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

[gonzosgirrl]

26 minutes ago, ILoveReading said:

I'm posting this here too becaue I don't want to put bitterness in the the 300th episode party thread. 

https://shaiharper.tumblr.com/post/180247152022

Jensen wore his Michael outfit to the 300th ep party.  I wonder if that was some kind of message to the powers that be.  I hope it was. 

Ha! I totally missed that.

[catrox14]

1 hour ago, gonzosgirrl said:

Ha! I totally missed that.

I literally thought for a hot minute, is that Michael's outfit? I'm glad I wasn't alone in wondering!

[AwesomO4000]

5 hours ago, catrox14 said:

I see it every time he tries to micro manage Dean's emotional life or tries to get Dean to talk when Dean isn't ready or simply doesn't want to talk. He's controlling when he goes off and does the opposite of what someone else is wanting him to do or not do.  So to me, him being this way is pretty on par.  JMHO

I generally don't like to be "But Dean does the same thing," but here it applies, in my opinion.

If Sam is supposedly micromanaging Dean's feelings to be controlling, I don't see why Dean wouldn't be called controlling when he micromanages Sam's feelings... which in my opinion, he does just as often, except sometimes using opposite tactics. When Dean tried to get Sam to open up about Jessica, it was considered a good thing, so is it only when Sam tries to get Dean to talk that it's controlling? At other times when Sam does want to talk or express his feelings, Dean tells him to just shut up and stuff it or that expressing his feelings makes Sam a bitch and he should just stop it. Maybe it's the fact that when Sam does as Dean asks fairly quickly and no big deal is made of it by the show that when Dean does it it's seen as okay and not controlling.

Otherwise I don't know. As far as I can see, Dean does the same thing to Sam. I don't see either as controlling so much as trying to avoid what each one doesn't want. In the case of Sam, he doesn't want a closed off Dean - because in my opinion a closed off Dean eventually explodes somehow and it makes Sam feel marginalized - and in the case of Dean, he doesn't want to deal with Sam's messy emotions, because Sam's emotions can be tiring.

[catrox14]

10 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

Otherwise I don't know. As far as I can see, Dean does the same thing to Sam. I don't see either as controlling so much as trying to avoid what each one doesn't want.

Difference for me is that Dean generally lets it go after saying his peace.  Sam comes back at Dean in passive aggressive ways which is why I think Sam is more controlling than Dean.  Dean is guilty of openly telling Sam how he should cope but then let's it go and IMO doesn't play passive aggressive games.  JMHO

[ILoveReading]

16 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

I generally don't like to be "But Dean does the same thing," but here it applies, in my opinion.

This is part of the reason I think Dean was right when he told them to pick a hemisphere.  I still don't think they like each other very much.

Yes there are time when Dean tries to control Sam, but I find he's usually pretty unsuccessful for the most part because Sam rarely listens to him.  So for me, Dean often comes across as bossy where Sam comes across at the controlling one.   But for me the big difference is that Sam is often given a voice to confront Dean on this.  Fallen Idols. and The Purge, or when Sam demanded Dean dump Benny or he'll dump him, Sacrifice, Shadows, Southern comfort where once again Sam threatens to leave Dean unless Dean drops his feelings of abandoment are ones that immediately come to mind.  Or we'll get someone like Bobby being a mouth piece and lecturing Dean about how hard they are on Sam. 

There are times when Dean is allowed to voice his displeasure, but I find he's usually made to take it back or later apologize for even thinking that way.  When he said he was upset about the demon blood the writers went out of the their way to write Fallen Idols and had Dean act like a dick just to justify Sam's speech.   Sam didn't treat Dean like that in s4.  Or The Raid, when Dean was made to take back what he said, and learn to let other make a decision and then in the exact same episode they made it clear, Sam was going to lie to Dean about the brits.  When Dean found out, he wasn't even allowed to be mad or upset.  He was made to go along with Sam.  Sam promoted himself for that decsion.  You may think it was wrong the the show never treated it like it was.  

Sam and Dean pretty much did the exact same thing with the book of the damned and Gadreel.  Dean was raked over the coals for being controlling.  Sam was considered a loving brother.  So there is a clear double standard.

[devlin]

3 hours ago, ILoveReading said:

I'm posting this here too becaue I don't want to put bitterness in the the 300th episode party thread. 

https://shaiharper.tumblr.com/post/180247152022

Jensen wore his Michael outfit to the 300th ep party.  I wonder if that was some kind of message to the powers that be.  I hope it was. 

I just figured that the costume department had gone to the trouble of making Jensen a perfectly tailored tux that fit him like a glove, that he was only allowed to wear for a total of 3 mins. Jensen didn't want them to feel their time and effort was wasted so he wore it. And boy did they do a good job coz he looked absolutely sensational!

[Myrelle]

2 hours ago, ILoveReading said:

This is part of the reason I think Dean was right when he told them to pick a hemisphere.  I still don't think they like each other very much.

Yes there are time when Dean tries to control Sam, but I find he's usually pretty unsuccessful for the most part because Sam rarely listens to him.  So for me, Dean often comes across as bossy where Sam comes across at the controlling one.   But for me the big difference is that Sam is often given a voice to confront Dean on this.  Fallen Idols. and The Purge, or when Sam demanded Dean dump Benny or he'll dump him, Sacrifice, Shadows, Southern comfort where once again Sam threatens to leave Dean unless Dean drops his feelings of abandoment are ones that immediately come to mind.  Or we'll get someone like Bobby being a mouth piece and lecturing Dean about how hard they are on Sam. 

There are times when Dean is allowed to voice his displeasure, but I find he's usually made to take it back or later apologize for even thinking that way.  When he said he was upset about the demon blood the writers went out of the their way to write Fallen Idols and had Dean act like a dick just to justify Sam's speech.   Sam didn't treat Dean like that in s4.  Or The Raid, when Dean was made to take back what he said, and learn to let other make a decision and then in the exact same episode they made it clear, Sam was going to lie to Dean about the brits.  When Dean found out, he wasn't even allowed to be mad or upset.  He was made to go along with Sam.  Sam promoted himself for that decsion.  You may think it was wrong the the show never treated it like it was.  

Sam and Dean pretty much did the exact same thing with the book of the damned and Gadreel.  Dean was raked over the coals for being controlling.  Sam was considered a loving brother.  So there is a clear double standard.

I think that Dean is the only character on this show who simply MUST put family first-every other character is allowed a measure of individuality except him.

And I think this via the writers absolute refusal to allow Dean more individuality is what's stagnated the character more than anything else. And that's why when I read about Dean's "growth" in terms of his "allowing" Sam to grow up, all I can do is shake my head in dismay because that denies Sam's culpability in the CO-dependent relationship AND it reinforces and sustains the unceasing nature of that stagnation in Dean while still allowing Sam to "grow", in some ways.

And what's most disturbing is that they are doing the same thing with Mary, since she's been resurrected and even Jack, to a degree, IMO.

