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

[ILoveReading]

5 minutes ago, DeeDee79 said:

ons of excuses when it comes to the well being and coddling of every character but Dean because "he's tough! He only cares about Sammy not himself!

Even this has been handed to Sam.

All I saw after episode one was "Leadership looks good on Sam"  "Sam F'ing Winchester" "Sam really is strong to hold everything together." 

He's been doing it for 3 weeks.  Dean's been doing it since he was four but that's rarely acknowledged on screen as Dean being strong or a leader and its the same round of excuses.  "Dean doesn't need it mentioned."

Sam didn't have to be the one holding it all together.  There was a bunker full of people.  Mary could have handled the AU stuff.  Bobby could have dealth with Nick since he had no personal history.  Then Sam could have had plenty of time to search for Dean. 

Good leaders delegate. 

But the writers clearly had an agenda and it looks like it finally worked when that oxygen sucker was finally taken off screen.

I'm tired of the excuses.  None of them are acceptable anymore.

Sure have Mary bond with Sam, but show her bonding with Dean too.

Big Bang Theory has 4x as many lead characters and half the time to tell the story in, yet they manage.  Why is it so hard to write for both brothers at once.

Edited October 21, 2018 by ILoveReading

[DeeDee79]

1 minute ago, ILoveReading said:

Even this has been handed to Sam.

All I saw after episode one was "Leadership looks good on Sam"  "Sam F'ing Winchester" "Sam really is strong to hold everything together." 

He's been doing it for 3 weeks.  Dean's been doing it since he was four but that's rarely acknowledged on screen as Dean being strong or a leader and its the same round of excuses.  "Dean doesn't need it mentioned."

I'm tired of the excuses.  None of them are acceptable anymore

Exactly right. Whereas Dean gets the "boo-hoo princess" type speeches when he vents about what's expected of him at the expense of his own feelings. Just another reason why I could care less about the return of Bobby.  Dean deserves better and I'm sick of the writers not giving it to him.

[ILoveReading]

1 minute ago, DeeDee79 said:

Exactly right. Whereas Dean gets the "boo-hoo princess" type speeches when he vents about what's expected of him at the expense of his own feelings. Just another reason why I could care less about the return of Bobby.  Dean deserves better and I'm sick of the writers not giving it to him.

Then he gets accused of not opening up and sharing and being emotionally closed off.  So he does and he gets told to suck it up..

And around and around the merry-go-round we go.

[DeeDee79]

2 minutes ago, ILoveReading said:

Then he gets accused of not opening up and sharing and being emotionally closed off.  So he does and he gets told to suck it up..

And around and around the merry-go-round we go.

Which is an argument that makes zero sense to me. Fandom ( in parts of tumblr that I've seen ) has accused Dean of being "hyper masculine" while saying that Sam and Cas are sensitive and more empathetic to those around them. The same voices will say that Dean is whining and being a baby when he has a negative thought about Jack, Mary or whomever the writers are choosing to gush over that particular week. And no one sees the hypocrisy in any of it. It's tiresome.

12 minutes ago, ILoveReading said:

Big Bang Theory has 4x as many lead characters and half the time to tell the story in, yet they manage.  Why is it so hard to write for both brothers at once.

Great point. Sheldon is obviously the more popular character but all of the characters have been well developed and have gotten equal amounts of storytime dedicated to their characters. 

[catrox14]

4 minutes ago, DeeDee79 said:

Which is an argument that makes zero sense to me. Fandom ( in parts of tumblr that I've seen ) has accused Dean of being "hyper masculine" while saying that Sam and Cas are sensitive and more empathetic to those around them. The same voices will say that Dean is whining and being a baby when he has a negative thought about Jack, Mary or whomever the writers are choosing to gush over that particular week. And no one sees the hypocrisy in any of it. It's tiresome.

And this just tells me they don't actually pay attention to Dean for Dean's sake.  And they choose to forget ALL of his characterization. He's shown his empathy when it matters. He's been the one who's been broken so badly that he sold his soul to save his brother's life.  He's the one who didn't lie to his girlfriend about his life when Sam lied to his. 

I could go on and on and on.

[DeeDee79]

2 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

And this just tells me they don't actually pay attention to Dean for Dean's sake.  And they choose to forget ALL of his characterization. He's shown his empathy when it matters. He's been the one who's been broken so badly that he sold his soul to save his brother's life.  He's the one who didn't lie to his girlfriend about his life when Sam lied to his. 

I could go on and on and on.

They only regard Dean in relation to how he interacts with their favs. They hate him when he's rightfully angry at a character that is considered worthy of empathy. They like him ( somewhat ) when he's coddling the character that they feel is more deserving of their sympathy. 

[gonzosgirrl]

47 minutes ago, ILoveReading said:

Maybe someone should have reminded him that Dean sacrificed himself for Jack.  Maybe people need to stop coddling jack and tell him to stop acting like a spoiled brat.

So much this. I'd like to see this pointed out to Dabb and ask him, or indeed anybody to defend it. 

[DeeDee79]

Just now, gonzosgirrl said:

So much this. I'd like to see this pointed out to Dabb and ask him, or indeed anybody to defend it. 

Dabb would just say that Jack is dealing with the loss of his powers, figuring out how he fits in the world, distraught over his immortality. dealing with his complicated feelings about his parentage, blah, blah, blah. Tons of excuses for bad behavior for every character that Dabb feels is more important than Dean.

[gonzosgirrl]

Just now, DeeDee79 said:

Dabb would just say that Jack is dealing with the loss of his powers, figuring out how he fits in the world, distraught over his immortality. dealing with his complicated feelings about his parentage, blah, blah, blah. Tons of excuses for bad behavior for every character that Dabb feels is more important than Dean.

Sure, and he'd be right. Once. Maybe even twice. But it has happened many more times, and pretty much every scene the kid has had has been steeped in it. Perhaps I should've said 'defend in a public forum where his crap could be refuted with facts'. 

[DeeDee79]

2 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

Sure, and he'd be right. Once. Maybe even twice. But it has happened many more times, and pretty much every scene the kid has had has been steeped in it. Perhaps I should've said 'defend in a public forum where his crap could be refuted with facts'. 

Whether or not he'd be right I can't make myself care about Jack's trauma. I'm not on twitter but it sounds like Dabb only listens to the parts of fandom that likes to kiss his ass. Do any of the writers even respond to critical tweets or do they just pretend that they're not there?

[Res]

47 minutes ago, DeeDee79 said:

Whether or not he'd be right I can't make myself care about Jack's trauma. I'm not on twitter but it sounds like Dabb only listens to the parts of fandom that likes to kiss his ass. Do any of the writers even respond to critical tweets or do they just pretend that they're not there?

They pretend that they are not there. They only care about the asskissing ones.

Edited October 21, 2018 by Res

[AwesomO4000]

7 hours ago, DeeDee79 said:

And again fandom excuses it because " Dean is closer to Jody but she's Sam's friend too! Why shouldn't she care about him?!"

 

Why would anyone need to excuse a friendship between Sam and Jody? Dean isn't closer to Jody than Sam is. ... or at least it didn't used to be that way. Sam was the one who had the original connection with Jody in the episode that she was introduced. She is one of very few characters still around in which that is the case. And because of that connection, Jody used to be closer to Sam than she was Dean. And as far as I remember that was the case for quite a while, so of course Jody should care about Sam. They were originally the ones who were closer.

In more recent years though, some recurring character connections with Sam have been downplayed, so it just seems like Dean (and sometimes Castiel) is and/or has been closer. This happened with Jody. It happened with Crowley.*** And it's happening now with Jack. It even happened a bit with Rowena.

***  Though Crowley did originally start out with a slightly closer connection with Dean, the time when Sam tried to use Crowley to finish the trials and turn him human created a connection with Sam and Crowley also which looked like it might get closer as Crowley went through his "human" emotions phase, but that was all later dropped and instead we had the Crowley / Demon Dean plot arc.

Edited October 21, 2018 by AwesomO4000

[DeeDee79]

3 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:

Why would anyone need to excuse a friendship between Sam and Jody? Dean isn't closer to Jody than Sam is. ... or at least it didn't used to be that way. Sam was the one who had the original connection with Jody in the episode that she was introduced. She is one of very few characters still around in which that is the case. And because of that connection, Jody used to be closer to Sam than she was Dean. And as far as I remember that was the case for quite a while, so of course Jody should care about Sam. They were originally the ones who were closer.

