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

[Lemuria]

Not to mention BabySpinach that when Dean broke the first seal he had no idea that the seals even existed.

Sam chose to make a demon who had spent the entire previous year lying to him--and he knew that--his only advisor, over his brother, two angels (dicks or not), a psychic who gave her life for the brothers and a prophet of God (at least, that's what they thought he was at the time), all of whom warned him about what he was doing and his motivations in doing it.  Ruby was saying what he wanted to hear.  

[BabySpinach]

1 hour ago, Reganne said:

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.

Dean couldn't have possibly known about the seals. As far as he knew, he was just damning his own soul, which was his to do with however he wanted. It wasn't a morally-corrupt choice on its own. If he couldn't have reasonably foreseen a certain outcome, I see no reason to put blame on him for it.

Sam didn't just make a single mistake, he made countless consecutive ones that were shifty/wrong on their own. He ignored everyone and their mom telling him to stop. He treated his Hell-traumatized brother like garbage. He drank DEMON BLOOD. He drained a possessed nurse dry. He refused to entertain the possibility that Ruby was a manipulative, traitorous asshole, which was a hell of a lot more plausible than Dean foreseeing that his deal would force him to jumpstart the apocalypse. 

One brother yielded because he couldn't bear the pain anymore. The other brother yielded because he bought into a demon's bullshit, compromised his morality, and trusted her above everyone else in his life, including the brother who sold his soul for him. I think it's perfectly reasonable to put more blame on one brother over the other, since only one of them was in full control of his free will and was never forcefully coerced, yet still made the wrong choice every single time. 

Dean, who was desperate and grieving and filled with self-hate for "failing" his brother, had far more sympathetic motives for his mistake than Sam, who called his traumatized brother weak and whiny and ate up Ruby's ego-stroking with a spoon.

Bottom line: it's not so much the mistake itself, it's the journey that led to that mistake where I feel the blame truly lies. It's the difference between killing someone for the hell of it and killing someone in self-defense. Both deeds are the same, but the circumstances and choices leading up to it make all the difference and drastically affect the sentencing for the crime. 

Quote

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.

I still don't see how this is hubris. Abaddon would have made mince meat out of Sam and/or used him as a hostage, especially since this was a trap. Dean was just being the same old over-protective brother despite the MoC. 

Edited November 21, 2018 by BabySpinach

[gonzosgirrl]

Amen, @BabySpinach

[ILoveReading]

1 hour ago, Reganne said:

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.

I don't really see this as hubris becasue Dean saying he was the only one that could confront Abbadon was true and not just Dean's belief.  She could only be killed by the first blade, and Dean was the only thing that could stop her.  Sam literally, in this case, had nothing to offer and an extremely high potential of being a casualty. 

He was also admitting weakness.  He said that if Sam was there and and Abbadon went after him, Dean knew that he would give in an give her the first blade.   He sent Sam on a wild goose chase because he knew that Sam would insist on coming along even though it was a bad idea because Abbadon would used him to get to Dean.  Dean knows his weak spot. 

Sam proved Dean right when he automatically jumped to Dean treating him like a kid, when it wasn't about that.   Sam proved Dean was right to lie because Sam wouldn't have stayed back and he would have cost Dean the fight.

Edited November 21, 2018 by ILoveReading

[7kstar]

2 hours 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 he is blamed for everything  without acknowledging other characters flaws and mistakes.

I think the huge issue is more the show writers tells us that Sam isn't the blame.  Sure it all starts with Dean breaking the first seal but he didn't know he did it by going to hell.  Sam was warned but the writing made sure that he did it anyway.  To be honest I don't really care, because at this point both brothers will do something stupid to save each other and put the world at risk, period.  All of it is based on the story the writers decide to write and if it screws a character well that is acceptable damage.

Actually, it creates conflict which you must have in a drama because everyone getting along would be boring to watch but the wreck it creates for characters if you see them as real people well, to be honest, it just sucks.

1 hour ago, Reganne said:

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.