It was in S1 when Yellow-eyes told Dean that his family doesn't need him-not like he needs them-and I think that was true then and I think it's true now; so for me, growth for Dean would be realizing that this has always been true and realizing that he doesn't always have to be the one to compromise and/or bury his own feelings just to keep the peace within the family.

And how he feels about the things that have been done to him, personally and especially, should be shown by the writing to be just as important as anything that's happened to one or more of his family members, if we're talking genuine growth For. Dean.

Otherwise, the story for Dean is nothing but tragic in every way, IMO.

Edited November 19, 2018 by Myrelle

[AwesomO4000]

5 hours ago, catrox14 said:

Dean is guilty of openly telling Sam how he should cope but then let's it go and IMO doesn't play passive aggressive games.  JMHO

5 hours ago, ILoveReading said:

Yes there are time when Dean tries to control Sam, but I find he's usually pretty unsuccessful for the most part because Sam rarely listens to him.  So for me, Dean often comes across as bossy where Sam comes across at the controlling one.  

It depends. When it comes to actions - especially if Sam gets it in his head that his decision is the right one - then yes, Sam generally doesn't listen... and the narrative generally punishes Sam for it, too. But when it comes to feelings... I disagree. Sam generally does listen to Dean. So in a way, Dean doesn't have to keep at Sam, because Sam generally does what Dean says. With Jessica, Sam said there were things he would keep to himself, but it wasn't long after that that Sam opened up and told Dean. Dean told Sam in no uncertain terms that he wasn't going to talk about losing John, and so Sam conceded, until it started coming up as issues for Dean... but still as afar as I know, they never discussed it, so Dean won that one, too. When Dean told Sam to bury his rage issues, Sam did, and we never heard from them again. When Dean told Sam to stop being a bitch in "The Mentalists," - despite Sam having a legitimate reason to be angry - Sam did and they got back together and all was forgiven.

5 hours ago, ILoveReading said:

But for me the big difference is that Sam is often given a voice to confront Dean on this.  Fallen Idols. and The Purge, or when Sam demanded Dean dump Benny or he'll dump him, Sacrifice, Shadows, Southern comfort where once again Sam threatens to leave Dean unless Dean drops his feelings of abandoment are ones that immediately come to mind.  Or we'll get someone like Bobby being a mouth piece and lecturing Dean about how hard they are on Sam. 

A lot of these things were from the Carver era. The "Fallen Idol" thing for me is a mixed bag, because leaving aside that I disagree with the popular interpretation, the narrative in the rest of the season didn't match this. They often used other characters to voice the opinion - namely Castiel - but it was there. And sure Sam was given the "The Purge" speech, but then Sam was summarily shown by the narrative to be a liar about the most important thing in that speech, so why should the rest of that speech hold any weight at all? And then all of the consequences for Dean concerning Gadreel were all swept under the rug by the narrative. Not even Kevin being killed was shown to be a bad thing... An entire episode was devoted to showing how ghost Kevin saved his imprisoned mother, warned Sam and Dean about the trapped souls, and then got to go home with his mom... so that, in my opinion, entirely diluted Sam's horror at killing Kevin. The narrative was showing how Kevin having died was a good thing, so what was Sam even complaining about? (Compare that to the horror of Charlie, so that when Dean raked Sam over the coals for that, what Dean said was allowed to stand uncontested.)

So I guess it depends on what you mean by Sam being given a "voice." Because sometimes when Sam does have a voice, what he says gets diluted by the narrative. Who can take Sam seriously about complaining about Dean taking away his agency when it is shown that he would do the same thing? And how horrible is it anyway that Kevin was killed when Kevin being a ghost had mainly good consequences? See Sam, it wasn't that bad at all. So the writers let Sam say stuff... but then later happenings either dilute or entirely overturn any impact Sam's words might have had and just serve to make Sam look like a drama queen who didn't really have anything to complain about it the first place... And if those two things weren't enough to entirely diminish Sam's "The Purge" speech, Gadreel being redeemed finished it off. How can I take Sam's complaints about Dean helping an entity take over his body and how traumatic that supposedly was, when the writers later take that all back by having Sam say that after thinking about it, Gadreel didn't feel evil or like he had been trying to hurt Sam. Really? Gadreel invaded Sam's private thoughts and used them against him, erased his memories, and threatened to kill him repeatedly, but nah, he wasn't really trying to hurt Sam. Oh and in the end he's a "friend" too...

Benny was similar. It's hard for me to see the narrative giving Sam a legitimate voice concerning Benny when first of all, it was an out of character thing for Sam to do to begin with, but then it turns out Benny is just the gosh, darndest, vampire with a heart of gold ever. I find it really, really hard to believe that we were supposed to side with Sam on that one. Otherwise there would have been a really easy way for that to be shown: Benny being evil. But nope, not only was Benny not evil, Sam was partially made to be the one to cause him problems, but Benny was still the most awesomest guy ever, sacrificing himself to save Sam. The Benny wobifying and pimping was off the charts. Once again, any legitimate complaints Sam might have had were twisted and shown to have no grounds at all.

So while you might see Benny and "The Purge" as examples of Sam being given a voice. I see it as the narrative setting Sam up for any of his points to be taken back and Sam proven wrong. So Sam is given a "voice," but the narrative then shows Sam's opinion to be wrong, wrong, wrong. Which for me is worse than giving Sam no voice at all.

6 hours ago, ILoveReading said:

Sam and Dean pretty much did the exact same thing with the book of the damned and Gadreel.  Dean was raked over the coals for being controlling.  Sam was considered a loving brother.  So there is a clear double standard.

I agree, but not in the way you see it. In my opinion, any raking of Dean over the coals for being controlling was summarily taken back when Gadreel turned out to be an ally who helped save the world and a "friend," Kevin got a happy ending, and Sam would do the same thing to save Dean, so therefore he would be just as controlling as Dean. Meanwhile Sam supposedly being shown as a "loving brother" included everyone and his/her dog - including the people helping him - telling Sam he shouldn't be doing this, Bobby telling Sam he shouldn't be lying to Dean, Dean getting to blame Sam for Charlie's death and that being able to stand, and oh yeah -Sam causing an apocalypse rather than helping to stop one.

So Dean gets to argue that helping Gadreel take over Sam (which I actually had no problem with, myself) and lying about it for months (which I had a big problem with) helped to save Sam and it wasn't really that bad... and he's proven to be right

...While Sam is told he shouldn't be trying to save Dean, and that bad things will happen... and Sam is proven to be wrong and causes an apocalypse.

So I agree that there is a double standard, but in my opinion, it is Dean who is let off the hook with no consequences at all for Gadreel, while Sam is blamed for starting an apocalypse - and in case we were wondering, the verse's God himself tells us so... which also coincidentally takes away any consequence for Dean for the mark of Cain, too, because see, Dean recklessly taking on the mark of Cain was fine and wouldn't have caused anything to worry about... it was that loser brother of his who caused the problems. So says the writers God.***

So yes, I agree that there are double standards, but I suspect not the ones that you see.