In more recent years though, some recurring character connections with Sam have been downplayed, so it just seems like Dean (and sometimes Castiel) is and/or has been closer. This happened with Jody. It happened with Crowley.*** And it's happening now with Jack. It even happened a bit with Rowena.

***  Though Crowley did originally start out with a slightly closer connection with Dean, the time when Sam tried to use Crowley to finish the trials and turn him human created a connection with Sam and Crowley also which looked like it might get closer as Crowley went through his "human" emotions phase, but that was all later dropped and instead we had the Crowley / Demon Dean plot arc.

I was only addressing Jody, not every other character that both brothers happen to be friends with. And by fandom I’m referring to the comments that pop up whenever it’s pointed out that an interaction or the relationship in general between Dean and Jody is nice to see. You actually helped my point somewhat.

[catrox14]

I thought Jody bonded with Sam early on and in fact, in s7 I shipped them legitimately in the time travel episode.  Then the show decided that Jody was going to be a mom to them and potential love interest for Bobby (which again, why?) Well I know why but that's another rant for another day, along with my thoughts about the boys growing up without a mother but I will say this: Sam did have a mother figure, if not his actual mother, in Dean.  And Dean said so in 12.22. (the one moment of that episode that I thought was worthwhile). 

TBH I wish they had never made Jody into the Mom role. She was much more interesting to me as the family friend. Just like with Bobby. I know why the show did it. I just don't like it. 

[Myrelle]

17 hours ago, DeeDee79 said:

Why can't we get a 12.22 scene for Dean? He's been through just as much if not worse than every other character but he's the only one that doesn't get shown the tiniest bit of empathy on screen or in fandom.

Or from the writers in their interviews, for that matter, and more importantly to this fan-especially at this point in the series.

It's crossed over into the ridiculous realm and Bizarro World, AFAIC.

[AwesomO4000]

14 hours ago, DeeDee79 said:

I was only addressing Jody, not every other character that both brothers happen to be friends with. And by fandom I’m referring to the comments that pop up whenever it’s pointed out that an interaction or the relationship in general between Dean and Jody is nice to see. You actually helped my point somewhat.

You also addressed Mary, but I had no argument with you on that one, since I agree that Dean and Mary had the initial bond when she returned and a "But Dean had 4 years with Mary already, when is Sam's turn?" would be an annoying and somewhat silly argument.

My point was that I disagreed with your using Jody as an example of a similar thing, since I disagree that having a Sam and Jody moment would somehow be unusual or need to be defended anyway. My point was that I didn't see why fans would be saying that Sam should have time with Jody, too, even though she is closer to Dean, because I disagreed with the premise that Dean is closer to Jody that Sam is.

One theory I had that it might have seemed that Jody was closer to Dean was because lately the show has more been isolating Sam from some of the characters he formerly had connections with - in my opinion. I wasn't saying that interaction between Dean and Jody wouldn't be nice to see. I was objecting to the premise that somehow an interaction between Sam and Jody would somehow be dismissing or taking away from time Jody should be spending with Dean and so therefore Sam and Jody interacting would need to be "defended," with "Well, Dean is closer with Jody, but she's Sam's friend, too."

My point was that Sam and Jody have always had a bond, and so therefore shouldn't have to be "defended" at all. So I disagree that I helped your point somewhat, since I was disagreeing with your premise, and I have no problem with Dean and Jody bonding and would agree that that is nice to see when it occurs.

11 hours ago, catrox14 said:

I thought Jody bonded with Sam early on and in fact, in s7 I shipped them legitimately in the time travel episode.  Then the show decided that Jody was going to be a mom to them and potential love interest for Bobby (which again, why?)

[snip] TBH I wish they had never made Jody into the Mom role. She was much more interesting to me as the family friend. Just like with Bobby. I know why the show did it. I just don't like it. 

This is actually what I was trying to say... that in my opinion, Sam and Jody had the closer bond, so there shouldn't need to be an "excuse" for them interacting.

I also agree with you on Jody and the "mom role." I much preferred when she was a friend, and for me, turning her more to a "mom role" somehow lessened / downplayed her and Sam's original friendship and the bond they used to have... since in their original bonding, Sam was trying to help Jody in a difficult and traumatic time, and so for me they were much more equals to start with - not a mothering relationship.

And I also shipped Sam and Jody, but turning the relationship to a more "mom role" one kind of makes that less attractive (and almost icky.) I also thought that Bobby was too old for Jody, myself, so that was a big "no" for me. Others' miles may vary.

[7kstar]

I guess this is the place to ask.  I remember feeling Supernatural was slow at the beginning last year too.  Then came a few eps I really liked which got me wanting to watch live again.  So is it now the norm that we get a slow start until they have an idea...is that the real new issue?

I will say I'm not surprised about the Michael/Dean story looking to be over already.  I wish is they wanted to upset the fans they went all out and do something new.  To be able to predict it, sucks.

[DeeDee79]

6 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:

You also addressed Mary, but I had no argument with you on that one, since I agree that Dean and Mary had the initial bond when she returned and a "But Dean had 4 years with Mary already, when is Sam's turn?" would be an annoying and somewhat silly argument.

My point was that I disagreed with your using Jody as an example of a similar thing, since I disagree that having a Sam and Jody moment would somehow be unusual or need to be defended anyway. My point was that I didn't see why fans would be saying that Sam should have time with Jody, too, even though she is closer to Dean, because I disagreed with the premise that Dean is closer to Jody that Sam is.

One theory I had that it might have seemed that Jody was closer to Dean was because lately the show has more been isolating Sam from some of the characters he formerly had connections with - in my opinion. I wasn't saying that interaction between Dean and Jody wouldn't be nice to see. I was objecting to the premise that somehow an interaction between Sam and Jody would somehow be dismissing or taking away from time Jody should be spending with Dean and so therefore Sam and Jody interacting would need to be "defended," with "Well, Dean is closer with Jody, but she's Sam's friend, too."

My point was that Sam and Jody have always had a bond, and so therefore shouldn't have to be "defended" at all. So I disagree that I helped your point somewhat, since I was disagreeing with your premise, and I have no problem with Dean and Jody bonding and would agree that that is nice to see when it occurs.

My premise was based on what I’ve observed from fandom not necessarily what my thoughts are regarding Sam and Jody interaction which is why I said that you helped my point. I’m fine disagreeing; I have no interest in dragging this out any longer.

[ILoveReading]

Jared mentioned both in the panel and in his meet and greet (I can say this because Jared mentioned on stage it was something he talked about) about how he sees Sam as someone who steps when needed but doesn't see himself as a leader and Sam prefers to be in the background.

So I really don't get this big push to put him in that position when even the actor said it doesn't really fit the character. 

So the sudden, I need to lead because I was too scared really was as forced as it came across.

[catrox14]

1 hour ago, ILoveReading said:

Jared mentioned both in the panel and in his meet and greet (I can say this because Jared mentioned on stage it was something he talked about) about how he sees Sam as someone who steps when needed but doesn't see himself as a leader and Sam prefers to be in the background.

So I really don't get this big push to put him in that position when even the actor said it doesn't really fit the character. 

So the sudden, I need to lead because I was too scared really was as forced as it came across.

That doesn't seem to ring true either for Sam. Sam has never been in the background LOL. He's often been point without Dean telling him to be. Off the top of my head, I can think of many situations and episodes wherein he was taking the lead and didn't shy away from it. I don't have time to list them all now, but heck, he established that he would be the leader on the research stuff in the dang pilot when he snatched the mouse and keyboard from Dean in the library because he didn't think Dean was researching well enough.

[ILoveReading]

From the spoiler thread but no spoilers

From @Jakes

Quote

Dabb imo didn't drop anything--Michael was NEVER going to stay in Dean.  Nor should he--I never liked when it Dean, Sam or Cas changed too much for too long.

This is not a spoiler, and just spec. 

