie Thompson hadn't gotten the memo to make Sam as cartoonishly dickish and nonsensically petty as possible. 

Dean fans had to watch their favorite character get verbally demolished by the person he loved most in the world. Sam fans had to watch their favorite character act like a complete asshole without rhyme or reason. Everyone lost on that count,

 

Yeah, this.

[AwesomO4000]

Brought over from the "The Purge" thread:

1 hour ago, Pondlass1 said:

I often wonder how that Purge speech got tacked onto that episode.  We laughed at powdered doughnuts and fish tacos and then suddenly Sam is saying the most cutting hurtful dreadful things to his brother. 

Sam holds on tight to any perceived pique and was afforded episode after episode to drag around his resentment and anger.   Dean on the other hand must suck it up or he's called a princess who's having a pity party.

This is one aspect of Sam's character that seems to have improved. Thanks writers.  Even die hard Sam fans were having trouble defending him during those seasons.

Just my opinion coming up here:

I'm not so sure that this has so much to do with the characters and how each is usually treated as it does how it serves the narrative.

Yes, in this instance ("The Purge"), Sam was afforded some episodes to "drag around his resentment and anger," but it was only in reference to a specific - and in my opinion more easily disproved - anger. And even then, Sam, too, is told to "get over it," by Ghost Kevin in the very next episode after "The Purge." So we have the character who got killed and has even more reason to be angry being shown to forgive while Sam can't. In this way it is shown that since Sam doesn't "get over it" he's cast into a bad light as we see Kevin forgiving and then the devastating affects on Dean (but not Sam). So I'm not sure that I agree with you that it is only Dean who gets slammed for not "getting over it."

My opinion has always been that having Sam hold on to his anger here wasn't done to show Sam had a right to be angry, but the opposite - that he shouldn't be angry... which ironically was usually more Sam's way (before the Carver years that is) since Sam previously did not hold on to his anger when Dean made the deal, when The Trickster screwed him over, when Castiel broke his wall, when Dean lied to him about Amy Pond, etc. In all of those cases, Sam either forgave the offense fairly easily, or it was shown that he was in the wrong for not forgiving easily enough.

In contrast, Dean being angry most of season 5 was shown as reasonable and it wasn't until 3/4 of the way through the season that we got an episode where Dean finally started to let it go. I know we got the Bobby "boo hoo princess" speech, but I don't feel that that actually shows what some fans think it shows. Yes, it was showing that Dean should put aside his anger to get the job done - at that moment - but that Dean did so showed him to be a hero, and then he was afforded the right to be angry over the next season, while Sam was shown to be wrong. Over the course of season 5, Sam had to admit his wrong-doing and that if given the chance, he would not have done what he did, be confronted by numerous characters who pointed out his wrong-doing (even some who also chose wrongly in some cases (such as Castiel), but were never called out on it), and change his behavior to make up for what he did.

However, in my opinion, Sam in season 9 was shown to be wrong for being angry at Dean. It was Sam - not Dean - who had to admit that he was wrong: "I lied,"  Gadreel wasn't really trying to hurt him, etc. Dean wasn't expected to apologize - and he didn't - or to change his behavior in any way. It was made to look badly that Sam just didn't accept that Dean did what he did - sure it was to save Sam's life, but Dean didn't even apologize (that I remember) for all that Sam had to go through beyond "no that (Kevin) was my fault" which isn't really an apology but a way to make it about himself. But yet it was Dean's devastated face we see at the end of Sam's speech in "The Purge" - not Sam... who cares what Sam thinks (well, I do, but the writers don't seem to care about that) - and it is Dean who is justified in the end of the season about everything: Gadreel, the mark, what he did to Sam, and that Sam did the exact same thing. Dean never apologizes for lying to Sam all that time and letting Gadreel run roughshod over Sam's free will... instead what Gadreel does is glossed over - he was "misunderstood" - and justified by his redemption. For me the message there wasn't that Sam had a right to be angry at all, but: "See, Sam being angry wasn't even necessary, because Gadreel was a good guy all along! Poor Dean!"

So of course we Sam fans had a hard time defending Sam during those seasons... because the writers were showing him as wrong, in my opinion, so there was little defense. We just had to accept the character assassination for the writers little morality play and hope for something better later.

And as for Sam's character having improved in that regard - I agree, except for me it's more bringing Sam back to the way he used to be than improving him. In my opinion, in earlier years, Sam did "get over it," sometimes almost in an almost too quick way - like his forgiving of Castiel in season 7 - and this stuff in season 9 (and the previous season 8) for me seemed to come flying out of nowhere in terms of his characterization, and was more there to make a point than to be what Sam would normally do.

I mean at least the writers could have put some kind of explainer in there - something like Sam saying "you know what? I'm tired of being Mr Zen forgiving guy here. This time, no, I'm not just gonna forget about this." They still were going to make him wrong, of course, but at least his behavior would've made more sense to me... but nah, that would've been giving Sam some kind of point of view so we could sympathize with Sam. Couldn't have that now, could we?

Bottom line for the Too Long: Didn't Read crowd: I don't see the writers as justifying Sam's anger over Dean's, and the narrative showing Dean as right about everything in the end and therefore having nothing to apologize for - according to the writers - supports this. The reason that Sam's speech was "tacked on" to the end of "The Purge", in my opinion, was to set all of that up (Sam as the bad guy for not forgiving Dean). Sam was supposed to just "get over it" just as Dean and Sam himself had in previous seasons - with Kevin as the writers' mouthpiece to voice that opinion - and that he didn't, is why Sam was shown to be wrong in the end.

For me there is no bias in this regard. Just like a previous post that I had about both brothers being expected to put "family first" with consequences if they don't, this is the same thing. It's just that the writers tend to show Dean "getting it" more quickly - therefore he is usually shown as the"right" and "good" brother, whereas - in Carver's world - Sam doesn't "get it" as quickly and so therefore he is the "mean" and "wrong" brother who gets punished for it in some way with narrative consequences.

The underlying message, in my opinion, is pretty much the same. Both brothers are expected to "get over it" and the narrative bears that out one way or the other... in Sam's case by showing him to be a complete jerk who doesn't even deserve an apology or acknowledgement of any kind for what he went through - and as "punishment" even had to learn and say that the being who used his body was "misunderstood" and "a friend" - when he uncharacteristically doesn't "get over it" fast enough.

[BabySpinach]

@AwesomO4000

The difference between Sam's anger in season 9 and Dean's anger in season 5 is that the latter reacted in a realistic and sympathetic way, while the former went way off the deep end in terms of cruelty. 

In 5.01, right in the aftermath of Sam's screw-up, Dean primarily talked about how Sam's betrayal affected him and how he felt about it. He expressed that he couldn't trust Sam, but he also didn't drag his brother's character or self worth through the mud. And Dean's anger was both justified and in proportion to the scope of Sam's various misdeeds, especially in regards to the awful way he treated Dean all throughout season 4. So I felt that Dean was justified in holding onto his anger, though it wasn't even for that long.