*** Ironically I LOVED that episode, and it is still one of my favorites of any TV show. Go figure.

[tessathereaper]

On 11/17/2018 at 2:30 PM, juppschmitz said:

So, both Dean and Jack canonically feel responsible for the Michael crisis.

Do you know who apparently doesn’t? (Not canonically, not yet, anyway.) Do you know through whose stupid, impulsive action Michael and Lucifer’s coming to our world was made possible in the first place?

Yeah, exactly.

Interesting that?  He doesn't feel guilty and the show seems to have forgotten about it, as usual

[Pondlass1]

13 hours ago, Myrelle said:

Otherwise, the story for Dean is nothing but tragic in every way, IMO.

When I see photos of Jensen with his children I feel a stab of pity for Dean.  He would’ve been such a great husband and dad. But he never got a chance. It is a tragedy.

*wrong thread sorry 

[tessathereaper]

16 hours ago, catrox14 said:

Difference for me is that Dean generally lets it go after saying his peace.  Sam comes back at Dean in passive aggressive ways which is why I think Sam is more controlling than Dean.  Dean is guilty of openly telling Sam how he should cope but then let's it go and IMO doesn't play passive aggressive games.  JMHO

Same.  There is a difference between sharing your opinion and then, leaving it alone.  And there is a difference about saying "you should talk about it" and then, again, leaving it alone.  Sam keeps at it and keeps at it and is weirdly judgmental about it. It comes across less as concern and more about being annoyed Dean's "doing it wrong", even when it's Dean's OWN feelings.

Yes Dean has said "You should do it this way" but he tends to say it and then just move on. 

[7kstar]

On 11/11/2018 at 12:53 PM, MysteryGuest said:

My bitch is that I want better writing all the way around, for all of the characters.  I want them to tell interesting stories. 

This is my biggest complaint and all the issues are from poor writing choices.  I didn't see Dean asking Sam to take Jack on a hunt.  More like him saying I'm going out and Sam trying to talk him out of it.  But Dean didn't listen and did it anyway.

I see Dean as a better leader because of his actions.  Sam's actions don't match the tell for me so that is on the writers to fix.  I think all the complaints could be resolved if the stories were stronger.  I'm waiting to see if they show me why Dean feels so guilty because so far I don't see much for him to have an issue with.  Michael was mainly killing monsters...so why is that such a bad thing?

I am also wondering if Jensen has been allowed to spend more time with family due to the twins and such.  No clue if they are writing in a way that allows him more time or not, but that would make this fan feel better. lol JMV.

[MysteryGuest]

3 hours ago, 7kstar said:

I am also wondering if Jensen has been allowed to spend more time with family due to the twins and such.  No clue if they are writing in a way that allows him more time or not, but that would make this fan feel better. lol JMV.

I doubt that Jensen would get any more time off than Jared since they both have 3 young children, but they do seem to be staggering their shooting schedule.  I'm sure it's just a way for them to stretch out the limited number of scenes they get with the J's.  They get double the mileage when they split them up.  It's not to my liking, but I wouldn't be surprised to learn that not only did the boys negotiate fewer episodes, but possibly also fewer scenes in the episodes they do shoot.  Shorter shooting days, etc.  I would definitely have preferred a 13 episode series with more Jensen and Jared and less extras.

[7kstar]

50 minutes ago, MysteryGuest said:

I doubt that Jensen would get any more time off than Jared since they both have 3 young children, but they do seem to be staggering their shooting schedule.  I'm sure it's just a way for them to stretch out the limited number of scenes they get with the J's.

My only reasoning was that the twins are almost two, while Jared has one child that young and the others are older.  But it doesn't mean I know squat about why they are showing more Jared now vs Jensen.  Although by having the boys do separate hunts it allows for different scheduling and time off. 

I totally get their desire to have more time off and they can call the shots so to speak on this show vs a new one but I would rather they end the show than what I'm seeing if that makes any sense.  Just my preference...but I want a show to go out on top, not limp to the finish line.

[devlin]

I can't believe dean has been back for 4 episodes and not once has Mary asked Dean how he is doing post possession. She has been on hand to reassure sam that he is the bestest leader that ever was and she has been emotionally available enough to bobby to enable them to start a relationship. She has shown not one iota of concern for her eldest. All of the mary/Dean scenes from previous episodes have now been tainted and I deeply resent dabb and his cohorts for that.( though Samantha's acting has not helped either)

[Res]

Moved from Ep Optimism Thread to be safe: 

Quote

 

4 HOURS AGO, RES SAID:

My take on the Mary run, if it really was that (and at this point in time we do not have reason to doubt other than pointless hope for more), is that Dean was just "being a good son" as he is.

 

Quote

From: ILOVEREADING: This is how I saw it.  But I have a personal head canon that Dean used this as a cover story.  He actually went somewhere to get away from Chief and his minions.  So I think he met Ketch and they went for a motor bike ride, a quick hunt, and a makeout session. 

I completely understand your head canon and sympathize but we all know that TPTB will NEVER let Dean be about ANYBODY but SAM and family then any pet projects they want to prop which is why he is never allowed any growth or development and ALWAYS has to be about SAM, no matter what. They have completely neutered him in that aspect. Dean will take anything they dish out and keep being the good son, good brother, perfect soldier and weapon. That is all the character development he will ever be allowed. Just to be about everyone else regardless of the massive amount of trauma and dysfunction he deals with on a constant basis. He will never be allowed to deal with any of that because someone else or something else will always take precedence over him. I would say that "Death is his only release" but that's not true because he always comes back. Like Cas said, "I realize now that's a curse."

[juppschmitz]

17 hours ago, tessathereaper said:

Interesting that?  He doesn't feel guilty and the show seems to have forgotten about it, as usual

Show also seems to have completely forgotten who it was that was convinced GOD chose him specifically for his quest to go back to the Cage and seek out Lucifer. Because playing into Sam's hubris is exactly the right ploy to get him to do what you want.

Was Sam ever held responsible for this? All I see is people being upset on Sam's behalf every time he has to face Lucifer (poor, sweet baby), but not that he is actually ultimately resonsible for re-releasing him. And just to remind people: Dean was very outspoken that he considered it a bad idea that Sam went to the Cage.

[ILoveReading]

I know this is petty but I really don't care.  One of my favorite moments of the ep was when Sam was playing with his fidget spinner and really enjoying it Charlie gives him a Sam's patented buzzkill look and he gets embarrassed and stops. 

Considering how many times Sam does that to Dean when he's enjoying something it serves him right that he got a taste of his own medicine.

Edited November 20, 2018 by ILoveReading

[catrox14]

2 hours ago, ILoveReading said:

I know this is petty but I really don't care.  One of my favorite moments of the ep was when Sam was playing with his fidget spinner and really enjoying it Charlie gives him a Sam's patented buzzkill look and he gets embarrassed and stops. 

 

 I don't see Sam playing with a fidget spinner much less making a goofy face whilst doing it. It came across as Jared playing with it during filming and they kept it in. If it was Charlie being Sam in that moment, then that furthers my belief the show is trying to turn Sam into Dean.