It's about far more than just how long Dean's possessed.  It's about everything.  The first two episodes focused on everything but Michael.  The important things, like the search for Dean and Michael leaving Dean took place off screen.  Jack and his little hurt feelings got more airtime than Jensen did.  (or that' what it felt like).

I didn't expect Michael to possess Dean the whole season but Jensen asked for time to develop the character.   We were told that it would last longer then expected.  2 episodes isn't longer. 

The one mirror scene we didn't'' even last 30 seconds. 

The writers couldn't' have made it any clearer that their interest in the Michael story is less than zero if they actually said it.

Spoiler

We might get some flashbacks but what's the point we know Dean's okay. 

We were told Michael Dean would be a big part of the story, Michael would be the main arc, that we'd see the aftermath and the toll it took on Dean. 

Now we're told the exact opposite. Michael isnt' the big bad.  Dean's immune and has antibodies to trauma.  Jensen saying he hasn't' seen anything about being possessed come back to haunt him in the scripts, and they're filming the mid-season finale. 

 

 

They had just filmed the first day of episode 2 at comic con.  So they knew the outcome.  Its just like Demon Dean.  They filmed episode 3 first because of Jensen directing so they all knew at comic con that Demon Dean was done and they all lied.  So they' e not about it.

So yes I believe Michael story is done.  We might get some vague off screen references and or Michael being disposed of but I would bet money being anticlimatic

[Jonesy]

2 minutes ago, ILoveReading said:

From the spoiler thread but no spoilers

From @Jakes

This is not a spoiler, and just spec. 

It's about far more than just how long Dean's possessed.  It's about everything.  The first two episodes focused on everything but Michael.  The important things, like the search for Dean and Michael leaving Dean took place off screen.  Jack and his little hurt feelings got more airtime than Jensen did.  (or that' what it felt like).

I didn't expect Michael to possess Dean the whole season but Jensen asked for time to develop the character.   We were told that it would last longer then expected.  2 episodes isn't longer. 

The one mirror scene we didn't'' even last 30 seconds. 

The writers couldn't' have made it any clearer that their interest in the Michael story is less than zero if they actually said it.

  Reveal hidden contents

We might get some flashbacks but what's the point we know Dean's okay. 

We were told Michael Dean would be a big part of the story, Michael would be the main arc, that we'd see the aftermath and the toll it took on Dean. 

Now we're told the exact opposite. Michael isnt' the big bad.  Dean's immune and has antibodies to trauma.  Jensen saying he hasn't' seen anything about being possessed come back to haunt him in the scripts, and they're filming the mid-season finale. 

 

 

They had just filmed the first day of episode 2 at comic con.  So they knew the outcome.  Its just like Demon Dean.  They filmed episode 3 first because of Jensen directing so they all knew at comic con that Demon Dean was done and they all lied.  So they' e not about it.

So yes I believe Michael story is done.  We might get some vague off screen references and or Michael being disposed of but I would bet money being anticlimatic

I agree it's not a long time with Dean and Michael--though maybe the flashbacks will be good.  That said I still expect the Michael story will be around a bunch and directly so--we'll see.

[ILoveReading]

17 minutes ago, Jakes said:

I agree it's not a long time with Dean and Michael--though maybe the flashbacks will be good.  That said I still expect the Michael story will be around a bunch and directly so--we'll see.

Quote

Spoiler

From the promo in ep 3 it looks like the "flashback" we see in when Cas goes into Dean's head is just stock footage of stuff we already saw.

Sorry for putting the spoiler in a quote box but I clicked it by mistake and cant figure out how to get rid of it

Edited October 22, 2018 by ILoveReading

[AwesomO4000]

1 hour ago, catrox14 said:

That doesn't seem to ring true either for Sam. Sam has never been in the background LOL. He's often been point without Dean telling him to be. Off the top of my head, I can think of many situations and episodes wherein he was taking the lead and didn't shy away from it. I don't have time to list them all now, but heck, he established that he would be the leader on the research stuff in the dang pilot when he snatched the mouse and keyboard from Dean in the library because he didn't think Dean was researching well enough.

But for me it's different when leading a group of people. The main early example that I can think of was "All Hell... Pt1." Sam stepped up, because he was the one with the most experience with the supernatural, but he had a hard time getting everyone to listen to him, and even when they did start listening to him (basically only after one of them died and there was evidence of demons), Jake could tell that Sam was scared, and Sam admitted that he wished Dean was there, because Dean would know what to do.

In "Jus in Bello" Dean was the one who took the lead and changed everyone's mind. If I remember correctly, he was also the lead in the "Nightshifter" group situation and in "Ghostfacers." I think the dynamics are different with a group, and one of the reasons I thought that the dialogue in that hunters' speech was so clunky and awkward is because that's not really where Sam is comfortable being.

And even when it's just the two of them, especially when the situation is uncertain, Sam sometimes seems to need the reinforcement from Dean being the one to make the leadership decision. Sam will ask "What's the plan?" even though much of the time he's probably pretty certain he knows what it's going to be, or he'll ask "so is that really the plan: we go in gun's blazing?" even though he knows the answer is going to be "yes," and he's going to answer "let's do it" or "works for me." Sam seems to be mainly wanting the comfort of Dean making that final decision and being confident about it.

For me, Sam just seems more comfortable that way.

[devlin]

Trying to look for the positive in the writers screwing Jensen over again, I guess it could be seen as a compliment in that TPTB know that without  dean and what Jensen brings to that character the show would be a total mess. The writers may ignore him and try to pimp out other characters but it’s Jensen’s presence as dean and the way dean cares for the other characters is what makes us care for them. So the writers refuse to give dean an actual story but through Jensen’s presence, I see the entire show as being dean’s story. He doesn’t need to be pimped out by the writers or given roles in the separate story arcs. Just coz he has enough emotional intelligence to be able to care and support others doesn’t mean he isn’t as a BAMF. I can see it in the way he conducts himself, I don’t need to be told.

Edited October 22, 2018 by devlin
Clarification

[catrox14]

4 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:

But for me it's different when leading a group of people. The main early example that I can think of was "All Hell... Pt1." Sam stepped up, because he was the one with the most experience with the supernatural, but he had a hard time getting everyone to listen to him, and even when they did start listening to him (basically only after one of them died and there was evidence of demons), Jake could tell that Sam was scared, and Sam admitted that he wished Dean was there, because Dean would know what to do.

I don't think it is that different. The show made a big point of Sam leading all those people out in Two Minutes to Midnight, replete with Bobby waxing poetic about how hard they were on Sam when he's been saving people from burning buildings since he was a kid.  (completely ignoring that Dean has been doing the same thing.....Dean who).

Sam was pushed into that role in s2. I think Jus in Bello was a joint operation on the brothers part. 

For me the big difference is that Dean doesn't really have any experience with gathering a group of people together, speechifying to them in a 'call to arms" moment like Sam had.  Dean stood up to those wanting to sacrifice a virgin and he leads ad hoc teams but there has never been an occasion wherein Dean was specifically calling on other hunters to come and join him.   Not that I recall.

4 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:

For me, Sam just seems more comfortable that way.

I don't think Sam uncomfortable leading nor more comfortable following given he has questioned Dean's choices in most situations...he doesn't follow him blindly. He didn't follow John blindly either.  So this entire business about Sam being a follower IMO is really a misunderstanding on the current writers part about Sam being rebellious vs not being a leader.  Different things they have chosen to repurpose into Sam needing official leadership role...or something.  LOL

[AwesomO4000]

7 hours ago, catrox14 said:

I don't think Sam uncomfortable leading nor more comfortable following given he has questioned Dean's choices in most situations...he doesn't follow him blindly. He didn't follow John blindly either.  So this entire business about Sam being a follower IMO is really a misunderstanding on the current writers part about Sam being rebellious vs not being a leader.  Different things they have chosen to repurpose into Sam needing official leadership role...or something.  LOL

I agree Sam doesn't follow blindly. That's something different for me than preferring not to lead and/or wanting the comfort (for lack of a better word) of someone else - preferably Dean - making the final decision and generally taking the lead. I also agree that Sam does sometimes question Dean's choices, but I don't think that means that he is leading the situation when he does that. For me it just means he's giving his input and more wants Dean to see his point of view and maybe change his mind if he sees Sam's point. That more seems the dynamic to me rather than Sam flat out saying something like "No, we're going to do it this way instead." ***

And because I agree that Sam isn't a blind follower, I also dislike the show's apparent premise of Sam's supposed "epiphany." I like Sam's contributions to things the way they were and think he makes a good partner and backup for Dean, because he does sometimes question what Dean might want to do... especially when Dean considers doing something that might put himself at more risk than he should... which Dean is sometimes apt to do.