In season 9, Sam's anger over a much more well-intentioned and less serious screw-up on Dean's part was way overblown and unsympathetic. So it felt justified that Sam's anger was framed to be wrong, though I wouldn't even necessarily agree that that was the case. The Ghostfacers ep unequivocally took Sam's side via clumsy anvil parallels, for instance. With the way it was written, I was fine with Sam coming around and admitting that he'd lied. In fact, he should have also taken back all those other awful things he said to Dean, but he never did.

We're basically talking about these characters on two fronts: as if they were real people whose actions we criticize, and as if they're written constructs at the mercy of their creators. I 100% agree that Sam should not have been written to be so cruel in the first place. But since he was, he then should have been framed as wrong in acting that way. Dean's anger in season 5 was leagues milder in comparison, and it was over something way worse than lying about angel possession in order to keep someone alive.

Our main gripe, and our point of agreement, it seems, is that Sam got screwed over by the writers in seasons 8 and 9 and became an unsympathetic ass whose legitimate reasons for anger got buried under exaggerated dickishness. 

[ILoveReading]

My final opinion on the purge speech.  We can know the writers narrative intentions becasue the writers tweeted them.

They said Sam was coming from a place of honesty.  So I do believe its fact that they believed in the words they had Sam say. 

But IMO, s9 did nothing but throw Dean under the bus.  There was the whole Gadreel thing, then lying to Sam.  Taking on the mark in a spur of the moment decision that was only going to end in failure to Dean when he eventually gave into the price, and the season ended with Dean becoming his worst nightmare. 

From a viewer standpoint I enjoyed it because I felt like Jensen's acting was on another level this season, but from a character standpoint this season wasn't kind to his characterization at all. 

When Sam dubbed himself God's chosen and wants to do something stupid, like running into the cage we get very special episode telling Sam how brave and strong and special he is.   Then they made Cas screw up worse so Sam would get a free pass. 

IMO, Sam's I lied seemed only to apply to him saying he wouldn't save Dean becasue that's was all that was ever addressed or mentioned again. 

Unfortunately, for them they did what every other writer and show runner has done.  They underestimated Jensen.  They couldn't control his facial expressions, his tones, how he delivers his lines or his reactions to things said to Dean.  If the audience came out on Deans' side, it was purely thanks to Jensen, once again elevating the writing and flipping it upside down. 

IMO, there is no way the authorial intent wasn't on Sam's side.  Jensen's specialty is to act against the writing.

Edited August 22, 2018 by ILoveReading

[AwesomO4000]

42 minutes ago, BabySpinach said:

The difference between Sam's anger in season 9 and Dean's anger in season 5 is that the latter reacted in a realistic and sympathetic way, while the former went way off the deep end in terms of cruelty.

And I don't disagree here, except that I would add that in my opinion, that the cruelty was also out of character in Sam's case. And yes, I know: season 4 - but there were 3 seasons after that where Sam learned from that and changed (in my opinion, because I know that others will disagree). I saw it on screen, so it annoys me when the writers seem to ignore it.

46 minutes ago, BabySpinach said:

In 5.01, right in the aftermath of Sam's screw-up, Dean primarily talked about how Sam's betrayal affected him and how he felt about it. He expressed that he couldn't trust Sam, but he also didn't drag his brother's character or self worth through the mud. And Dean's anger was both justified and in proportion to the scope of Sam's various misdeeds, especially in regards to the awful way he treated Dean all throughout season 4. So I felt that Dean was justified in holding onto his anger, though it wasn't even for that long.

Well, it was at least 3/4 or more of the season, so it wasn't short in my opinion either, and Dean did drag Sam's character through the mud a bit, both directly and indirectly. Dean is better at the passive-aggressive thing, and stuff like (paraphrase) "oh, what do you know, it was a demon and you didn't trust it" is, in my opinion, questioning Sam's character even if it's couched as supposedly being humorous. And that Sam took things like that in stride and was accepting of all of the criticism shows - to me - that Sam was growing. Dean also outright told Sam that he was arrogant, self-righteous, angry, implied that he was weak ("they're going to find a way to turn you"), and untrustworthy: in my opinion, all questioning Sam's character.

All that said, I didn't say that Dean wasn't justified in holding on to his anger, and in my opinion, neither did the narrative really until Sam gave him a reason not to. Ultimately Dean was made to "get over it" as is the shows usual want with both characters, but they didn't drag Dean through the mud to do it.

1 hour ago, BabySpinach said:

In season 9, Sam's anger over a much more well-intentioned and less serious screw-up on Dean's part was way overblown and unsympathetic. So it felt justified that Sam's anger was framed to be wrong, though I wouldn't even necessarily agree that that was the case. The Ghostfacers ep unequivocally took Sam's side via clumsy anvil parallels, for instance.

Yes, Dean's screw up was well-intentioned, however in my opinion, a lot of Dean's treatment of Sam in season 9 was pretty bad, also. In season 4, Sam did treat Dean badly, I agree, but the narrative didn't really focus so much on the reasons that Sam got to that point. Sam didn't just decide one day for no reason that he was going to lie to Dean and that Dean was "weak," Sam went through some serious crap to get there, including being manipulated by several powerful beings - and I'm including Gabriel here who I think did some pretty serious emotional damage to Sam. Sam was left behind with the knowledge that his brother was being tortured in hell to save him even if he wouldn't have wanted that in the first place and that he (Sam) was a failure because he couldn't prevent that from happening no matter what he did. Sam had no say whatsoever in any of that. He was suicidal and a complete mess, so when the demon came along and told him he could at least get some revenge and hey maybe do some good, Sam was already a bit of putty ripe for working. But the narrative didn't focus on that information - and skipped some other important stuff, too.

In contrast, in season 9, the writers made sure to show us exactly how Dean came to his bad decisions and made sure that they were sympathetic. When I'm talking about treating Sam badly, I'm not talking about that initial "screw-up," I'm talking about lying to Sam, letting Sam believe that he was going crazy or bad again - even though Dean should know that's a serious concern for Sam - and then Dean justifying all of that bad treatment by treating it like it was no big deal and that he was actually doing Sam a favor by doing it. You might not consider that treating Sam badly throughout season 9, but I do. But again the writers seemed to choose to ignore all of that stuff as soon as it happened and focus on the part that they could parallel and prove Sam wrong on: the initial decision.

As for the Ghostfacers episode, I'm not sure what was going on there, but it was interesting to me that once again, despite everything that happened to Ed, it is Harry that is shown sympathetically in the end with that final line "You roll with a guy so many years, you start to think he's always going to be next to you..." with the implication being "but you make one mistake and the jerk takes off and leaves you." That's the message that I got from that episode. Not the message that Ed was right, but here we are with poor lost and misguided Harry who only wanted to keep the family together and made a mistake doing that that spiraled out of control, but mean old Ed couldn't forgive him and look how sad Harry is. So, see Sam, if you don't forgive Dean, too, you too could break your family up for good, you jerk. ... And soon enough the narrative would bring that point home with killing Dean, so yeah, I didn't see that episode as siding with Sam so much, myself. Heh - so I guess it's true that we all see the same thing and interpret it differently.