[gonzosgirrl]

13 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

 I don't see Sam playing with a fidget spinner much less making a goofy face whilst doing it. It came across as Jared playing with it during filming and they kept it in. If it was Charlie being Sam in that moment, then that furthers my belief the show is trying to turn Sam into Dean.

This is how far they have gone in making Sam joyless (IMO) - that it seems so OOC for him to play with a simple toy. It also (IMO) highlights the difference in what they do to/with the two characters when it comes to teasing or in worse case, mocking. Dean stumbles over gates, is clumsy to the extreme, can't pronounce (or understand) simple phrases in another language, has literal food falling out of his mouth while chewing with his mouth open. Sam plays with a super-popular (if a little passé) toy.

Edited November 20, 2018 by gonzosgirrl
because I am physically unable not to have a typo

[Mulva]

7 hours ago, juppschmitz said:

Show also seems to have completely forgotten who it was that was convinced GOD chose him specifically for his quest to go back to the Cage and seek out Lucifer. Because playing into Sam's hubris is exactly the right ploy to get him to do what you want.

Was Sam ever held responsible for this? All I see is people being upset on Sam's behalf every time he has to face Lucifer (poor, sweet baby), but not that he is actually ultimately resonsible for re-releasing him. And just to remind people: Dean was very outspoken that he considered it a bad idea that Sam went to the Cage.

Cas was responsible for letting Lucifer out of the cage.  Sam said no to him.

[ahrtee]

34 minutes ago, Mulva said:

Cas was responsible for letting Lucifer out of the cage.  Sam said no to him.

Sam was responsible for bringing Lucifer out of the Pit, and for believing that the cage would hold him, and he didn't wait for Dean to tell him it was a bad idea.  That's the only reason Cas wound up face to face with Luci and able to say yes.  And yes, saying yes was Cas's idea, though I'm sure it wouldn't even have occurred to him if he hadn't been right there at the time.

[juppschmitz]

27 minutes ago, Mulva said:

Cas was responsible for letting Lucifer out of the cage.  Sam said no to him.

I'm talking about insisting on going to the Cage in the first place, but whatever, feel free to disagree.

[Reganne]

12 hours ago, juppschmitz said:

Show also seems to have completely forgotten who it was that was convinced GOD chose him specifically for his quest to go back to the Cage and seek out Lucifer. Because playing into Sam's hubris is exactly the right ploy to get him to do what you want.

Was Sam ever held responsible for this? All I see is people being upset on Sam's behalf every time he has to face Lucifer (poor, sweet baby), but not that he is actually ultimately resonsible for re-releasing him. And just to remind people: Dean was very outspoken that he considered it a bad idea that Sam went to the Cage.

Ultimately Cas was the one who re-released Lucifer.  Sam makes a lot of mistakes in the series and yes it was a mistake to go to the cage, but what actually released him from the cage was acquiring a vessel which Castiel provided him.... not Sam going into the cage itself.  Just because Cas went to the cage to help Sam, that doesnt mean it erases all responsibility for his (Castiels) own choices.

[gonzosgirrl]

8 minutes ago, Reganne said:

Ultimately Cas was the one who re-released Lucifer.  Sam makes a lot of mistakes in the series and yes it was a mistake to go to the cage, but what actually released him from the cage was acquiring a vessel which Castiel provided him.... not Sam going into the cage itself.  Just because Cas went to the cage to help Sam, that doesnt mean it erases all responsibility for his (Castiels) own choices.

I agree. They are both responsible.

[Reganne]

As far as Sam in season 14, I am glad that they are showing him to be somewhat competent with his hunting this season especially after the last half of season 13 could only show him as a weak and useless hunter.

As far as I'm concerned I could take or leave the leader storyline as I'm not that invested in much of the AU hunters.  They arent really showing us most of these characters onscreen and they are essentially nameless faces.  I just want to see Sam be competent and successful at times which was seriously lacking last season.

As far as Dean is concerned, he seems to be very competent still with hunting.  He essentially solved and killed the djinn all on his own 2 episodes ago.  He also got the more interesting storyline last episode.  I can understand the disappointment in the lack of Michael storyline for Dean at the moment, but he is still being shown to be a great hunter.  IMO, it is better to show this onscreen than to just have a character say it.  I feel the narrative does better and takes more time showing things for Dean as opposed to telling the audience which sometimes happens with Sam.

[ahrtee]

18 minutes ago, Reganne said:

IMO, it is better to show this onscreen than to just have a character say it.  I feel the narrative does better and takes more time showing things for Dean as opposed to telling the audience which sometimes happens with Sam.

I would agree with this, except that, as witnessed here in this forum many, many times, the "show" is interpreted by the viewer, and usually creates more debate because it *isn't* said outright.  Usually the "tell" is direct and, while some might disagree with what it's saying, there's less question of what exactly was intended.   Although I admit even a direct statement is subject to interpretation of tone of voice, expression, body language, and what you think of the character.  

[Reganne]

16 minutes ago, ahrtee said:

I would agree with this, except that, as witnessed here in this forum many, many times, the "show" is interpreted by the viewer, and usually creates more debate because it *isn't* said outright.  Usually the "tell" is direct and, while some might disagree with what it's saying, there's less question of what exactly was intended.   Although I admit even a direct statement is subject to interpretation of tone of voice, expression, body language, and what you think of the character.  

For me, I would rather see it.  Then you know that effort was actually put forth in an attempt to tell their story.  And I do agree that even having a character say something can be interpreted differently anyway.  

[ahrtee]

1 hour ago, Reganne said:

Ultimately Cas was the one who re-released Lucifer.  Sam makes a lot of mistakes in the series and yes it was a mistake to go to the cage, but what actually released him from the cage was acquiring a vessel which Castiel provided him.... not Sam going into the cage itself.  Just because Cas went to the cage to help Sam, that doesnt mean it erases all responsibility for his (Castiels) own choices.

It was absolutely Cas's choice.  Of course, he wouldnt' have been in the position to make that choice if Sam hadn't retrieved Lucifer and Cas hadn't shown up in order to "rescue" Sam.  So I'd say the blame for the situation can be shared.** Cas takes the sole blame for saying yes. 

**ETA: Actually, no.  The blame for creating the situation is all Sam's.  The blame for saying yes is all Cas.  

10 minutes ago, Reganne said:

For me, I would rather see it.  Then you know that effort was actually put forth in an attempt to tell their story.  And I do agree that even having a character say something can be interpreted differently anyway.  

Considering how many "discussions" I've seen here where people see the same exact thing on screen and interpret it completely opposite, I'd appreciate a "tell" once in a while, just to validate one side or another.   

Edited November 21, 2018 by ahrtee

[AwesomO4000]

2 hours ago, ahrtee said:

**ETA: Actually, no.  The blame for creating the situation is all Sam's. 

Actually, in my opinion, no... it's partly Sam's and partly Rowena's. Rowena lied and manipulated the situation to her own ends. Sam shouldn't have even been able to be brought into the cage to begin with. Rowena botched the spell purposely. Sam maybe should have known better, but that for me doesn't take away that Rowena was partially responsible.