And I think that's part of why Sam didn't follow John blindly either... Sam likely knew John sometimes took too many risks, and he definitely didn't like John's "need to know only" policy. Sam can't have input that way. And even though Sam doesn't like being the leader (in my opinion anyway), he seems to hate not having at least minimal input. I think, for lack of a better way to describe it, Sam wants to have the choice to be lead rather than just be expected to follow. And I don't think he will back up just anybody...

Which is why I personally thought it was ridiculous that Sam joined the BMoL. As you said, Sam is not a blind follower. In my opinion, he's very particular about who he'll let lead him, and it's a very short list. And in my opinion, in no way should Sam have decided - based on what happened in that episode - that the BMoL would be on that list.

*** And I think maybe a good example that the general dynamic between Sam and Dean is not one where Sam generally takes the lead was "Mystery Spot." Dean may have made the "I get all tingly when you take charge" joke, but really the fact that Sam was being that way more concerned Dean, I think, and it's how he knew something was terribly wrong with Sam that Sam was acting that way. Sam doesn't just normally tell Dean to do something like that. And that Sam did, and suffered no jokes about it, let Dean know, this was not a happy or even mentally healthy Sam or a normal situation.

[ILoveReading]

6 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:

As you said, Sam is not a blind follower

Sam can be a blind follower, especially when he gets a goal in his mind.   He's like John that way.  Even when he rebelled and ran away he still followed John's rules.  We saw him get mad at Dean for telling Cassie while he didn't tell Jessica. 

He blindly followed his goal of a normal life.  When strange things started happening Sam ignored them rather than upsetting the life he had. 

He blindly followed Ruby.  She kept telling him what he wanted to here and only made him think he was in control.  When he really wasn't.  She played him like a fiddle.  When there were signs that maybe something wasn't right,  he ignored them continued to follow Ruby. 

There was Lucifer and the visions.  He got it in his head that he was God's chosen and he should go to the cage.  When Dean wouldn't' encourage it he found someone who did.  The minute Sully told him how awesome and special he was he ran into the cage.  Even allowing Rowena to manipulate him.   He once again ignored all the reasons why it was a bad idea.

So, IMO, following the British Men of Letters made perfect sense.  Sam saw the end goal.  Getting rid of all monsters.  He's never really hunted for the sake of hunting.  He saw an opportunity and he took it.  Ignoring the signs that something is wrong isn't out of character for Sam. 

This is why Sam, for me, is more of a follower than a leader. 

Edited October 23, 2018 by ILoveReading

[DeeDee79]

10 minutes ago, ILoveReading said:

Sam can be a blind follower, especially when he gets a goal in his mind.   He's like John that way.  Even when he rebelled and ran away he still followed John's rules.  We saw him get mad at Dean for telling Cassie while he didn't tell Jessica. 

He blindly followed his goal of a normal life.  When strange things started happening Sam ignored them rather than upsetting the life he had. 

He blindly followed Ruby.  She kept telling him what he wanted her here and only made him think he was in control.  When he really wasn't.  She played him like a fiddle.  When there were signs that maybe something wasn't right,  he ignored them continued to follow Ruby. 

There was Lucifer and the visons.  He got it in his head that he was God's chosen and he should go to the cage.  When Dean wouldn't' encourage it he found someone who did.  The minute Sully told him how awesome and special he was he ran into the cage.  Even allowing Rowena to manipulate him.   He once again ignored all the reasons why it was a bad idea.

So, IMO, following the British Men of Letters made perfect sense.  Sam saw the end goal.  Getting rid of all monsters.  He's never really hunted for the sake of hunting.  He saw an opportunity and he took it.  Ignoring the signs that something is wrong isn't out of character for Sam. 

This is why Sam, for me, is more of a follower than a leader. 

Great points and I especially agree with the bolded parts.

[AwesomO4000]

9 hours ago, ILoveReading said:

Sam can be a blind follower, especially when he gets a goal in his mind.  

It's his goal, however. I don't disagree that Sam can get a goal and have a somewhat one-track mind in trying to get to that goal. For me, though. that's different than just following what someone else tells him to do - which is what I meant by being a blind follower.

Quote

He blindly followed Ruby.  She kept telling him what he wanted her here and only made him think he was in control.  When he really wasn't.  She played him like a fiddle.  When there were signs that maybe something wasn't right,  he ignored them continued to follow Ruby. 

In my opinion, that's not what I saw happening. Sam stopped listening to Ruby in that he told her "no," he wasn't going to drink the demon blood anymore even though she told him he needed to in order to hone his skills. That was even a point of contention in one episode (I don't remember which) where Ruby hinted that his skills were"flabby" and that Sam knew what to do to fix things, and Sam still insisted "no" that he wasn't doing that again. He stopped for his own reasons and made his own decision about it, and he was able to stick with that decision for quite a while - 9 episodes of show time. And even when Sam did decide to start again (despite what I thought were vague, mostly plot-related reasons), it was Sam's decision not Ruby's. Sam had been thinking about it, weighing options for and against, and decided to start again. From Ruby's question of "what changed your mind" for me this said it wasn't Ruby, and that Sam hadn't really been listening to her or following her directives or advice on that point up until then.

I think things were much more complicated than Sam blindly following Ruby's directives without question. In my opinion, there were a lot of questions by Sam, and there were a lot of things that lead to Sam deciding - wrongly - to continue. And even then when Sam did decide to drink the demon blood again, I think that the blood, too, then had some influence over Sam's choices after that, not just Sam listening to Ruby's directives.

Quote

There was Lucifer and the visions.  He got it in his head that he was God's chosen and he should go to the cage. 

Again in my opinion that was Sam's decision, not something someone told him to do, though I disagree that Sam thought he was "God's chosen." Thinking that God - finally - answered his prayers and hinted at a way Sam might get some information - to me - is not the same thing as Sam thinking he's a Joan of Arc or something... who ironically was a hero despite the fact that it might be questionable if Joan was getting advice / directives from the archangel Michael. So I guess it's a matter of perspective.

And even though I agree it was ultimately a bad idea, this isn't only a Sam trait. The consequences tend to be greater and Sam tends to be wrong more when he makes questionable decisions (in my opinion), but he is hardly the only main character who makes such decisions. If going to the cage actually had given Sam information they needed, it might have been a stupid idea, but it might have been a Sam Carter "stupid idea"*** instead of Sam Winchester stupid idea. In general though, the writers tend to have Sam just make the stupid idea. They often do the same to poor Castiel. On the other hand Dean's and Crowley's stupid ideas tend more to work.

*** In an episode of Stargate: SG1, the alien Thor couldn't come up with a logical way to get out of the situation they were in, so he asked Samantha Carter to come up with an idea that maybe made less logical sense but might work. Her idea - to blow up the ship they had built specifically to fight the enemy in order to kill the enemy - worked, and afterwards Thor praised her by saying that it was her "stupid idea" that saved them. (I loved that episode.)

Quote

So, IMO, following the British Men of Letters made perfect sense.  Sam saw the end goal.  Getting rid of all monsters.  He's never really hunted for the sake of hunting.  He saw an opportunity and he took it.  Ignoring the signs that something is wrong isn't out of character for Sam.

I disagree. I don't ever remember Sam being one to argue for getting rid of all monsters before. He had an argument with Dean over it way back in season 2, when he argued against killing Lenore and her nest. Sam - rightly in my opinion - argued that their job was "killing evil," not just killing monsters. And he argued it should be on a case by case basis - "if they aren't killing people, they aren't evil." So I don't even agree that the "end goal" the writers gave Sam made any sense. Where for example would that leave Garth and his family? That Sam wouldn't have considered that - to me - is ridiculous and an insult to Sam's character, in my opinion.