And sure enough, even if he didn't forgive Dean entirely for Gadreel right away, within 2 episodes Sam was back to trusting Dean's judgement and thinking that working with him was better than not.

1 hour ago, BabySpinach said:

We're basically talking about these characters on two fronts: as if they were real people whose actions we criticize, and as if they're written constructs at the mercy of their creators. I 100% agree that Sam should not have been written to be so cruel in the first place. But since he was, he then should have been framed as wrong in acting that way. Dean's anger in season 5 was leagues milder in comparison, and it was over something way worse than lying about angel possession in order to keep someone alive.

I mostly agree with you here, except that I thought that Dean's lying was pretty damn awful, especially when Dean knew that Gadreel was doing stuff like wiping Sam's memories and making him think he was going crazy. That's a trauma Sam already went through on more than one occasion, and Dean knew how bad it was those times. So I personally thought that that was pretty damn awful myself. And one of the reasons that what Sam did in season 5 was "way worse" was because of the consequences. If Sam lying to Dean ended up with him and Ruby saving the world by killing Lilith, would what Sam did still be considered "way worse" or would Sam have been doing what needed to be done? I've outlined previously how Dean allowing Gadreel to stay in Sam could've easily ended up much worse than it did - Gadreel had free reign of the bunker with who knows what weapons and information in it, for example - but the writers chose to redeem Gadreel and not let something potentially awful happen, because that better fit what I saw as their "Sam should just forgive Dean" message (and because I think Carver wanted to have his character Gadreel be "misunderstood" and redeemed and look awesome.)

And I don't even disagree that Sam shouldn't have been shown as wrong here based on what happened...

My whole point wasn't to say that Sam shouldn't have been shown as wrong for the behavior they saddled him with here... My point was that Sam was actually being shown as wrong in the first place, because I disagreed with the premise that only Dean is shown as being wrong for holding on to his anger. My point was that I think the narrative shows that BOTH brothers are supposed to just "suck it up," the Carver era just did it differently for Dean - Dean does it and so he's the "good brother" - and Sam - Sam doesn't do it right away so he's "wrong" and the "crappy brother." But for me the overall message wasn't different.

And I don't think the message ever has been different. Just as I don't think the "Family must come first!!!" message is only for Dean either. It's for both brothers, and again the Carver era chose to use Sam as the "bad brother" to illustrate that one too.

2 hours ago, BabySpinach said:

With the way it was written, I was fine with Sam coming around and admitting that he'd lied. In fact, he should have also taken back all those other awful things he said to Dean, but he never did.

Yes, but like me thinking that Dean should have apologized for what his lying to Sam all that time did to Sam, or at least not have taken the attitude of "hey, you should be damn grateful I helped trick you into accepting Gadreel"*** - which even though I agreed with Dean helping Gadreel to begin with, I thought that was a little much - neither of those things is going to happen. Dean isn't going to be taking back the things he said about wishing Sam was dead instead of Charlie either, though in my opinion, except for the narrative emphasis, what happened to Kevin wasn't all that much different than what happened to Charlie^^^ and Sam using the Book of the Damned to save Dean wasn't all that much worse than Dean lying to keep Gadreel in Sam to save Sam. The main differences, in my opinion, were how the writers chose to portray the situations.

*** And yes, Dean pretty much did say this. "The Purge" speech wasn't only badly written on Sam's side. Because I thought having Dean say that line was out of character, too.

^^^ I would argue that maybe Kevin was even more innocent and had less to do with his own Death than Charlie did hers, yet the narrative implying it was Sam's fault stays.

2 hours ago, ILoveReading said:

IMO, there is no way the authorial intent wasn't on Sam's side.

And in my opinion, it's unlikely considering how awful and wrong they made Sam look in that situation. It would've been very easy for the writers to have been on Sam's side: make him be forgiving for what Dean did, acknowledge how awful Gadreel's possession was for Sam - rather than how guilty it made Dean feel - and have Gadreel turn out to be evil. There you go: Dean was wrong. Simple. But that's not what happened.

In my opinion, you can't write a character trashing another character, like Sam did in "The Purge" and then have him say "I lied" and then be shown to do the exact same thing, without going back on your entire "message" to begin with. To me that doesn't make any narrative sense. Either the character is right and is shown to stick by his principals ("Under the same circumstances, I wouldn't [save you]" and so he doesn't, he let's Dean die like Dean asked him to) or he's wrong, and doesn't ("I lied" and proceeds to call up Crowley.) In my opinion, it makes no sense to be on a character's "side..." but then to show that what he said was actually a lie. How am I supposed to believe anything else he said has any merit if he lies about something as fundamental as that? They're showing Sam to be a liar and a hypocrite, but at the same time, I'm supposed to take what Sam has to say about Dean's character seriously? I don't think so.

2 hours ago, ILoveReading said:

IMO, Sam's I lied seemed only to apply to him saying he wouldn't save Dean becasue that's was all that was ever addressed or mentioned again. 

And - in my opinion - considering that this is the only thing that the show focused on and seemed to think was important, then it's pretty much saying Dean was right and whatever Sam said was crap and couldn't be trusted as I outlined above.

2 hours ago, ILoveReading said:

My final opinion on the purge speech.  We can know the writers narrative intentions becasue the writers tweeted them.

They said Sam was coming from a place of honesty.  So I do believe its fact that they believed in the words they had Sam say. 

In my opinion, they then would have shown those words to be true... They didn't as I outlined above, so what they tweeted makes no sense based on what they showed. If they are going to say that what Sam said was coming from a place of honesty, having him then say "I lied" negates that. Even if the "I lied" was only for the part about not saving Dean, honesty still got chucked out the window nonetheless. They obviously didn't believe in the words they had Sam say or they wouldn't have had him lie about the one main thing they focused on the whole second half of the season. And if that thing was so damn important and Dean was supposedly so awful for doing it, then having Sam lie about that pretty much negates the entire rest of his argument in my opinion. "You did this because you are selfish and do more harm than good and you don't want to be alone and I wouldn't do that to you," kind of loses it's impact if it ends up that "yeah I guess I lied and I would do the same thing to you."

My opinion on that one.

[ahrtee]

Brought over from the Captives thread:

45 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

Well, it isn't Dean's fault except that Dean was the one who lied to Sam and let Gadreel hang around and wipe Sam's memories and have the opportunity to kill Kevin by not finding a way to warn Sam. Yes, Sam went way too far in his dressing down of Dean, but in my opinion, being too mean when you are angry isn't the same thing as letting a being of unknown intentions use your brother as a meat puppet and then lie to him when he's upset and asking you what's wrong with him... and then when he finds out what happened justifying it and instead of apologizing, implying he should be grateful for the mistreatment. I mean yes, Dean's reasons were sympathetic, but I thought the way he went about doing it and justifying it were less so. It's only been 4 episodes since Sam found out. I think he still has a reason to be angry... especially since Dean hasn't really been trying to change much at all. He wants Sam to do all of the compromising. So of course Dean is open to Sam putting it all aside.