Also - as detailed below - in my opinion most, if not all, of the blame for Lucifer being around to cause Michael belongs to Crowley.

16 hours ago, juppschmitz said:

Show also seems to have completely forgotten who it was that was convinced GOD chose him specifically for his quest to go back to the Cage and seek out Lucifer. Because playing into Sam's hubris is exactly the right ploy to get him to do what you want.

Sam was looking for information. It's what Sam does. And Lucifer was one of the very few - maybe only - beings who might have the information they needed.

As for hubris... in my opinion, Sam praying to God (and mainly on Dean's behalf) - who he has mostly had faith in his entirely life, and who he still wanted to have faith in after having much of his life manipulated to satisfy God's little fable and spending over a hundred years in hell with Lucifer - and hoping that maybe he finally, finally might get some help - to me - is not hubris. It was the hope of a desperate man hoping for information. And in Sam's defense, Dean didn't really say exactly why Sam supposedly going was a bad idea... he mostly just said no, because he said so.

I think some people might also be forgetting that despite all of that - Sam's bad decision, Castiel's bad decision, God allowing Lucifer to stay and not killing him, etc... - that Lucifer would be back in the cage anyway with little harm done except for the fact that Crowley sabotaged the spell to send Lucifer back to the cage in order to satisfy his own need for revenge and comeuppance. So in my opinion most of the blame actually belongs to Crowley more than anyone else. If it weren't for Crowley, Lucifer would have been back in the cage and we hopefully never would have heard from him again.

[ahrtee]

14 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

Actually, in my opinion, no... it's partly Sam's and partly Rowena's. Rowena lied and manipulated the situation to her own ends. Sam shouldn't have even been able to be brought into the cage to begin with. Rowena botched the spell purposely. Sam maybe should have known better, but that for me doesn't take away that Rowena was partially responsible.

Also - as detailed below - in my opinion most, if not all, of the blame for Lucifer being around to cause Michael belongs to Crowley.

Um, in my opinion, no.  

Lucifer was locked away.  Trapped in the cage he'd been stuck in for millennia, so we know there was no way he could break out on his own.  Sam's the one who locked him there, so he knew how important it was to keep him locked up, especially with his unique perspective on Lucifer's character. 

The *only* reason he was topside and able to escape--able to have Rowena manipulate the situation, or to have Cas let him out or Crowley let him escape--was because Sam insisted on it.  And the reason he insisted...was because he didn't believe anyone who told him it was a bad idea, not even to wait long enough to think things through rationally.  He was convinced that he was right and that he could control the situation.  That's hubris.  And *everything* that happened as a result of that is his fault in some sense.  He may not have pulled the trigger, but he bought, loaded and handed the gun to people he knew were unstable and/or untrustworthy.

Maybe he was desperate, but there are some things you shouldn't risk, even if it seems the only way.   That was the same thing he did with the Book of the Damned.  So he just never seems to learn.  

[AwesomO4000]

1 hour ago, ahrtee said:

And the reason he insisted...was because he didn't believe anyone who told him it was a bad idea, not even to wait long enough to think things through rationally. He was convinced that he was right and that he could control the situation.  That's hubris. 

But how is this is different from the other main characters on this show? Dean and Castiel also make those kinds of decisions and also think that they are right and can control the situation. Often. I can think of at least 6 examples off the top of my head for Dean and at least another 4 for Castiel. And it's not even restricted to the good guys. Crowley did it, too, even though he usually thought things through supposedly (which almost makes it worse). Castiel made one in this very scenario when he said "yes" to Lucifer. So why is it only Sam who gets saddled with and blamed for these kinds of decisions and is accused of having hubris? ...Actually I take that back - Castiel gets called on it, too, and Crowley. I guess only Dean gets to make reckless and/or arrogant decisions, but not be called out for having hubris. Even in one of the most illustrative examples - when Dean was going to say "yes" to Michael in season 5 - it's painted as Dean not thinking enough of himself or "sacrificing" himself via suicide rather than what it actually was... Dean thinking he and he alone should be the one to decide for everyone else and change the plan and also that he could somehow bargain with Michael (thinking he could control the situation), no matter what anyone else said or tried to tell him concerning the costs of his decision. And he decided that he had to do it right then, not wanting to wait to think it through more. In my opinion, that was hubris. With Dean, it's just usually not painted as such by the narrative.

Sam is more often set up as the convenient goat, in my opinion. For the situation with Lucifer, it wasn't even really necessary to have this be because of Sam wanting to talk with Lucifer... that was just an excuse to shift much of the blame on to him. Rowena had been getting dreams from Lucifer for weeks - which is why we got Santa Lucifer - and she somehow knew to let him get out, so there had to have been some sort of communication there somehow. Since it was mostly her magic that set everything up, I don't see why she couldn't have done the entire thing without Sam needing to even be there... Sam just provided a convenient cover / excuse for her to do it... and a vessel, but there could have been other choices for that.

So I disagree. Sam wanting to talk to Lucifer did not guarantee him getting out. Sam didn't provide any guns or bullets. Rowena had the gun - The Book of the Damned and the Codex - and she had the bullets, too - her magic talent. Without those things, Sam could have wanted to talk to Lucifer until he was blue in the face and nothing would have happened, because he had no means to accomplish it. And it wasn't like Rowena didn't have some sort of idea about it already, because she had been communicating with Lucifer and she knew it was Lucifer she was communicating with. She didn't need Sam for anything really except to be a convenient cover to do what she wanted to do anyway.

For all we know, Chuck could have decided to bring Lucifer back to help with the Amara situation. He certainly seemed to convince Sam and Dean that they needed Lucifer to fight her, because they refused to deal with Crowley to stick Lucifer back in the cage (which actually based on what happened later was probably a lie, but the sentiment that they needed Lucifer was there nonetheless...) But then Chuck didn't bother to take care of the Lucifer problem either, leaving it to Sam and Dean to clean up - which they did ... until Crowley made sure Lucifer didn't get returned to the cage when he could have been.

So yeah, in my opinion, Sam gets blamed when actually there is plenty of blame to go around.

[devlin]

4 hours ago, ahrtee said:

Um, in my opinion, no.  

Lucifer was locked away.  Trapped in the cage he'd been stuck in for millennia, so we know there was no way he could break out on his own.  Sam's the one who locked him there, so he knew how important it was to keep him locked up, especially with his unique perspective on Lucifer's character. 

The *only* reason he was topside and able to escape--able to have Rowena manipulate the situation, or to have Cas let him out or Crowley let him escape--was because Sam insisted on it.  And the reason he insisted...was because he didn't believe anyone who told him it was a bad idea, not even to wait long enough to think things through rationally.  He was convinced that he was right and that he could control the situation.  That's hubris.  And *everything* that happened as a result of that is his fault in some sense.  He may not have pulled the trigger, but he bought, loaded and handed the gun to people he knew were unstable and/or untrustworthy.

Maybe he was desperate, but there are some things you shouldn't risk, even if it seems the only way.   That was the same thing he did with the Book of the Damned.  So he just never seems to learn.  