This is the old damaged Dean that should die to protect his brother.  I think the real issue is that Jensen is stronger at gaining audience sympathy.  Something that should have been a way to make the fans mad at Dean gets lost because people can relate to his strongest desire to protect those he loves. 

I honestly don't think the writers thought they would have the problem they created on the page.  I think they had really believed that they had shown Dean is wrong and bad, Sam is redeemed.  It just didn't work.  The harder they try the more they seem to fail.  So I can get Sam fans being sick of him being the damsel in distress. and wanting something more.

I actually think they made a mistake with Soulless Sam.  They should have increased the competition between the brothers making it a game showing their strengths of being a strong hunter.  Instead of trying to flip characters. Allowing both hunters to be strong and smart and maybe even having Dean liking this Sam as well.  Then the conflict to get rid of Soulless Sam would have had depth and heart. 

(Dang I just lost what I had typed so I will try to recreate it)

Most of the issues are the writing trying to move the story in a direction and not really thinking long-term about how it harms the characters. People are reacting to how they relate to the characters and not necessarily how you relate to the characters. Therefore, it becomes impossible to change their minds as they feel their examples are just.

I teach Debate and when your emotions get invested it is difficult to get logical or objective.  So sometimes you just have to agree to disagree.  At least I like Sam again and for a while, I didn't. 

I will say Sam playing with the fidget spinner took me out of the show because it looked like Jared not Sam.  So for that scene to have worked we needed to see Sam doing something stupid before this scene and I don't recall it being a Sam trait so it just didn't work for me.  Could they have made it work, sure by showing that he does things like this but doesn't get caught...it just failed for me.  All is JMV.

[Reganne]

The thing is the show intends the audience to sympathize with Dean.  He gets written more emotional scenes to give the audience more of an emotional attachment to him.  Sam doesnt get written this types of scenes.

While it's true that Dean didnt know anything about the deals, Sam also didnt know he was breaking one.  In fact he thought he was preventing them from being broken.  It's also funny that is season 5, Dean himself starts to work with a demon aka as Crowley.  This however is painted much differently and of course bc its Dean, nothing bad comes of it.  Typical of the narrative bc they can only ever show Sam to be wrong.

[Aeryn13]

Quote

Typical of the narrative bc they can only ever show Sam to be wrong.

While I don`t even agree with this back then, we`re living in the Dabb-era now where Sam couldn`t be more right. 

This entire wonky super-leader arc has an episode - ep 5 - where presumably Sam`s leadership is tested. And he gets hit with a perfectly reasonable criticism - letting a newbie hunter go out alone was a super-bad idea and as leader he does bear responsibility for this. How does the narrative handle this? Mary rushes to reassure him (and the audience) how Sam is a natural born leader. It is made clear that Bobby has other issues he is just projecting onto Sam and he, too, eats crow at the end and assures Sam he is a great leader, Dean actually does a lot of work on the hunt but the tell for the audience is that "Sam did it". 

So even legitimate criticism can not besmirch Sam. He is perfect and flawless. And the tell works for a lot of the audience who eats that up. They always put the "tell" with Sam. He could do only dumb things in every single episode from now on till the show ends and he would be the genius one. He could act like a douchebag to every single person he encounters and he would still be the "smart and sensitive" one. He will never be wrong again. He wasn`t wrong when he threw in with the BMOL either because it just culminated in an episode about his leadership while Dean waxed poetically to the ice-Queen about Sam`s hardships. 

Conversely, slapping Dean with "dick" every three episodes or so makes him one for a lot of people. Having Sam reprimand him for doing feelings wrong is never Sam being at fault for being pushy but Dean for...doing feelings wrong. He is not entitled to his own coping mechanism but only how and when Sam deems it correct. 

Sam is on a pedestal now and he will never be coming down. He will be superior in every single way, especially to Dean. This is the Dabb-way. He makes his old horrible Dean-hating, Sam-pimping comics canon now.

[Reganne]

Sam has never been shown to be perfect.  If he was, they wouldnt have shown Maggie doing a hunt on her own in the first place.  Sam himself blamed himself.  Its typical that family members want to reassure a loved one whether they are at fault or not.  Sometimes they are protective of them.  Dean blames himself for Michael but both Jack and Sam have told him It's not his fault.  