Also if we're going by show history, an argument that Sam supposedly would want to get rid of all monsters so he could "retire" doesn't even make sense to me. As much as I hate season 8, it established that should Sam decide that he didn't want to hunt, he apparently had no problem with leaving hunting to other people. Even if he feels guilty about that now, there is no reason he couldn't stop hunting to take on a supportive role. In my opinion, an "if I help kill all monsters, I can be done with hunting" argument made little sense character-wise for Sam. Make up your mind writers. Is Sam "mature" for getting out of hunting and just saying "ehn, I'm done with this," or not? Whereas you think the BMoL joining made sense, I think the writers did it more with a goal in mind rather than following a story arc that actually made sense for Sam. My opinion on that.

I agree that Sam doesn't hunt for the sake of hunting*** - in that I don't think he just wants the thrill of the hunt - but I think he likes making a difference, and hunting does allow him to do that and he apparently likes doing it. In my opinion, Sam had no reason to tell Charlie that if it wasn't true. He could have given a lot of personal reasons as to why he wanted to save Dean that didn't include hunting, but he chose to tell Charlie about wanting to continue hunting and that that was what he wanted to do with his life and he didn't want to do it without Dean.

*** Although interestingly Soulless Sam did... So for those who argue that Soulless Sam does represent some baser aspects of Sam, I think it could be argued that there is something about hunting that appeals to Sam's baser instincts.

Edited October 23, 2018 by AwesomO4000

[Katy M]

32 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

In my opinion, that's not what I saw happening. Sam stopped listening to Ruby in that he told her "no," he wasn't going to drink the demon blood anymore even though she told him he needed to in order to hone his skills. That was even a point of contention in one episode (I don't remember which) where Ruby hinted that his skills were"flabby" and that Sam knew what to do to fix things, and Sam still insisted "no" that he wasn't doing that again. He stopped for his own reasons and made his own decision about it, and he was able to stick with that decision for quite a while - 9 episodes of show time. And even when Sam did decide to start again (despite what I thought were vague, mostly plot-related reasons), it was Sam's decision not Ruby's. Sam had been thinking about it, weighing options for and against, and decided to start again. From Ruby's question of "what changed your mind" for me this said it wasn't Ruby, and that Sam hadn't really been listening to her or following her directives or advice on that point up until then.

I don't know if I would say that Sam resisted for 9 episodes of show time.  The last time he drank was probably between In the Beginning and Metamorphosis (epi 4), we just didn't see it, because we didn't know yet.  Then, he didn't see Ruby again until I Know What You Did/Heaven and Hell (epis 9/10 which is when she made that flabby comment).  And, then we don't see Ruby again until Criss Angel (epi 12) when he decides to at the end of the episode.  So, yeah, chronologically speaking it was 8 or 9 episodes.  But, Sam was still successfully using his power in It's the Great Pumpkin, and the only time blood drinking came up in between was in the Alistair episodes.  So, I would say he resisted for 2 or 3 episodes.  Which is still resisting, just not for that long. 

37 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

I disagree. I don't ever remember Sam being one to argue for getting rid of all monsters before. He had an argument with Dean over it way back in season 2, when he argued against killing Lenore and her nest. Sam - rightly in my opinion - argued that their job was "killing evil," not just killing monsters. And he argued it should be on a case by case basis - "if they aren't killing people, they aren't evil." So I don't even agree that the "end goal" the writers gave Sam made any sense. Where for example would that leave Garth and his family? That Sam wouldn't have considered that - to me - is ridiculous and an insult to Sam's character, in my opinion.

He has definitely distinguished between good and bad monsters, but he has also wanted to rid the world of, at the very least demons, if not all mnsters.  From trying to shut the gates of Hell (which I still think would have had worse consequences than benefits) and "cutting the head off the snake" in Criss Angel.  Sam hunts because it needs to be done. If it didn't need to be done (as in all monsters dead), he would be very happy with that.  Soulless Sam excepted.   So, my point, if I had one, is that if there had  been a way to target and to exclude, he would have been more than happy to just flip a switch and kill all the monsters.  And, in fact, since evil monsters outnumber good monsters, probably at least 1,000 to 1, he may have considered that acceptable collateral damage.  Before you say how awful that is, think about, if there were no monsters, how many more people wouldn't be killed by them, than how many good monsters would die. 

[ILoveReading]

The interview I posted in the media thread proves Dabb is an even bigger train wreck then we thought.

He didn't give any notes or tips the the director of the episode either. Further confirmation that the Michael story was never going to be Dabb's priority.  That belongs to Nick, Jack and Sam. 

What little filming we did get of Michael was cut even further. His sceen with Danneel was supposed to be longer.

Jensen said it best when he said he was an island with regards to Michael.  Everyone was.

Screw Dabb.

[gonzosgirrl]

4 minutes ago, ILoveReading said:

The interview I posted in the media thread proves Dabb is an even bigger train wreck then we thought.

He didn't give any notes or tips the the director of the episode either. Further confirmation that the Michael story was never going to be Dabb's priority.  That belongs to Nick, Jack and Sam. 

What little filming we did get of Michael was cut even further. His sceen with Danneel was supposed to be longer.

Jensen said it best when he said he was an island with regards to Michael.  Everyone was.

Screw Dabb.

With walnuts. (tm Dean)

Spoiler

And there is no way having a problem with the AU people works out for Dean.

Just now, gonzosgirrl said:

What little filming we did get of Michael was cut even further. His screen with Danneel was supposed to be longer.

We already know they cut part of his opening scene, and now this. For stupid slo-mo bar fights, emo nougat baby and the grandparents, and omfg more Nickifer than anybody ever wanted or needed. Please, tell me some more about how Dabb/Singer showrunners aren't the worst thing that ever happened to Dean/Jensen.

[AwesomO4000]

5 minutes ago, Katy M said:

But, Sam was still successfully using his power in It's the Great Pumpkin, and the only time blood drinking came up in between was in the Alistair episodes.  So, I would say he resisted for 2 or 3 episodes.  Which is still resisting, just not for that long. 

When Sam killed the demon in "It's the Great Pumpkin..." I assumed that he was likely using reserves from the last time he drank demon blood, because I believed Sam when he said in "Metamorphosis" that he was "done with everything." And I think he likely would have been "done" with even using his powers if the angels hadn't kept making it so that people would die if he didn't.

To me, from what the dialogue appeared to be saying, was that Sam decided in "Metamorphosis" to be "done with everything" and that included drinking demon blood (even though we didn't know it at the time). I believed him, and it appeared to me that it was potentially having an effect on him already by "It's the Great Pumpkin..." when he had difficulty using his powers. There was also some evidence - in my opinion - that Sam hadn't been drinking for a while, because Sam's exchange with Ruby in "I Know What You Did" / "Heaven and Hell" to me, seemed to be an old argument by then ("you know how"). And Sam didn't apparently decide to drink more until the end of "Chris Angel..." when he agreed with Ruby that he was "in" which I concluded meant he was ready to go back to drinking demon blood again.

So yes, I will concede that Sam only said "no" to Ruby for two episodes, but he had made the decision not to pursue that course of action (blood drinking) a while before that, and even though his powers were giving him trouble, I don't believe that he sought out demon blood on his own to fix that issue either.

But no matter which way you look at it, in my opinion, Sam didn't blindly follow Ruby. He said "no, I'm not doing that anymore" and followed that up with another "no," even as Ruby tried to convince him that they would all be dead otherwise... and Sam came up with his own plan instead. It wasn't until Sam had some (vague and/or inexplicable to me) epiphany in "Chris Angel..." that Sam decided he would start up again, but it was his decision, not following orders from Ruby that did it... which was my main point.

35 minutes ago, Katy M said:

He has definitely distinguished between good and bad monsters, but he has also wanted to rid the world of, at the very least demons, if not all mnsters.

For me that's because we hadn't seen a good demon yet, Meg aside, and I still question the logic of "redeeming" Meg, but whatever. And even then, I'm pretty sure that by the end, Sam's mental health might've been in question, and part of his motivation was revenge - on demons in general and Crowley specifically - because it didn't seem to be that difficult for Dean to convince him to not shut the gates of hell and instead go back to regular hunting with their new knowledge. If it had been that much of a priority for Sam to shut the gates of hell and potentially get rid of all demons, I think he would have gone through with it and gotten his eternal rest.