But apparently I'm in the minority in being sympathetic to Sam here.

All I have to say is that if you're going to either blame or exonerate one brother for this sort of thing, to be fair, you have to do the same for the other.  

Yes, Dean lied to Sam and let Gadreel hang around and wipe Sam's memories.  And Sam lied to Dean all through season 4 and let Ruby hang around and lead him by the...nose.  And knock out Bobby and beat the crap out of Dean when he tried to stop him.  

And then, after Dean expresses disappointment (not anger) in 5.1 and says that he doesn't think he can trust Sam, and Sam supposedly accepts it, just ONE episode later, in 5.2, he gets furious at Dean for thinking that he can't be trusted and stalks off on his own to do exactly what he wanted, ignoring Dean's (reasonable)  concerns.

And then, of course, by 5.5, (only 5 episodes since he let Lucifer free) Sam was furious that Dean *still* hadn't forgiven him, and, rather than say he would try to change, he insisted that *Dean* be the one to do all the changing--by "letting him grow up."  

So if you're going to be sympathetic to Sam for those reasons, you should probably be sympathetic to Dean, too.  Just a thought.

[AwesomO4000]

29 minutes ago, ahrtee said:

All I have to say is that if you're going to either blame or exonerate one brother for this sort of thing, to be fair, you have to do the same for the other.  

1) Yes, Dean lied to Sam and let Gadreel hang around and wipe Sam's memories.  And Sam lied to Dean all through season 4 and let Ruby hang around and lead him by the...nose.  And knock out Bobby and beat the crap out of Dean when he tried to stop him.  

2) And then, after Dean expresses disappointment (not anger) in 5.1 and says that he doesn't think he can trust Sam, and Sam supposedly accepts it, just ONE episode later, in 5.2, he gets furious at Dean for thinking that he can't be trusted and stalks off on his own to do exactly what he wanted, ignoring Dean's (reasonable)  concerns.

3) And then, of course, by 5.5, (only 5 episodes since he let Lucifer free) Sam was furious that Dean *still* hadn't forgiven him, and, rather than say he would try to change, he insisted that *Dean* be the one to do all the changing--by "letting him grow up."  

4) So if you're going to be sympathetic to Sam for those reasons, you should probably be sympathetic to Dean, too.  Just a thought.

1) Right, which Sam was shown to be wrong for with terrible consequences and everybody and his brother telling Sam how wrong he had been to do that. Did anyone but Sam tell Dean how wrong he was for helping keep Gadreel's secret? Maybe Charlie?

2) Which Sam later in that episode admitted that he was wrong to do, told Dean that he was right not to trust him, and that he didn't trust himself either. My point here being that Sam learned something and in the end admitted that he was wrong and had to change.

3) I keep seeing this claim, but I don't get it. That's not what happened. Sam even specifically said that Dean could be as mad at him (Sam) as he wanted, that he (Sam) deserved it. That's not interpretation. That's what Sam said. Sam wasn't "furious that Dean still hadn't forgiven him." He was annoyed that Dean wanted to let his anger at Sam compromise a case and put people in danger. In my opinion there's a difference there.

4) I'm not sympathetic to Sam for what he did. What Sam did wasn't right. He made bad choices. Full stop. But he was called out for those bad choices and there were consequences that he had to live with, including being branded with starting the apocalypse for many seasons to come.. Sam had to change and grow... which in my opinion he did.

It's not that I'm not sympathetic to Dean. I am. I've even said before that I agreed with his choice to help Gadreel take over Sam to save him. I had no problem with that. What I am not sympathetic with is the narrative implying that - momentary lip service aside - that what Dean did while lying to Sam was just something that Sam should "get over."

Whereas Dean was given a sympathetic arc showing that he had a right to be angry and where Sam had to admit he was wrong and change, Sam was made to look like a cruel asshole for daring to be angry at what Dean did to him. And in the end, Dean didn't have to admit he did anything wrong or change his attitude or thinking about anything. And except for that momentary lip service that was shown to be wrong later anyway (imo), Dean was mainly justified in his decisions. There weren't even any real consequences for what Dean did. Yes, Kevin was killed, but the narrative even found a way to turn that into something positive. If Kevin hadn't been killed and become a ghost, his mother wouldn't have been saved and no one would have found out about the souls being trapped in the veil.

My beef isn't with Dean. It's with the narrative for seemingly brushing off what Dean did as no big deal, and in the end even making it a good thing with Sam even accepting Gadreel - his abuser - as "misunderstood" and a "friend." That - to me - would've been like the narrative having Ruby help save the world thereby making Sam's lying to Dean look justified, because look Ruby was redeemed and helped! What was Dean even complaining about anyway? Which, to me, is pretty much what the Gadreel narrative did with Sam in season 9.

However, as far as I can see, Sam gets little sympathy for how that all went down nor much credit for trying to change in season 5.

[AwesomO4000]

Brought over from the "All Episodes" thread for reasons which will soon be obvious:

2 hours ago, BabySpinach said:

1) If you're going to bring in stuff that Dean did as a demon, then it's only fair to bring in Soulless!Sam's misdeeds, too. I personally didn't mention the times when either brother was under some sort of supernatural influence that fundamentally changed their personalities, because I was focused on them acting as themselves.

2) There's still no equivalency for Sam mocking Dean's 40 years of hell trauma and calling him weak and whiny. The worst thing that Dean arguably has said to Sam, "I think it should be you up there instead of [Charlie]," came from a place of grief and anger and was a harsh expression of Dean's desire for Sam to personally pay for his own mistake rather than have someone else take the fall. The Mark of Cain was in play, too. Sam had no supernatural excuse when he said those things in 9.13, which were roughly on par with the things that Demon!Dean said in 10.03. 

3) Dean stating to Sam that he was in charge was not an emotional attack on Sam, and once again was partially influenced by the MoC. Sam could have easily argued with him, but he decided to say nothing and go back to his room. Dean's omissions or lies in the latter part of season 9 were, in my opinion, justified. Sam had just disowned him and verbally torn him down;, why would Dean ever want to open up to or confide in Sam at that point?

4) I did totally forget about Amy Pond, though. I just saw that as Dean cleaning up Sam's ill judgement, but yeah, THAT was the first time he betrayed Sam's trust, not Gadreel. 

1) Actually that's fair. And even Sam himself considered the things Soulless Sam did as at least partially his own bad deeds and apologized to Dean (and Bobby, too) for what he did to Dean while he was soulless. So Sam owned it and apologized even when he didn't remember what he'd done. Sam even went so far as to trick Castiel into telling him what it was that he'd done while soulless so that he could own it and understand what Dean had gone through. For me, this is the Sam who had grown and changed and was trying to take more responsibility for his actions and how those actions affected others... and the Sam that Carver apparently chose to pretend didn't exist or regress instead... Same result either way.