It would make sam a much more attractive character if he even took the slightest bit of responsibility instead of placing blame on those around him

[juppschmitz]

1 hour ago, AwesomO4000 said:

Rowena had the gun - The Book of the Damned and the Codex

...and who was supposed to get rid of the BotD, but didn't? And only pretended to instead?

Actually my memory is kind of fuzzy where the last few seasons are concerned, maybe I'm remembering wrong...

[DeeDee79]

22 minutes ago, juppschmitz said:

...and who was supposed to get rid of the BotD, but didn't? And only pretended to instead?

Actually my memory is kind of fuzzy where the last few seasons are concerned, maybe I'm remembering wrong...

Nope, your memory is fine! That’s what happened 😊

[AwesomO4000]

44 minutes ago, juppschmitz said:

...and who was supposed to get rid of the BotD, but didn't? And only pretended to instead?

Even if Sam had thrown the BotD in the fire that wouldn't have gotten rid of it, because the book can't be destroyed which the Styne family knew. Instead the Stynes would have found it, and it potentially might have been worse... A rare case of Sam doing something somewhat "bad" accidentally turning out to be the better of two evils... Now using it was a different thing, but not throwing the book in the fireplace actually turned out to be the right thing to do, because the Stynes would have gotten their hands on it.

[juppschmitz]

10 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

Even if Sam had thrown the BotD in the fire that wouldn't have gotten rid of it, because the book can't be destroyed which the Styne family knew. Instead the Stynes would have found it, and it potentially might have been worse... A rare case of Sam doing something somewhat "bad" accidentally turning out to be the better of two evils... Now using it was a different thing, but not throwing the book in the fireplace actually turned out to be the right thing to do, because the Stynes would have gotten their hands on it.

Ah, ok. And the Stynes had the codex too, right?

[gonzosgirrl]

3 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:

But how is this is different from the other main characters on this show? Dean and Castiel also make those kinds of decisions and also think that they are right and can control the situation. Often. I can think of at least 6 examples off the top of my head for Dean and at least another 4 for Castiel. And it's not even restricted to the good guys. Crowley did it, too, even though he usually thought things through supposedly (which almost makes it worse). Castiel made one in this very scenario when he said "yes" to Lucifer. So why is it only Sam who gets saddled with and blamed for these kinds of decisions and is accused of having hubris? ...Actually I take that back - Castiel gets called on it, too, and Crowley. I guess only Dean gets to make reckless and/or arrogant decisions, but not be called out for having hubris. Even in one of the most illustrative examples - when Dean was going to say "yes" to Michael in season 5 - it's painted as Dean not thinking enough of himself or "sacrificing" himself via suicide rather than what it actually was... Dean thinking he and he alone should be the one to decide for everyone else and change the plan and also that he could somehow bargain with Michael (thinking he could control the situation), no matter what anyone else said or tried to tell him concerning the costs of his decision. And he decided that he had to do it right then, not wanting to wait to think it through more. In my opinion, that was hubris. With Dean, it's just usually not painted as such by the narrative.

But none of that changes Sam's culpability for creating the situation that resulted in Lucifer escaping the cage  

As for the Dean/Michael comparison,  the difference is, in the end, Dean changed his mind. He listened to Sam and to his conscience and couldn't let Sam down. He stopped. Sam didn't. 

[juppschmitz]

39 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

Even if Sam had thrown the BotD in the fire that wouldn't have gotten rid of it, because the book can't be destroyed which the Styne family knew. Instead the Stynes would have found it, and it potentially might have been worse... A rare case of Sam doing something somewhat "bad" accidentally turning out to be the better of two evils... Now using it was a different thing, but not throwing the book in the fireplace actually turned out to be the right thing to do, because the Stynes would have gotten their hands on it.

Also, a) what could have been a worse evil than eleasing the literal devil into the world and

b) my original argument wasn't even so much about is Sam to blame for Lucifer getting out or not, but does he even (canonically, not fangirly) feel guilty/show remorse the way Jack and Dean do for Michael.

[gonzosgirrl]

10 minutes ago, juppschmitz said:

my original argument wasn't even so much about is Sam to blame for Lucifer getting out or not, but does he even (canonically, not fangirly) feel guilty/show remorse the way Jack and Dean do for Michael.

For me, the difference is that when Dean expresses guilt and/or remorse,  he really believes he is guilty. When Sam does it, it feels more like he just wants somebody to tell him he's wrong - and usually, someone does. Out loud. In words.

[tessathereaper]

5 hours ago, devlin said:

It would make sam a much more attractive character if he even took the slightest bit of responsibility instead of placing blame on those around him

Yep, the show's insistence on Sam's perfection, that he is never fully responsible for his actions - that even if there is blame it is always, always shared with others and he is somehow assigned the smallest amount of blame, so small as to be almost non-existent does absolutely nothing to help the character's likability.  There was just zero reason for Sam to get in the cage with Lucifer, none, whatever his reasoning was, it was ultimately based on his own hubris, the hubris the show seems to insist doesn't exist and never calls him to account for.

 

And yeah I don't actually think the Stynes getting the BoD would have been worse.  Yes they are bad guys but truly, not getting rid of it, even if the Stynes had ended up with it(which they may not have) would not have been worse than what actually happened.

Edited November 21, 2018 by tessathereaper

[BabySpinach]

9 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:

But how is this is different from the other main characters on this show? Dean and Castiel also make those kinds of decisions and also think that they are right and can control the situation. Often. I can think of at least 6 examples off the top of my head for Dean and at least another 4 for Castiel. And it's not even restricted to the good guys. Crowley did it, too, even though he usually thought things through supposedly (which almost makes it worse). Castiel made one in this very scenario when he said "yes" to Lucifer. So why is it only Sam who gets saddled with and blamed for these kinds of decisions and is accused of having hubris? ...Actually I take that back - Castiel gets called on it, too, and Crowley. I guess only Dean gets to make reckless and/or arrogant decisions, but not be called out for having hubris. Even in one of the most illustrative examples - when Dean was going to say "yes" to Michael in season 5 - it's painted as Dean not thinking enough of himself or "sacrificing" himself via suicide rather than what it actually was... Dean thinking he and he alone should be the one to decide for everyone else and change the plan and also that he could somehow bargain with Michael (thinking he could control the situation), no matter what anyone else said or tried to tell him concerning the costs of his decision. And he decided that he had to do it right then, not wanting to wait to think it through more. In my opinion, that was hubris. With Dean, it's just usually not painted as such by the narrative.

I don't see any reason for why Dean's motivations should be interpreted as hubris in season 5. The entire season up to that point was devoted to breaking Dean down, making him believe there was no other way and no hope. He and Sam sought out God, who told them to piss off. Dean went to say goodbye to Lisa, because he genuinely believed he was going to be gone forever. And every time he witnessed yet another casualty of the apocalypse, he put it on himself that it was all happening because he wasn't saying yes and just getting everything over with. 