42 minutes ago, Katy M said:

Sam hunts because it needs to be done. If it didn't need to be done (as in all monsters dead), he would be very happy with that.  Soulless Sam excepted.   So, my point, if I had one, is that if there had  been a way to target and to exclude, he would have been more than happy to just flip a switch and kill all the monsters.  And, in fact, since evil monsters outnumber good monsters, probably at least 1,000 to 1, he may have considered that acceptable collateral damage.  Before you say how awful that is, think about, if there were no monsters, how many more people wouldn't be killed by them, than how many good monsters would die. 

I'm not so sure. I think Sam hunts because he likes making a difference. He's been hitting the "making a difference" angle and saying that "it's worth it" on a regular basis since season 2. Sam was even presented with the idea that he could be done with it all in "The French Mistake." When Dean suggested that Sam might not be that happy to get back to the real world where they had to fight monsters and Sam had a crappy destiny, Sam told him (paraphrase) "don't be stupid. We don't even mean anything here (In the alternate universe)." And when they did return, Sam was relieved, I would even say happy, to be back at Bobby's and their real life. He expressed that sentiment previously in "Swap Meat" - "All that apple-pie, family crap? It's stressful. Trust me – we didn't miss a damn thing." And even in season 7 after his hell memories were returned and everything, Sam said that he considered himself lucky, and that he could have it worse, and hunting was what he seemed to want to do. Again, I think, because it gave him a purpose. It was even Sam more recently who seemed to think showing Clair how to do credit fraud so she could more easily live the life was a good idea. It seems to me if Sam would give it up in a moment, that he would be somewhat of a hypocrite or at least disingenuous for encouraging Claire into the hunting life. Just my opinion on that one.

And for me, Sam enjoying the feeling of purpose he got from hunting had been being built on since season 2, which is why - for me - Sam's season 8 decisions seemed to come out of left field, since even Sam without a soul and Sam on auto-pilot (In "Mystery Spot") chose to continue hunting (in addition to tracking down the Trickster), because it gave him a purpose.

I'm also not sure about the number of good monsters vs bad. We actually don't know if it is that skewed, because "good" monsters - like the Zanna who have apparently been around a long time - won't necessarily show up on the radar.

And Sam has tried Machiavellian tactics before - like the nurse in season 4 - and they didn't exactly work out for him. I had hoped he would have learned from that mistake.

In my opinion, Sam saying "yes" to the BMoL was about 85% plotonioum influence versus what Sam would actually have done based on previous behavior. if nothing else he shouldn't join the BMoL, because they tortured him... And sure enough, right away next season, Sam was back to "we shouldn't kill Jack, because he might not be evil," rather than doing the Machiavellian thing and killing him to be sure.

It seems to me, Sam is usually only pro "kill-all-the-monsters" when it's convenient for the plot and for angst purposes.

So I guess it's up to interpretation as to what Sam really thinks about hunting. I tend to take Sam at his word in spontaneous moments after a hunt or telling someone how he feels rather than what seem to me to be manufactured situations that aren't very well explained and tend to drive plot. For me, the small moments that don't add to the plot tend to have more character truths (for me), because they are generally only there for character purposes.

But I get that others' mileage may vary.

[Katy M]

4 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

When Sam killed the demon in "It's the Great Pumpkin..." I assumed that he was likely using reserves from the last time he drank demon blood, because I believed Sam when he said in "Metamorphosis" that he was "done with everything." And I think he likely would have been "done" with even using his powers if the angels hadn't kept making it so that people would die if he didn't.

I know.  That's my point.  He didn't need to make the choice to be on or off it at that point, because he still had reserve powers.  It would be like if I decided to give up caffeine. And, I went a whole day without any, turned down some offers. but, as soon as the withdrawal headache came, I bought a can and downed it.

 

5 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

To me, from what the dialogue appeared to be saying, was that Sam decided in "Metamorphosis" to be "done with everything" and that included drinking demon blood (even though we didn't know it at the time). I believed him, and it appeared to me that it was potentially having an effect on him already by "It's the Great Pumpkin..." when he had difficulty using his powers. There was also some evidence - in my opinion - that Sam hadn't been drinking for a while, because Sam's exchange with Ruby in "I Know What You Did" / "Heaven and Hell" to me, seemed to be an old argument by then ("you know how"). And Sam didn't apparently decide to drink more until the end of "Chris Angel..." when he agreed with Ruby that he was "in" which I concluded meant he was ready to go back to drinking demon blood again.

Yes, I absolutely believe he was sincere at the time.  But, again, he wasn't lacking in power yet.  It's easy to turn something down when you don't "need" it yet.

 

7 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

I'm not so sure. I think Sam hunts because he likes making a difference. He's been hitting the "making a difference" angle and saying that "it's worth it" on a regular basis since season 2. Sam was even presented with the idea that he could be done with it all in "The French Mistake."

He does like making a difference and thinks it's worth it.  But, if he (along with others) killed all the mosnters that would be making the difference and he wouldn't have to sacrifice anymore. 

[ILoveReading]

2 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:

t's his goal, however. I don't disagree that Sam can get a goal and have a somewhat one-track mind in trying to get to that goal. For me, though. that's different than just following what someone else tells him to do - which is what I meant by being a blind follower.

IMO, you can follow a goal, idea or ideal just as blindly as you can a person.  You can blindly follow yourself off the edge of cliff if your stubborn enough.   This is what we saw with Ruby.   Its more then just demon blood.  Sam might have said "im done with that," but he really wasn't and when Ruby entered the picture Sam hoped right back aboard that train even if he was no longer drinking the blood.  When things started spiraling, Sam ignored all the evidence and and people who were saying what he wasn't doing was a good thing.  He used the first excuse he had to start drinking again.  He used Dean's hell confession against him, labelled him weak and ran right back to Ruby.  Saying it and doing it are two different things.  

If something doesnt' go his own way, Sam will rewrite his own history too.  Like when he told Dean the whole powers thing didnt' end badly for him. He's still following the idea this his powers are good.   Or that Ruby made him feel in control.  Sam has never acknowledged that control was an illusion. 

He did the same thing with Lucifer.  He has this idea that God was telling him to go into the cage.  He wanted to believe that God reached out to him so he found someone to tell him what he wanted to hear.  He repeated his again with the Men of Letters.

This is why I find Sam to more of blind follower. 

Edited October 23, 2018 by ILoveReading

[AwesomO4000]

1 minute ago, Katy M said:

He does like making a difference and thinks it's worth it.  But, if he (along with others) killed all the mosnters that would be making the difference and he wouldn't have to sacrifice anymore. 

This might be true - though I really do think Sam at this point would miss it somewhat, or at least the feeling of purpose it gave him - but thinking the BMoL's plan to kill all monsters and to go along with that without questioning it - and after seeing that their methods were questionable at best, a downright disaster at worst - was, for me, teh out of character thing. Hell, as was rightly pointed out upthread, Sam questions Dean's methods sometimes if he thinks there might be an issue. I'm supposed to believe Sam is going to just go "yeah sure!" to an organization that not only tortured him, but put on a demonstration that didn't completely fail only because Sam pulled out a "win" (I put "win" in quotes, because several people were killed) without any questions or terms?

I still think it was ridiculous.

3 minutes ago, ILoveReading said:

but he really wasn't and when Ruby entered the picture Sam hoped right back aboard that train even if he was long drinking the blood. 

In my opinion, no he didn't. As I said above, Sam told Ruby "No" and came up with his own plan which did not involve his using his powers at all. And that was still at a time when he was looking at Ruby semi-positively - since he told Dean the entire story of their meeting and Ruby helped save them and helped to save Anna in that same episode. Still though, Sam had made the decision and stuck to it... not listening to Ruby telling him that they would all die if Sam didn't "power up." Sam said "no" and didn't power up.

It wasn't until later that Sam caved. Something happened in "Chris Angel..." to change Sam's mind. I don't know exactly what it was, because that episode was crappy, in my opinion, and I couldn't figure out what Sam would've gotten from that - that made sense anyway*** - to make him change his mind, but supposedly something happened there that made Sam change his mind. Before that episode, he had gotten off the Ruby train and had stuck to his guns on that.