2) But as far as I know Sam was also under the influence when he said those things. He was either influenced by the siren, by demon blood, or both. And both was a pretty good bet, because at the end of (the awful) "Chris Angel..." it was shown that Sam was going to - for some vague-ass reason we, the audience were given the lamest, most non-sensical explanation for - start up again. We wouldn't learn until later that the "starting up again" was demon blood. So by "Sex and Violence" when Sam said those things, Sam was on demon blood again, and then the siren's venom was added on top of that. When Sam wasn't on the demon blood - when he had stopped for a while - he had told Dean that no one else would have resisted the torture as long as Dean had, and to me Sam seemed to be truly sincere about that. I might consider that Sam was only saying it to be nice, but Sam's a pretty crappy liar when it comes to Dean, and it seemed to me like Sam was being genuine. That doesn't make Dean's hurt upon hearing Sam's venom-enhanced spewing any less, and I truly felt for Dean - when I wasn't hating the episode that was - but I truly do think that Sam was "under the influence" when he was on demon blood and the siren's venom.

So if Sam influenced by demon blood and siren's venom is going to be attributed only to Sam, then I would argue that Dean under the mark's influence maybe should also count. I would actually consider Sam's "The Purge" speech as worse myself, but I've already spewed my venom enough concerning that awful thing. Sam did have the influence of anger there too, because Dean was being rather infuriating during that argument. Not an excuse though. So I also don't give Dean a pass for the Charlie thing either because he was angry.

As for Sam and Charlie, I actually think Sam got unfairly blamed for that one. Charlie made her own really stupid mistakes that contributed to her death.*** And unlike Dean with Kevin, Sam didn't get to have any nice and neat, feel-good wrap up to Charlie's death. In my opinion, Carver really was noticeably lopsided with his consequences.

*** She did volunteer to get involved already knowing that it was dangerous. And I mean it's not like Charlie didn't know these people were extremely dangerous. They almost killed her once already, but nope she's going to take a chance and leave a sure thing place of safety to go out where the dangerous killers are, because she can't handle one annoying witch. Not to mention take something that they might want with her - if I remember correctly - and put that in danger too... I mean she couldn't have asked for silencing headphones or something? Okay, then.

3) That's a fair criticism. I was more referring to Dean's attitude and lies on the job were the lies were specifically implying that Dean thought that Sam was incompetent compared to himself. Similar to how Sam on demon blood thought that he was stronger than Dean and the only one to get the job done, Dean, too, thought that because he had the mark, that he was stronger and the only one to get the job done and that Sam would just get in the way, so he'd lie to get Sam out of the way (or cold-cock him in a pinch). While not exactly the same, I find those two things pretty similar. Both brothers were justifying their lying because they thought they were the only ones who could get it done and lying was the easiest way to dismiss the other.

4) I could see Dean's point on killing Amy and how he thought that he was cleaning up Sam's ill-judgement. I was less happy with him not giving Sam the benefit of the doubt by consulting him in the first place, and definitely not for the lying about it to his face part. Although Sam accepted Dean's excuse for that, I thought Dean's explanation of him wanting to make sure Sam still wasn't waving a gun at Satan (or however he put it) was somewhat weak considering the timeline and circumstances but, hell, Sam accepted it and agreed and even seemed to agree with Dean's assessment that he (Sam) was being a dick for being angry about it, so there you go. ... And again, a reasonable Sam who considered explanations, actually took into account reasonable arguments, and forgave mistakes... again an aspect of a changing Sam Carver seemingly chose to ignore (in my opinion) to give us "Purge" Sam instead. Thanks, Carver. (I need a sarcasm font.)

I also considered using Dean's making the deal as the first betrayal of Sam's trust - because Dean seemed to consider John doing it to him as a betrayal - but I decided that one was a little problematical in terms of not being as straightforward as Amy Pond and the motivations there were pretty complicated and maybe partially beyond Dean's means to think rationally at that point.

[ILoveReading]

The Siren and the demon blood didn't put those thoughts in Sam's head.   The just made him angry enough to say them.

Despite Sam's words that Dean resisted longer than anyone would, his actions away from Dean didn't support that.  Sam called Dean weak in the siren ep.  That was followed up  On the Head of a Pin when he told Ruby Dean wasn't strong enough and when he was in his own head calling Dean weak.  Sam wasn't under the influence of the siren or the demon blood at those times but they're consistent with what he said during that time. 

When Sam strangled Dean, he had already won the fight.  He did it as a display of dominance. 

The show never gave Dean a pass for the things he did under the mark, or under the influence of the Penny.  Sam told Dean to stop being mad and Garth ended up lecturing him on appreciating Sam. 

If Sam is going to be given a pass because of the influence of demon blood, then Dean need to be given a pass on the Gadreel thing because he was under the influence of 26 years of John's emotional abuse where something happening to Sam was a punishable offense.  Not to mention Sam basically demanded Dean put him on a pedestal and guilt ed him for having other friends.  Sam tells Dean he's scared to be alone but then gets jealous when Dean has other people in his life.  make up your mind Sam.

As for what Sam says, it often doesn't match when he does.  At the end of Love Hurts, Sam tells Dean he won't judge him, yet in ep 22 where God and Co. are all piling on Dean about him not being able to hurt Amara, Sam sits there in silence.  When Dean says he doesn't think he's strong enough (despite actually being strong enough to break her hold  twice) Sam never once actually tries to encourage Dean.    I found Sam patronizing in that scene more than supportive.  Whats wrong with "yeah, I'll do it if I have to but your stronger than you think."  The next episode Sam gets pissy when Dean asks him to stay behind and reminds Dean he's now the chosen one.

It' like on Big Bang Theory.  Leonard says time and time again that he supports Penny trying to make it as an actress but in the tell vs show he really doesn't.  He discourages more than he actually supports it.  This is how Sam's apologies and support usually come across.  He says the right words when something he wants is on the line but later when he gets what he wants or he screws up its everyone else's fault because they were bossy or they won't let Sam grow up or they had friends other than Sam.

Sam says he understand why Dean does what he does but then he says John's parenting style works on Dean.  If Sam really thinks that, then nope he doesn't understand Dean at all.

The only person preventing Sam from growing up is Sam.  He's 35 year old.  He needs to stop using that as an excuse.  he's a big boy who has a history of doing what he wants regardless of what Dean says or does.   So this whole "Dean is controlling" is overstated by the show, IMO.  I'll concede that Dean does try to control whether Sam lives or dies, but Sam's days to day choices are on him.   If Sam isn't' a leader, its not because Dean didn't let him grow and Mature. 