There's no indication that Dean thought he could "control" the situation once he was possessed. He was simply considering yielding because he could see no other way. And literally every outside force was telling him to do it, including old friends up in Heaven. Contrast this with season 4, when every outside force was telling Sam NOT to drink demon blood, yet he forged ahead regardless. THAT was hubris, not Dean's behavior in season 5. It's not arrogant to eventually yield to what everyone argues you should do. That's just human nature.

What else could they have done to get it across clearer that Dean was suicidal and hopeless rather than hubristic? Famine literally told Dean that he was "dead inside". There was no heroic desire, or pride, or over-confidence on Dean's part; he genuinely thought that saying yes to Michael was the only choice he had. Then he changed his mind, because he is much stronger than he thinks he is, and told destiny to screw itself in the face.

Edited November 21, 2018 by BabySpinach

[Reganne]

9 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:

But how is this is different from the other main characters on this show? Dean and Castiel also make those kinds of decisions and also think that they are right and can control the situation. Often. I can think of at least 6 examples off the top of my head for Dean and at least another 4 for Castiel. And it's not even restricted to the good guys. Crowley did it, too, even though he usually thought things through supposedly (which almost makes it worse). Castiel made one in this very scenario when he said "yes" to Lucifer. So why is it only Sam who gets saddled with and blamed for these kinds of decisions and is accused of having hubris? ...Actually I take that back - Castiel gets called on it, too, and Crowley. I guess only Dean gets to make reckless and/or arrogant decisions, but not be called out for having hubris. Even in one of the most illustrative examples - when Dean was going to say "yes" to Michael in season 5 - it's painted as Dean not thinking enough of himself or "sacrificing" himself via suicide rather than what it actually was... Dean thinking he and he alone should be the one to decide for everyone else and change the plan and also that he could somehow bargain with Michael (thinking he could control the situation), no matter what anyone else said or tried to tell him concerning the costs of his decision. And he decided that he had to do it right then, not wanting to wait to think it through more. In my opinion, that was hubris. With Dean, it's just usually not painted as such by the narrative.

Sam is more often set up as the convenient goat, in my opinion. For the situation with Lucifer, it wasn't even really necessary to have this be because of Sam wanting to talk with Lucifer... that was just an excuse to shift much of the blame on to him. Rowena had been getting dreams from Lucifer for weeks - which is why we got Santa Lucifer - and she somehow knew to let him get out, so there had to have been some sort of communication there somehow. Since it was mostly her magic that set everything up, I don't see why she couldn't have done the entire thing without Sam needing to even be there... Sam just provided a convenient cover / excuse for her to do it... and a vessel, but there could have been other choices for that.

So I disagree. Sam wanting to talk to Lucifer did not guarantee him getting out. Sam didn't provide any guns or bullets. Rowena had the gun - The Book of the Damned and the Codex - and she had the bullets, too - her magic talent. Without those things, Sam could have wanted to talk to Lucifer until he was blue in the face and nothing would have happened, because he had no means to accomplish it. And it wasn't like Rowena didn't have some sort of idea about it already, because she had been communicating with Lucifer and she knew it was Lucifer she was communicating with. She didn't need Sam for anything really except to be a convenient cover to do what she wanted to do anyway.

For all we know, Chuck could have decided to bring Lucifer back to help with the Amara situation. He certainly seemed to convince Sam and Dean that they needed Lucifer to fight her, because they refused to deal with Crowley to stick Lucifer back in the cage (which actually based on what happened later was probably a lie, but the sentiment that they needed Lucifer was there nonetheless...) But then Chuck didn't bother to take care of the Lucifer problem either, leaving it to Sam and Dean to clean up - which they did ... until Crowley made sure Lucifer didn't get returned to the cage when he could have been.

So yeah, in my opinion, Sam gets blamed when actually there is plenty of blame to go around.

I agree.  I think Sam tends to get the bulk of the blame when there are others characters who sometimes play a part in the mistakes.  No one blames Rowena for releasing Lucifer even though that was her plan.  Sam didnt even ask Castiel to come to Lucifers cage.  He came with Dean, but people blame Sam for letting Lucifer out.  Dean broke the first seal.... and if it weren't for that,the last seal couldnt have even been broken by Sam in the first place, but Sam is the one who was blamed for that and Dean breaking the first seal was all forgotten come season 5.  As was Castiel letting Sam out of the panic room.  Another action that if it didnt happen, Sam wouldnt have been able to break the last seal either.

 

Dont get me wrong, I know Sam makes mistakes.  I think him making mistakes make his character more interesting to me.  What I dont understand is how he is blamed for everything  without acknowledging other characters flaws and mistakes.

Edited November 21, 2018 by Reganne

[ahrtee]

2 minutes ago, Reganne said:

Dont get me wrong, I know Sam makes mistakes.  I think him making mistakes make his character more interesting to me.  What I dont understand is how people blame everything on him without acknowledging other characters flaws and mistakes.

I see it completely opposite.  I see everyone blaming Dean, and when someone points at Sam, people say, "yes, but Dean...."  *shrugs* Just a question of perspective.

[Reganne]

As far as hubris, both Dean and Sam have shown this at times.  Dean somtimes shows it with the way he speaks with villains IMO.  He also showed it when he went after Metatron at the end of season 9 after hitting Sam on the head because he believed himself to be the only one able to kill Metatron.

Edited November 21, 2018 by Reganne

[tessathereaper]

30 minutes ago, BabySpinach said:

I don't see any reason for why Dean's motivations should be interpreted as hubris in season 5. The entire season up to that point was devoted to breaking Dean down, making him believe there was no other way and no hope. He and Sam sought out God, who told them to piss off. Dean went to say goodbye to Lisa, because he genuinely believed he was going to be gone forever. And every time he witnessed yet another casualty of the apocalypse, he put it on himself that it was all happening because he wasn't saying yes and just getting everything over with. 

There's no indication that Dean thought he could "control" the situation once he was possessed. He was simply considering yielding because he could see no other way. And literally every outside force was telling him to do it, including old friends up in Heaven. Contrast this with season 4, when every outside force was telling Sam NOT to drink demon blood, yet he forged ahead regardless. THAT was hubris, not Dean's behavior in season 5. It's not arrogant to eventually yield to what everyone argues you should do. That's just human nature.

What else could they have done to get it across clearer that Dean was suicidal and hopeless rather than hubristic? Famine literally told Dean that he was "dead inside". There was no heroic desire, or pride, or over-confidence on Dean's part; he genuinely thought that saying yes to Michael was the only choice he had. Then he changed his mind, because he is much stronger than he thinks he is, and told destiny to screw itself in the face.

 

Yeah I mean he resisted and resisted and he had multiple people/things trying to get him to say yes.  So then finally after being broken down and essentially giving up after fighting so long and so hard against it, it's hubris?  

Told destiny to screw itself in the face and stabbed an archangel in the face while doing it. :)  That was so awesome, we'll never reach those heights again I don't think.

8 minutes ago, ahrtee said:

I see it completely opposite.  I see everyone blaming Dean, and when someone points at Sam, people say, "yes, but Dean...."  *shrugs* Just a question of perspective.