*** For me, it didn't make sense, because if I'm supposed to buy Sam's motivation of power and wanting to be the one to save the world, why would I buy the notion that he also wants to do this just so he can retire and not be doing it later on. To me those two things conflict. Does Sam want to be powerful or does he want to be done?

17 minutes ago, ILoveReading said:

When things started spiraling, Sam ignored all the evidence and and people who were saying what he wasn't doing was a good thing. 

What evidence and what people? There was Dean, but Dean was listening to the angels who were also evil and not doing anything to stop what was happening. And one of the reasons things really started spiraling was again because of the angels. They were killing each other and not stopping the seals from breaking. But they were insisting that Sam and Dean stop all this, but don't use your powers, meanwhile making that difficult for Sam to do.

I'm not saying that Sam didn't make bad decisions, because he certainly did. I'm saying that I don't blame him for ignoring the angels, because they were not the good guys, and both he and Dean and who knows how many people would have been dead if Sam had listened to the angels. Alastair would've been free, Castiel out of commission for a while, Dean dead (until Michael would have resurrected him for his own purposes), etc.

My point being Sam wasn't right in what he decided, but listening to the angels wouldn't have been right either. Even Castiel - who was the best chance for the angels to not be evil - ended up doing more harm than good. He withheld important information until it was too late, got brainwashed, and made sure to take out of commission the one ally they had who might have been able to help.

So I am wondering who Sam could have listened to who would have made a difference. I would say Dean, but Dean would've been dead.

36 minutes ago, ILoveReading said:

He used the first excuse he had to start drinking again.

I disagree. There was a really good excuse - killing Alastair in "Heaven and Hell" and Sam said "no."
 

Quote

 

He used Dean's hell confession against him, labelled him weak and ran right back to Ruby.

 

My weird theory here is that part of Sam's anger and resentment were that Dean left him (Sam) alone and devastated with all of the responsibility, and that Sam didn't like being in that position, so his "you're weak" and such was buried resentment coming out for being left with the Lilith mess. And then when it turned out that Dean did remember hell and appeared to be not his usual self ...more resentment, because it seemed to all be falling on Sam's shoulders - which even crappy God told him was the case - and again Sam didn't like having been put in that position to begin with because of Dean's decision to make the deal in the first place.

I wish the show had gone that angle instead of the "power trip" angle, as the former made more sense to me.

46 minutes ago, ILoveReading said:

If something doesnt' go his own way, Sam will rewrite his own history too.  Like when he told Dean the whole powers thing didnt' end badly for him. He's still following the idea this his powers are good.   Or that Ruby made him feel in control.  Sam has never acknowledged that control was an illusion. 

That first one doesn't make any sense to me. I don't get why the writers had him say that, because Sam showed in season 5 that he didn't believe that. If he didn't think his powers were bad, why would he leave hunting to take himself away from the temptation in "Free to Be...?" Why would he say "no" to Famine and go through detox again? so yeah, to me, that makes no sense.

Sam didn't say directly that Ruby making him feel powerful was an illusion, but i thought the fact that he said that if he could do it over again, he wouldn't repeat it said enough - for me anyway. I don't want to get into "Fallen idols" and what it means. It was a crappy episode which should have been written better since the concepts were important. And that's all I'm going to say about that.

Quote

He wanted to believe that God reached out to him so he found someone to tell him what he wanted to hear.  He repeated his again with the Men of Letters.

Well that someone found him, and I think Sam's mind was pretty much already made up, especially since he kept having those visions... and we don't know what influence Lucifer might have been able to put into those visions either.

As for the British Men of Letters, I might agree if they had said something I thought Sam had wanted to hear, but as far as we'd been shown, Sam didn't agree with the premise of killing all monsters as far as I remember. He also had just said less than two seasons previously that hunting is what he wanted to do with his life. So what were the BMoL supposedly telling Sam that he wanted to hear? Especially something that would've overrode all of the torture and obvious incompetence Sam was seeing all around him during that episode? Not to mention the betrayal... their friend had been killed on that ill-conceived botched operation to get the Colt... and here was the Colt with the BMoL, so obviously the botched mission was their fault.

Nope it still makes little sense to me except for plot reasons.

[DeeDee79]

3 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:

It's his goal, however. I don't disagree that Sam can get a goal and have a somewhat one-track mind in trying to get to that goal. For me, though. that's different than just following what someone else tells him to do - which is what I meant by being a blind follower.

In my opinion, that's not what I saw happening. Sam stopped listening to Ruby in that he told her "no," he wasn't going to drink the demon blood anymore even though she told him he needed to in order to hone his skills. That was even a point of contention in one episode (I don't remember which) where Ruby hinted that his skills were"flabby" and that Sam knew what to do to fix things, and Sam still insisted "no" that he wasn't doing that again. He stopped for his own reasons and made his own decision about it, and he was able to stick with that decision for quite a while - 9 episodes of show time. And even when Sam did decide to start again (despite what I thought were vague, mostly plot-related reasons), it was Sam's decision not Ruby's. Sam had been thinking about it, weighing options for and against, and decided to start again. From Ruby's question of "what changed your mind" for me this said it wasn't Ruby, and that Sam hadn't really been listening to her or following her directives or advice on that point up until then.

I think things were much more complicated than Sam blindly following Ruby's directives without question. In my opinion, there were a lot of questions by Sam, and there were a lot of things that lead to Sam deciding - wrongly - to continue. And even then when Sam did decide to drink the demon blood again, I think that the blood, too, then had some influence over Sam's choices after that, not just Sam listening to Ruby's directives.

Again in my opinion that was Sam's decision, not something someone told him to do, though I disagree that Sam thought he was "God's chosen." Thinking that God - finally - answered his prayers and hinted at a way Sam might get some information - to me - is not the same thing as Sam thinking he's a Joan of Arc or something... who ironically was a hero despite the fact that it might be questionable if Joan was getting advice / directives from the archangel Michael. So I guess it's a matter of perspective.

And even though I agree it was ultimately a bad idea, this isn't only a Sam trait. The consequences tend to be greater and Sam tends to be wrong more when he makes questionable decisions (in my opinion), but he is hardly the only main character who makes such decisions. If going to the cage actually had given Sam information they needed, it might have been a stupid idea, but it might have been a Sam Carter "stupid idea"*** instead of Sam Winchester stupid idea. In general though, the writers tend to have Sam just make the stupid idea. They often do the same to poor Castiel. On the other hand Dean's and Crowley's stupid ideas tend more to work.

*** In an episode of Stargate: SG1, the alien Thor couldn't come up with a logical way to get out of the situation they were in, so he asked Samantha Carter to come up with an idea that maybe made less logical sense but might work. Her idea - to blow up the ship they had built specifically to fight the enemy in order to kill the enemy - worked, and afterwards Thor praised her by saying that it was her "stupid idea" that saved them. (I loved that episode.)

I disagree. I don't ever remember Sam being one to argue for getting rid of all monsters before. He had an argument with Dean over it way back in season 2, when he argued against killing Lenore and her nest. Sam - rightly in my opinion - argued that their job was "killing evil," not just killing monsters. And he argued it should be on a case by case basis - "if they aren't killing people, they aren't evil." So I don't even agree that the "end goal" the writers gave Sam made any sense. Where for example would that leave Garth and his family? That Sam wouldn't have considered that - to me - is ridiculous and an insult to Sam's character, in my opinion.

Also if we're going by show history, an argument that Sam supposedly would want to get rid of all monsters so he could "retire" doesn't even make sense to me. As much as I hate season 8, it established that should Sam decide that he didn't want to hunt, he apparently had no problem with leaving hunting to other people. Even if he feels guilty about that now, there is no reason he couldn't stop hunting to take on a supportive role. In my opinion, an "if I help kill all monsters, I can be done with hunting" argument made little sense character-wise for Sam. Make up your mind writers. Is Sam "mature" for getting out of hunting and just saying "ehn, I'm done with this," or not? Whereas you think the BMoL joining made sense, I think the writers did it more with a goal in mind rather than following a story arc that actually made sense for Sam. My opinion on that.