Even when Dean announced it was a dictatorship the next episode he ended up locked in the panic room with Sam going his own way.  Actions over words, every time for me.  Dean tells  Sam, Ruby is bad news.  Sam runs off with Ruby.  Dean says the it can't possibly be God.  Sam dubs himself God's chosen and runs into the cage.  Dean says the men of letter are bad news.  Sam joins, lies to Dean and manipulates him and gets his way.  When things go sideways, he appoints himself the new leader.  Dean with Amelia- in or out but make a choice.  Sam with Benny- dump him or I dump you.

  Or trying to force Dean to be responsible for Jack.  Or Dean telling Sam to stop searching for a way to break the deal or not use the book of the damned.  Sam did al that regardless. Dean's bossy, but controlling not so much.   IMO, other than literal life or death matters, I actually find Sam the more dominate controlling brother, who expects obedience from Dean.   IMO, its not Sam that has to emerge from Dean's shadow, its Dean that has to emerge from Sam's.  He needs to realize he matters outside of Sam.  But unfortunately, this is a lesson his so called family keeps reinforcing.  If anyone needs space and time to find himself, its Dean. 

His actions with the mark were the same.  He wasn't actually supportive of Dean.  Sure he went through the motions of removing it but Sam's attitude was 'Dean's getting worse, Deans' given up."  Not really true.  The level of violence Sam and Cas were showing was on par with Dean.  Cas and Sam were willingly participating in human sacrifice (something else the show swept under the rug).  While its true Charlie made a decision to run off.  Sam, IMO, is guilty of making the situation more dire than it actually was. 

If Dean became a demon again. it would be Dean's worst nightmare but not the worlds.  Because demon Dean wasn't evil.    This is why IMO, Sam does bare some responsibility.  Charlie made an a choice based on mis information.

As for the whole Fallen Idols, Dean was compromising the case thing, Sam needs to take his own advice and look in a mirror.  Because he did the exact same thing in Children Shouldn't play with Dead things.  He dismissed everything Dean said because to the situation with John.  He compromised the case.  Plus, it was Sam that accepted Dean back after the Gadreel thing.  Dean kept trying to ditch Sam.  So if Sam was going to work with Dean maybe he needed to let go of his anger because he's creating a hostile work environment.

TL/DR version;  Sam is very much a do as I say not as I do kind of person. 

Edited August 23, 2018 by ILoveReading

[Casseiopeia]

1 hour ago, ILoveReading said:

The Siren and the demon blood didn't put those thoughts in Sam's head.   The just made him angry enough to say them.

So does that mean that Dean really deep in his heart wanted to chop Sam's head off with an axe? 

I think you are right that was how Sam felt about Dean and the Siren/DB enhanced those feelings.  But as with all the other men who didn't want to kill their wives/mother it distorted the real human petty gripes about their loved ones into murderous/hurtful thoughts/actions. Sam was so full of himself (I believe because of the DB) that he did feel superior to Dean, he did think that Dean was weak (and up until that point Dean had been drinking excessively and struggling with his experiences in hell).  The DB was making Sam feel stronger and in control for the first time in his life and he was lying to himself that he was doing good.   Dean didn't really  deep down in his heart  want to chop Sam's head off with an axe either.  But Dean had been ordered with that job by his father and he could see that Sam was turning into something other than his brother.  The Siren exaggerated those fears/hubris into brutal "honesty" and "murder".  They were both horrified about what they had just said and almost did as soon as the Siren was dead.   Just like the MOC was leading Dean to skewer Sam with Death's scythe, Sam stopped before he strangled Dean to death (honestly I think that was just a display of dominance from Sam than an actual attempt to kill Dean).  Neither one could actually go through with it.  As was shown in the very next episode all the doubts that Sam had about the path he was traveling were surfacing.  He knew he what he doing was wrong  but killing Lilith was the way he would prove to Dean, the angels, God and himself he was right.

I really hate that episode and I won't watch it when it comes around on TNT.  It was the lowest point for the brothers IMHO of the entire series.  I really did not enjoy S4-5 at all.  Talk about character assassination!  

 

IMO anyway.

[AwesomO4000]

2 hours ago, ILoveReading said:

If Sam is going to be given a pass because of the influence of demon blood, then Dean need to be given a pass on the Gadreel thing because he was under the influence of 26 years of John's emotional abuse where something happening to Sam was a punishable offense. 

I actually agree. I think it's pretty much what I've been saying all along actually, except that I don't think either should get a pass.

And I don't even blame Dean at all for the Gadreel decision... it may be an unpopular opinion for a Sam fan, but I thought that Dean's helping Gadreel reside in Sam to heal him was the right thing to do. I, personally, had zero problems with that. My problem is with what happened afterwards. Once Sam was conscious, he should've been able to choose for himself.

I know you say that Sam needs to take more responsibility for his own life - and I agree... and I thought he actually was doing that in season 6 and 7 until Carver came along, but I digress... - but it's kind of hard for Sam to do that sometimes when he doesn't even know what's going on in his own life, and Gadreel was a good example. The narrative loves to throw Sam in these situations where he has little agency for what happens to him and then expect him to accept that it was a good thing that someone made those decisions for him while at the same time having him insist that he has to make his own decisions too. Well which is it Show? Is Sam supposed to be angry about having his agency taken away or not?

And lately when they do give Sam agency, he gets slammed for making whatever decision it is he does make. He presumes Dean is dead and so tries to go live his own life... nope that was crappy, Sam, you're brother wasn't dead. You should've looked for him and done everything you could to save him. Okay, so when the mark comes along, and Dean becomes a demon, Sam does do everything he can to save him. Oh, no that's wrong Sam. You're acting like a monster. Sam tries to cure Dean from the mark. Nope wrong again, Sam, how presumptuous of you for trying to cure him, see you started an apocalypse.

It seems to me that no matter what Sam decides to do on his own, the narrative slams him for it one way or another, but if he'd only done what everyone else told him and not tried to think for himself, then everything would've been "fine." That seems like a pretty screwed up message to me, but maybe I'm missing something.

I'm still waiting for the Jack thing to blow up in Sam's face somehow. Maybe I'll be surprised and it won't happen this time.

3 hours ago, ILoveReading said:

As for what Sam says, it often doesn't match when he does.  At the end of Love Hurts, Sam tells Dean he won't judge him, yet in ep 22 where God and Co. are all piling on Dean about him not being able to hurt Amara, Sam sits there in silence. 

How about Dean standing up for himself? And this was God after all. God who was already not very happy with Sam and told him so. So Sam - who believes in God - should question all-knowing God on something Sam likely wasn't very sure of himself now after hearing God question it, and he's a crappy brother if he doesn't. It wasn't like Sam was joining in or agreeing or anything. People can have momentary doubts. It doesn't mean that that's how they usually think. There have been times when Dean hasn't jumped to Sam's defense either, but I don't just assume that that means he isn't on Sam's side.

3 hours ago, ILoveReading said:

If Dean became a demon again. it would be Dean's worst nightmare but not the worlds.  Because demon Dean wasn't evil.   