That is usually how it goes, blame Dean, blame someone anyone but Sam and the minute Sam's brought into it somehow it's "but so and so...." and all the reasons why Sam either isn't responsible or less responsible than everyone else.

I also don't find blustering to villains to be hubristic esp when it's normally when the villains have the power in the situation and so it's a way of standing up to them.

Edited November 21, 2018 by tessathereaper

[Reganne]

11 minutes ago, ahrtee said:

I see it completely opposite.  I see everyone blaming Dean, and when someone points at Sam, people say, "yes, but Dean...."  *shrugs* Just a question of 

It's hard for me understand that other  perspective on this site TBH.  This conversation started with Sam blame where I dont see anyone shifting all the blame to Dean here.

Edited November 21, 2018 by Reganne

[BabySpinach]

3 minutes ago, Reganne said:

Dean broke the first seal.... and if it weren't for that,the last seal couldnt have even been broken by Sam in the first place, but Sam is the one who was blamed for that and Dean breaking the first seal was all forgotten come season 5.  

See, even the show agrees with you. It loved equating what the brothers did as the same, ie. both of them were responsible for the apocalypse. But the circumstances were wildly different. Dean was tortured endlessly for 30 years, and only broke the seal because he just couldn't handle the torture anymore. The "choice" he made was something that anyone would have eventually made, and most of them would have probably caved within a week rather than entire decades.

On the other hand, it took Sam 1 year and no torture in any capacity to break the last seal. He just needed a demon mistress to stroke his ego, fill his head with heroic fantasies in which he is the strong one and Dean is the weak one clinging to his ankles, and get him hooked on a substance that he willingly took. Those three months of grief do not, in any way, compare to what Dean went through. They just don't.

In no way are these two misdeeds equal. NO. WAY. Or is it somehow fair/righteous that Dean also gets punished topside for breaking the seal as well, after three decades of suffering already?

2 minutes ago, Reganne said:

As far as hubris, both Dean and Sam have shown this at times.  Dean somtimes shows it with the way he speaks with villains IMO.  He also showed it when he went after Metatron at the end of season 9 after hitting Sam on the head because he believed himself to he the only one able to kill Metatron.

Dean going after Metatron was all part of the plan to distract him while Cas snuck upstairs and tried to find the angel tablet. He was the punching bag and the bait, which both Sam and Cas agreed to. Dean knocking out Sam was for his safety, since Sam would have just been another punching bag. No, Dean didn't go off on his own because he thought he was just so darn great. He was playing a part and willingly putting himself in harm's way, as usual. Metatron even mentioned that Dean was "stalling".

[Reganne]

1 minute ago, BabySpinach said:

See, even the show agrees with you. It loved equating what the brothers did as the same, ie. both of them were responsible for the apocalypse. But the circumstances were wildly different. Dean was tortured endlessly for 30 years, and only broke the seal because he just couldn't handle the torture anymore. The "choice" he made was something that anyone would have eventually made, and most of them would have probably caved within a week rather than entire decades.

On the other hand, it took Sam 1 year and no torture in any capacity to break the last seal. He just needed a demon mistress to stroke his ego, fill his head with heroic fantasies in which he is the strong one and Dean is the weak one clinging to his ankles, and get him hooked on a substance that he willingly took. Those three months of grief do not, in any way, compare to what Dean went through. They just don't.

In no way are these two misdeeds equal. NO. WAY. Or is it somehow fair/righteous that Dean also gets punished topside for breaking the seal as well, after three decades of suffering already?

Dean going after Metatron was all part of the plan to distract him while Cas snuck upstairs and tried to find the angel tablet. He was the punching bag and the bait, which both Sam and Cas agreed to. Dean knocking out Sam was for his safety, since Sam would have just been another punching bag. No, Dean didn't go off on his own because he thought he was just so darn great. He was playing a part and willingly putting himself in harm's way, as usual. Metatron even mentioned that Dean was "stalling".

The thing people forget though is that Dean made a deal with  demon that got himself in hell in the first place.  While his motives are understandable, that doesnt take away from the fact that he knew it was wrong to deal with the demons.  The problem is that the narrative in the series makes people sympathize with Dean more than Sam.  They make his part in the apacalypse more understandable in the way but it doesnt change the fact that he also made a mistake that lead to the apacalypse.

As far as Metatron, Dean did the same thing while going after Abadon.  Making sure Sam was out of the way so he could kill her.

[tessathereaper]

1 minute ago, BabySpinach said:

See, even the show agrees with you. It loved equating what the brothers did as the same, ie. both of them were responsible for the apocalypse. But the circumstances were wildly different. Dean was tortured endlessly for 30 years, and only broke the seal because he just couldn't handle the torture anymore. The "choice" he made was something that anyone would have eventually made, and most of them would have probably caved within a week rather than entire decades.

On the other hand, it took Sam 1 year and no torture in any capacity to break the last seal. He just needed a demon mistress to stroke his ego, fill his head with heroic fantasies in which he is the strong one and Dean is the weak one clinging to his ankles, and get him hooked on a substance that he willingly took. Those three months of grief do not, in any way, compare to what Dean went through. They just don't.

In no way are these two misdeeds equal. NO. WAY. Or is it somehow fair/righteous that Dean also gets punished topside for breaking the seal as well, after three decades of suffering already?

Dean going after Metatron was all part of the plan to distract him while Cas snuck upstairs and tried to find the angel tablet. He was the punching bag and the bait, which both Sam and Cas agreed to. Dean knocking out Sam was for his safety, since Sam would have just been another punching bag. No, Dean didn't go off on his own because he thought he was just so darn great. He was playing a part and willingly putting himself in harm's way, as usual. Metatron even mentioned that Dean was "stalling".

Ah yes that always made me so mad.  

Also important to point out that Dean had no idea that he was breaking any seal when he did it.  When he did it he had no idea he was "special" in anyway.  When Dean made his deal he didn't even know demons used to humans, they didn't find that out until Ruby 1.0 told him one of the early episodes of Season 3.  He had no idea his breaking under incesstant continuous torture from Hell's head torturer meant anything but his own further damnation, he knew nothing about any seals.  And so eventually he broke, their whole aim was to make him break as soon as possible and still took them 30 years of him continuously on the rack.  But he didn't know that, he didn't know he was getting the uh VIP treatment because he was going to break a seal.

By the time Sam "fell", after a few weeks of grief and a year of Ruby stroking his ego and telling him how awesome and special he was and how weak Dean was(which he didn't need much persuading about it seemed) - they knew about the Seals.  Sam didn't know he was breaking one, but he certainly knew about the seals.  Now they would have both broken that final seal if Sam hadn't insisted he was the only one who could do this, using demonic powers, because he wasn't weak like Dean - because they both believed the way to stop the Apocalypse was killing Lilith, rather than the other way as it actually was.   But it would have been an honest mistake if they'd done it together and Sam had rejected Ruby.  But Sam's motivations were mainly hubristic, so the same mistake was made for a different reason. 

 

There was literally no comparison to Dean and Sam's situations or the motivations behind their breaking of their respective seals.