If the narrative wanted to paint Sam as perfect, they wouldnt have had him getting hit over the head and knocked out for the bulk of season 13.  Perfect characters dont fail that much.  If they wanted to show him to be perfect, they wouldnt have had God blame him for Amara.  They wouldnt have had countless hunters blame him for releasing for Lucifer. They wouldnt have had Sam say he was the one that let Lucifer out so he should be the one to put him back in Swan Song.  They definitely wouldnt have shown him to be falling for Ruby's manipulation.  They wouldn't have shown Sam to be leading a group of people to releasing the darkness.  They wouldnt have shown him falling to addiction with the demon blood.  They wouldn't have shown him wanting to kill innocent woobie Benny who was said to be a better brother than Sam ever was.  They wouldnt have it said that Sam is responsible for Charlie's death.  I dont see how all these things equate to a perfect character.

[catrox14]

5 hours ago, Reganne said:

I dont see how all these things equate to a perfect character.

He's not perfect but the characters around Sam, who speak to himm and about him to others make excuses for him, or outright absolve him of his mistakes, and they often end apologizing for ever criticizing him. It's the narrative pushing that Sam is not to be questioned on anything.  I don't think that works but that is what IMO Dabb is doing to Sam. He's putting him on a pedestal and I will eat all the hats if he ever knocks him off of it. 

[AwesomO4000]

11 hours ago, ILoveReading said:

I don't really see this as hubris becasue Dean saying he was the only one that could confront Abbadon was true and not just Dean's belief.  She could only be killed by the first blade, and Dean was the only thing that could stop her.  Sam literally, in this case, had nothing to offer and an extremely high potential of being a casualty. 

Except in my opinion, this is very similar to what Sam said in season 4. That he (Sam) was the only one who could kill Lilith - which was true - and that Dean couldn't and that Dean wasn't the same because of his experiences in hell - also true. The way Sam said it was a bit more harsh, but otherwise very much the same in my opinion. Both used dark powers because they were the only ones who could kill the enemy and both said the other brother couldn't do it and was either weak or a liability.

Each even had a demon "helper" - Sam: Ruby and Dean: Crowley - That neither should have listened to.

The main difference between the scenarios was that Sam killing Lilith had earth-shattering consequences and was "wrong" while Dean killing Abbadon didn't and was "right." It's the usual scenario that the writers seem to - intentionally or not - communicate: when Dean does it it's okay, but when Sam does it, it's wrong.

11 hours ago, ILoveReading said:

He was also admitting weakness.  He said that if Sam was there and and Abbadon went after him, Dean knew that he would give in an give her the first blade.   He sent Sam on a wild goose chase because he knew that Sam would insist on coming along even though it was a bad idea because Abbadon would used him to get to Dean.  Dean knows his weak spot. 

Sam proved Dean right when he automatically jumped to Dean treating him like a kid, when it wasn't about that.   Sam proved Dean was right to lie because Sam wouldn't have stayed back and he would have cost Dean the fight.

I disagree that Dean wasn't treating Sam like a kid, because Dean didn't tell Sam about his reasoning concerning Abaddon. He just assumed Sam wouldn't listen and lied to him instead... which in my opinion is treating Sam like a kid. Sure after Dean got called out for it he admitted his "weakness" but somehow that still sounded more like "you would've just been a liability, Sam. I'm the only one who can do this." It's the same type of patronizing attitude that Sam had about drinking the demon blood, because Dean wasn't strong enough to do what needed to be done and Sam needed to save him. Sam, too, was couching it as trying to do something to save Dean. The narrative just made Dean right about his patronizing behavior.

More when Dean does it, it's okay...

19 hours ago, gonzosgirrl said:

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. 

That time yes, but not so for many of the other times... like Gadreel, the mark of Cain, killing Death, etc.