The show was never going to let Dean stay demon Dean or keep the mark without it finally becoming an issue. The show has almost always gone with the Dark Power = bad! message. Letting Dean ultimately control the mark would have been going against one of their basic principals of the show.

[Aeryn13]

Quote

How about Dean standing up for himself? 

Against the writers that would have been pretty hard because the scenes clearly were written in such a way that everyone else was supposed to be right and Dean wrong. That he actually didn`t try hard enough to kill Amara and that`s why he didn`t succeed. And utterly ludicrous notion because even God wasn`t more powerful than her and thus couldn`t simply stab her with an enchanted butterknife. But somehow Dean was supposed to if he just wanted it hard enough.

It was still written in such a way as to blame Dean for the failure. It`s instances like this that make me think no bar is too low to drag the character for something or other.     

[ILoveReading]

1 hour ago, Casseiopeia said:

So does that mean that Dean really deep in his heart wanted to chop Sam's head off with an axe? 

I went back and read the transcript of the episode.  People who were infected were controlled by the siren to do what he told them.  This is what he tells Sam and Dean.

Quote

MUNROE
So I know you two have a lot you wanna get off your chests. So why don't you discuss it? And whoever survives can be with me forever.

I've always interpreted  this this as the Siren telling Sam and Dean to get stuff off their chests, and then he orders them to fight to the death.  So no, I dont' think Sam and Dean wanted each other dead.  The siren told them to kill each other.  He didnt' tell them what to say.

Dean lists Sam's actions.  "The lies and the secrets."  Sam once again attacks Dean's character.  "you're weak."

This isn't the first time Sam has had those thoughts.  He says pretty much the same things in Asylum under Ellicot. "I'm not pathetic like you."   He also attacks Dean's character in The Purge.   He basically called Dean a selfish coward.    Neither of those incidents have demon blood involved. 

I think there is multiple scenes throughout the series where Sam seems to think Dean is weak.  This is why the whole so-called redemption arc in s5 didn't work for me.  If Sam is likes demon blood because it makes him feel in control, he didn't need to get away from weak whiny Dean.  That's how Sam saw him.   Confirmed in both On The Head of a Pin and Levee.  Which is it Sam? 

42 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

How about Dean standing up for himself?

I would love it if we would get scenes where he does.  The problem is whenever Dean tries to stand up for himself the narrative punishes himself for it.  He tried to draw a line in s4 and got called a whiny brat and a princess.  He tried to stand up for him self in s5 and ended up apologizing 3 times for not trusting the guy who spent and entire season lying.  He tried in s6 when he though something was up with Sam.  Bobby basically told him to shut up and get in the car.  He tried to walk away from Sam after the whole Benny thing but Cas went and got Sam and said they needed him.  Dean tried to stand up for himself with regards to Jack and got blamed by Sam if Jack went bad.  he tried to stand up for himself with Mary and ended up apologizing for trying to control Mary.  He tried to confront God and was told he was confusing God with his father.   He tried to point out how dangerous hunting was, and Jody told Patience not to listen to Dean.

The Mentalist is a favorite of mine for this very reason.  Its' one of the few times on the show Dean got to give the boo hoo speech and it didn't come back on him.

The whole 'its God' thing isnt' an excuse since Dean stood up to him. 

[gonzosgirrl]

One thing I don't blame Sam for is Charlie's death. Sure, he created the circumstance, but her demise was death by stupidity/plotonium poisoning. If anyone is even tangentially responsible, it's Castiel for letting her go off in huff. Even that's a stretch though.

On the Sam/Gadreel/Purge/Sam's Agency merry-go-round: I will never stop saying that Dean absolutely did the right thing in saving Sam's life, when the only known (to Dean) risk was Sam being angry at being possessed again. Beyond that,

1) Sam is the one who convinced Dean to let him do the trials via his 'I see the light, let me take you to it' speech. A better case for "I want to live' could not be made.

2) In the church, yes, Dean begged Sam not to go through with the ritual, but Sam made his own choice.

3) Coma!Sam also acquiesced to Dean's plea. He didn't ask how, he just said yes to staying alive and Dean made that happen. Again, Sam's choice.

4) Dean was wrong not to tell him after the fact. Full stop. No question. But as explanation, if not excuse, he believed 'Ezekiel' was a good guy, and had confirmation of that from Castiel. From then on it was a snowball running down a hill, and they all got a little damaged when it hit bottom, poor, squashed Kevin most of all.

5) Them writing Sam as angry that Dean didn't tell him the truth after he was out of imminent danger would have been 100% justified. Disowning Dean as a brother, eviscerating him with the Purge speech, and there being no upside to his being alive was not.

[Casseiopeia]

1 hour ago, ILoveReading said:

I've always interpreted  this this as the Siren telling Sam and Dean to get stuff off their chests, and then he orders them to fight to the death.  So no, I dont' think Sam and Dean wanted each other dead.  The siren told them to kill each other.  He didnt' tell them what to say.

I agree  Dean told Sam all the things that Sam knew to be true.  Sam was lying, he was doing things he knew were wrong but Sam also wanted desperately to believe he was making all the sacrifices that needed to be made .  The siren made Dean tell Sam exactly what he was thinking...you aren't my brother you are someone else (the brothers worst fears...Sam was a monster).   And Sam did see  Dean as weak because he wasn't willing to go to all the reckless extremely unwise lengths that Sam was.  The siren brought up Dean's greatest fears and Sam's lifelong frustration's of being manipulated/dominated by everyone in his life (as Sam saw it).   

Sam didn't come out of S4 smelling like a rose.  He definitely wasn't the hero of the story.  I don't think I have seen any character in any show taken down as far as Kripke took Sam.  It was tough to watch.  But I think if we take the totality of his story it makes sense he went down the road he did.  

Edited August 23, 2018 by Casseiopeia

[ILoveReading]

28 minutes ago, Casseiopeia said:

Sam didn't come out of S4 smelling like a rose.  He definitely wasn't the hero of the story.  I don't think I have seen any character in any show taken down as far as Kripke took Sam.  It was tough to watch.  But I think if we take the totality of his story it makes sense he went down the road he did. 

I disagree here.  Sure Sam did bad things but the narrative really didn't call him out on much of it.  The strangling, choosing a demon over your brother and Sam calling Dean weak was dropped or ignored with very little mention.   Sam left at the end the first episode so the issues between the brothers were never really addressed properly.

Then Fallen Idols dropped the whole mess in Dean's lap.  Dean was specifically written out of character to justify Sam's speech.  Dean didn't treat Sam like that in s4.  Sam made his own decisions.  Sam didn't go to Ruby to get away from Dean.  He went to Ruby because he wanted too.  The show can't have its cake and eat it too.  Sam thought Dean was weak.  So not sure how Dean made  Sam feel weak, in turn.  Sam was already in Ruby's grasp when Dean was in hell.  Not exactly bossy mean Dean the narrative was trying to push.  Sam wasn't in control with Ruby, ever.  She manipulated him every which way possible, yet that was never addressed.  Just that she made him feel strong and Dean didn't.  That was the end of it.      Sam more than earned Dean's lack of trust but Sam expected to be forgiven right away and the rest of the season turned everything on Dean and made him prove and apologize 3 times for not trusting Sam.    Kripke even said Dean had to learn to love Sam more and that Dean wouldn't have shown up on the field  in s1.  So its clear what the authorial intent was.   Nothing from Sam about how he had to change his behavior.  All Sam listed was how Dean had to change.  Dean wasn't give a chance to defend himself.