I agree that Sam doesn't hunt for the sake of hunting*** - in that I don't think he just wants the thrill of the hunt - but I think he likes making a difference, and hunting does allow him to do that and he apparently likes doing it. In my opinion, Sam had no reason to tell Charlie that if it wasn't true. He could have given a lot of personal reasons as to why he wanted to save Dean that didn't include hunting, but he chose to tell Charlie about wanting to continue hunting and that that was what he wanted to do with his life and he didn't want to do it without Dean.

*** Although interestingly Soulless Sam did... So for those who argue that Soulless Sam does represent some baser aspects of Sam, I think it could be argued that there is something about hunting that appeals to Sam's baser instincts.

I don’t know why my name came up but that’s not my comment that you quoted.

[AwesomO4000]

7 minutes ago, DeeDee79 said:

I don’t know why my name came up but that’s not my comment that you quoted.

Oops, sorry, DeeDee79... I missed going up one more post. You quoted ILoveReading whose post was right above yours and since it was the same wording in your quote box, I mistook that one for ILoveReading's. Sorry about that. I will correct the mistake, so that you are not the one quoted.

Edited to add: Corrected. And again I apologize for the mistake.

Edited October 23, 2018 by AwesomO4000

[DeeDee79]

9 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

Oops, sorry, DeeDee79... I missed going up one more post. You quoted ILoveReading whose post was right above yours and since it was the same wording in your quote box, I mistook that one for ILoveReading's. Sorry about that. I will correct the mistake, so that you are not the one quoted.

Edited to add: Corrected. And again I apologize for the mistake.

All good! Thanks ?

[AwesomO4000]

Brought over from the spoilers thread. Spoilers will be spoiler tagged:

57 minutes ago, SueB said:

I don’t honk think your wrong.  

Spoiler

Pretty sure Maggie gets killed.  But I think it’s also likely that dean has no tolerance (certainly not with his current issues) for leading these people — which means Insuspect that he’ll help Sam get back up on he horse.

Just look at the Wonder Woman plot from the Justice League movie (hidden for spoilers) 

  Reveal hidden contents

She got Steve killed, in her mind, by leading.  So she dropped out of a hero role for several decades.  She just now is coming back.  That’s her big DC character arc.  

It’s a pretty standard concept but still worthwhile IMO. 

For me, it's less worthwhile, because I don't want the writers to fundamentally change Sam. I think he's fine just the way he is, thank you very much. He wasn't lazy or a loser because he wasn't in the leadership role before, and I am annoyed that the story seems to be going in this direction... and if they

Spoiler

make Sam have to cause yet another death - wasn't the guy at the end of last season enough? - to learn this

then that's just crappy in my opinion. I'm tired of Sam's mistakes lopsidedly - in my opinion - having large consequences. The show seems to take sadistic pleasure in making him a doom magnet in my opinion, and I'm getting weary of it.

[gonzosgirrl]

Spoiler

I gave 14x03 ten minutes. One of those was spent on previouslies. Within the next 9, Dean called himself a dick, hurt the poor woobie Nougat Baby's feelings (after he welcomed him home so warmly), and was berated by Sam for not dealing with things properly (ie, making Dean's trauma about Sam). There are no more arguments to be made that Dabb and Singer have any respect for this character. I am truly done watching them destroy this character.

Spoiler for 14x03

[DeeDee79]

7 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

  Reveal hidden contents

I gave 14x03 ten minutes. One of those was spent on previouslies. Within the next 9, Dean called himself a dick, hurt the poor woobie Nougat Baby's feelings (after he welcomed him home so warmly), and was berated by Sam for not dealing with things properly (ie, making Dean's trauma about Sam). There are no more arguments to be made that Dabb and Singer have any respect for this character. I am truly done watching them destroy this character.

Spoiler for 14x03

I'm not watching live and this makes me sad. Though I'm not sure why since it's exactly what I expected.

[gonzosgirrl]

17 minutes ago, DeeDee79 said:

I'm not watching live and this makes me sad. Though I'm not sure why since it's exactly what I expected.

It gets worse. I had to stop.

[Res]

1 hour ago, gonzosgirrl said:

It gets worse. I had to stop.

It really does. I don't blame you.

Ok. I was going to finish up my episode post in the bitterness thread but then I saw that it was only for spoilers so I guess I need to post this here. (If not, mods, please let me know which thread to post the rest of this in.)

Sarcastically: Let's just say I'm so happy (not) that Dean is back in his "shoehorned place of no character growth Sam only role" that was missed so much for the 30 minutes max Jensen was on the screen prior to this episode. Knowing how Dean would react to Sam's neatly-trimmed grief beard had been distressing me so much since the beginning of the premiere (not!).

It really kills me that so many Dean fans don't really care that his character never develops or evolves as long as he is Dean on the screen with Sam on "the same page" and they are "talking". Seriously! What am I not getting? 

In his Dabb appointed role, he is simply the sidekick who is stupid, silly, messy, mental deficient, etc. and acts as a chauffeur to hunts. Why is it such a great thing to have him back under those conditions? 

Don't get me wrong. I would love for Sam's character to learn and evolve more as well but at least Sam has story points for each season. Sam's this season is apparently leadership which means that they are actually writing for that character.

What is Dean's storyline now that Michael is gone?

Edited October 26, 2018 by Res

[devlin]

I swear this show only works when you come to the realisation that the only good guy is dean and that every other character is just someone who is a bad guy trying  to tear him down. It’s a show that is about the resilience of one man who is living in a world with zero support where everyone is out to hurt him but somehow manages to retain his humanity and everything that comes with it. It’s depressing.

[gonzosgirrl]

All I know is I'm sick of the writers/showrunners using a minor character as a mouthpiece to drag Dean, call out every negative thing he's ever said or done, with nobody, including him, refuting or even disputing it. There is no way in hell that Dean would just stand there sighing while not!Kaia said the things she said to Dean in tonight's episode (14x03). She basically said he was a mindless killer, a monster, no different than the things that were hunting her, no different than Michael. And Sam just let it stand.

It has become a theme with the current crew - this idea that Dean is violent killer at his core. And he is, when it comes to evil, but he is so much more and they acknowledge that less and less. That is irrefutable.

And please, don't drag out the S4/5 demon blood thing as an equivalent. Dean called Sam a monster - yes he did. But he sure as hell never let anyone else say it, no matter what Sam did.

Edited October 26, 2018 by gonzosgirrl

[ILoveReading]

4 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

It has become a theme with the current crew - this idea that Dean is violent killer at his core. And he is, when it comes to evil, but he is so much more and they acknowledge that less and less. That is irrefutable.

I don't know how it can be denied anymore that Dabb and crew have it in for Dean.

Spoiler

Watching the promo for next week, we see the serial killer, that Dean supposedly idolizes, say that everybody does bad things somethings.  Then we see the "killer" look at Dean and we see a chainsaw go flying at him.  So it seems like Dean's "idol" targets him for being bad.  They really want to drive home that Dean did something wrong saying yes. 

If Dean doesn' say yes, Sam, and Jack are dead, Michael is useless and Lucifer is supercharged and ready to burn the world down.   So he made the best of a bad situation.  Cas said yes like a dumbass but Dean still thanked him.  Sam was a dumbass to say yes and he was damn lucky it was sunny that day and Dean is sentimental or the world would be burning, and Dean still thanked Sam for taking one for the team. 

The show will never acknowledge Lucifer was a real threat.  They'll go right back to Dean trying to save Sam and not seeing him as an equal.  That is what all this leader stuff is about. 

I still see no room for Dean anymore.  Chief, Jackass, and and Teenage Mutant Ninja sue certainly don't need a weak, mindless thug.

[devlin]

The most depressing thing is that even though dean has sacrificed his life and his very being for sam since  the age of 4, sam still refuses to take dean’s side or even stand up for him. By letting the horrible things people say about dean stand, sam is basically agreeing with them

[ILoveReading]

I see the comparisons of Weak Dean couldn't take out an arch angel while Super Sam did, have started. 

Of course no mention of Dean being there, it was apparently just Sam and Sam alone that did that.   This is why I loath Swan Song.  It makes it so easy to dismiss Dean and so many do,

Edited October 26, 2018 by ILoveReading