So not only was the burden of trust put on Dean.   The narrative went on to make him apologize again in ep18, and again in episode 22 for not being more trusting and treating Sam like a child.  We, the audience were also told Dean was weak because he wanted to say yes to Michael.  When it was Sam, despite not being able to even over come a simple ghost possession, it was the best plan ever.  With everyone jumping on the band wagon.

In s4 Sam spent the entire season patting himself on the back, acting like he was all that and the only one that could stop it, the the best way weak Dean could help was to say out of his way.   The last thing I wanted to watch in s5 was it being reinforced that he really was all that, the only one who could stop it, and the best way weak Dean could help was to say out of his way.

For this Dean fan all I got was Dean apologizing repeatedly to the guy who lied and tried to strange him, Death telling him he needed to get out of Sam's way, being told he was no longer part of the story and as the cherry on top apparently,  not only can Dean be replaced by a plastic toy but the plastic toy did a better job.   Dean couldn't even be the catalyst that allowed Sam to access his memories. 

My friend said it best.  If it was cloudy or Dean treated the toy like Sam treated the amulet and kept it in the glove compartment the Dean would be dead and the world would be burning. 

All in all, I'd say Sam did come out smelling like a rose and the hero of the story. 

The way s5 played out will never not leave me bitter as a Dean fan.

Edited August 23, 2018 by ILoveReading

[Casseiopeia]

5 minutes ago, ILoveReading said:

I disagree here.  Sure Sam did bad things but the narrative really didn't call him out on much of it.  The strangling, choosing a demon over your brother and Sam calling Dean weak was dropped or ignored with very little mention.  

Then Fallen Idols dropped the whole mess in Dean's lap.  Dean was specifically written out of character to justify Sam's speech.  Dean didn't treat Sam like that in s4.  Sam made his own decisions.  Sam didn't go to Ruby to get away from Dean.  He went to Ruby because he wanted too.  The show can't have its cake and eat it too.  Sam thought Dean was weak.  So not sure how Dean made  Sam feel weak, in turn.  Sam was already in Ruby's grasp when Dean was in hell.  Not exactly bossy mean Dean the narrative was trying to push.  Sam wasn't in control with Ruby, ever.  She manipulated him every which way possible, yet that was never addressed.  Just that she made him feel strong and Dean didn't.      Sam more than earned Dean's lack of trust but Sam expected to be forgiven right away and the rest of the season turned everything on Dean and made him prove and apologize 3 times for not trust Sam.    Kripke even said Dean had to learn to love Sam more and that Dean wouldn't have shown up on the field  in s1.  So its clear what the authorial intent was.   Nothing from Sam about how he had to change his behavoir.  All Sam listed was how Dean had to change.  Dean wasn't give a chance to defend himself.

So not only was the burden of trust put on Dean.   The narrative went on to make him aplogize again in ep18, and again in episode 22 for not being more trusting and treating Sam like a child.  We, the audience were also told Dean was weak because he wanted to say yes to Michael.  When it was Sam, despite not being able to even over come a simple ghost possession.   It was the best plan ever.  With everyone jumping on the band wagon.

In s4 Sam spent the entire season patting himself on the back, acting like he was all that and the only one that could stop it, the the best way weak Dean could help was to say out of his way.   The last thing I wanted to watch in s5 was it being reinforced that he really was all that, the only one who could stop it, and the best way weak Dean could help was to say out of his way.

For this Dean fan all I got was Dean apologizing repeatedly to the guy who lied and tried to strange him, Death telling him he needed to get out of Sam's way, being told he was no longer part of the story and as the cherry on top apparently,  not only can Dean be replaced by a plastic toy but the plastic toy was did a better job.   Dean couldn't even be the catalyst that allowed Sam to access his memories. 

My friend said it best.  If it was cloudy or Dean treated the toy like Sam treated the amulet and kept it in the glove compartment the Dean would be dead and the world would be burning. 

All in all, I'd say Sam did come out smelling like a rose and the hero of the story. 

The way s5 played out will never not leave me bitter as a Dean fan.

I was more talking about S4.  Sam was not the hero in that season.  He went down the darkest road Kripke could think up for him.  S5 was a whole other can of worms. I have a really different mostly unpopular opinion of Swan Song and the army man.   Like I said I didn't like either season.

Edited August 23, 2018 by Casseiopeia

[ILoveReading]

1 minute ago, Casseiopeia said:

I was more talking about S4.  S5 is a different issue

For me they are linked.  I didn't have an issue with Sam in s4.   I was actually enjoying both Sam and Dean's story and looked forward to watching Sam's redemption the next season.  I thought it got off to a good start with Dean not willing for forgive and forget and Sam actually acting contrite. 

But then Fallen Idol's happened and everything fell apart.   I don't think this it was a coincidence that s5 fell apart as badly as it did (for me) around this episode as it was when Kim Manners died.  The further this show gets from his death the further it becomes clear to me he was the real reason Dean got the focus that he did.  Because I think he was the only one that saw Dean as an important character outside of Sam.

Aside for Swan Song, that is my most despised episode.

[catrox14]

32 minutes ago, ILoveReading said:

The strangling, choosing a demon over your brother and Sam calling Dean weak was dropped or ignored with very little mention

For me, this was the literal worst thing Sam ever did to Dean and I have always had a hard time overlooking it, unlike Gamble and Kripke.  And for me, it's just horrific because strangulation is a specifically personal kind of attack.  It's putting one's own hands on another person's throat and literally choking their life away. How Sam could ever do that or even think to do that tells me that somewhere inside Sam always hated Dean. I don't think the demon blood made him choose that specific action.

And worse, AFAIK, to this day, I don't think Bobby ever learned that Sam strangled Dean. It was left out of the text and the subtext aside from how Jensen played that scene with Bobby. And by having Bobby, go after Dean with his boo hoo princess speech, they are saying essentially that no matter what Sam did in s4, Dean was still wrong for not trusting him. It was IMO, the worst undermining of a major plot point I think I've ever seen in this show.

That "princess" scene will always make my blood boil, because it's not Dean's fault that Sam made those choices.  Sam could have done any number of other things besides suck on Ruby's demon blood.  Yet Dean is on the hook still, for Sam's choices.  Dean was essentially being blamed for not trusting an addict and not being equipped to deal with the person he put above himself trying to murder him with his own hands.( I mean the nerve of DEAN!). 

It didn't even serve to woobify Dean in the narrative either but rather woobified Sam. Go figure.

Edited August 23, 2018 by catrox14