And maybe Dean changed his mind at least partly because Sam caught up with Dean and brought him back. What if Sam hadn't found Dean? Would Dean have changed his mind then... or would it have been like Sam getting the wrong phone message and deciding he might as well go ahead and finish what he started, because he'd already let Dean down and Dean thought he was a "monster?"

My main point in using that example was how Dean was portrayed... not as arrogant like Sam was portrayed for the demon blood, but as "suicidal" and sacrificing himself. However, I think my point above is valid. If Sam hadn't found Dean, or if someone had intervened to make sure Sam couldn't get to Dean or made it appear that Sam was "done" with Dean... would Dean have worried about not letting Sam down? Would Dean still have changed his mind?

We don't know, because Sam did find Dean, and Dean did get that second and third chance (when Castiel brought him back again.)

13 hours 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. 

So Dean's solution to some people being killed and his feeling guilty about that was to go ahead and say "yes" where potentially half the population would be killed, and this is not hubris on Dean's part that he is deciding on his own to sacrifice potentially half the people to save the rest? I'm not sure that the people who might potentially get killed would agree, nor the families of those killed who might be left behind.

13 hours ago, BabySpinach said:

1) 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. 2) 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. 3) It's not arrogant to eventually yield to what everyone argues you should do. That's just human nature.

1) No, Dean didn't think he could control the situation once he was possessed. He planned to try to control it beforehand. Dean planned to get special consideration for the people he chose to save - Likely Sam, Lisa and Ben, probably Bobby. He indicated to Lisa that he was going to make provisions for her and Ben. Dean believed that he should get to decide who lived rather than died, and he expected that Michael would honor that bargain. In my opinion, that's a bit presumptuous and somewhat arrogant.

2) As for everyone telling Sam not to drink the demon blood, did anyone tell Sam what he could do instead? Especially when people could potentially die if he didn't use his powers. Also most of those "outside forces" telling Sam not to drink demon blood were lying. They actually wanted Sam to drink the demon blood and manipulated things so that he would (as when Castiel let Sam out of the panic room so that he could drink demon blood). Even Chuck who questioned Sam's drinking the demon blood still was vague about it with his "that's where the story seems to be going." That's like telling someone who is asking "Do you think maybe I should kill myself?" "well, that seems to be where this is all headed." Basically thanks for nothing, Chuck.

3) The outside forces who were telling Dean to say "yes" were Zachariah, Michael, and dead Pamela. 2/3 of those were bad guys. Sam, Bobby, and Castiel weren't telling Dean to say "yes." They had been spending most of that season supporting Dean's decision not to say "yes." In fact, they were rightly angry - in the case of Bobby and Castiel - that Dean planned to say "yes." That still didn't stop Dean from basically telling them "Screw you, this isn't your decision to make, it's mine" and running off again with the intention of saying "yes," anyway and might have done so if Castiel hadn't found Dean again. again we can't know, because Castiel did find Dean and tried to stop him (rather than "helping" him, so he would go do the wrong thing).

So I disagree with it just being human nature on Dean's part to give in. The bad guy (Ruby) told Sam he should drink demon blood and kill Lilith while his family told him he shouldn't, and the bad guys told Dean he should say "yes" when his family said he shouldn't. Both initially chose to listen to the non-family influence.

So basically I am not saying that what Sam did wasn't wrong. I'm just not excusing Dean either. They were BOTH arrogant in my opinion. They both chose to listen to the bad guys instead of the people who loved them. They both insisted that they were right and it was them who should be the one to decide what to do over the reasonable objections of their family. Sam might have made the wrong decision in the end, but he didn't even know that killing Lilith would turn out to be a bad thing. Dean potentially knew that what he intended to do might get millions and millions of people killed to the save the rest. But he gets somewhat lucky in that his family did get to reach him in time.

But it's only Sam who is labeled as the "bad  brother." I guess in the show's mind, it's worse to be mean to your brother and potentially sacrifice your relationship with your brother - and an innocent nurse - to try to save the world than it is to consider letting millions of people die to save the world. I disagree. I think they are both bad... and arrogant.

[AwesomO4000]

13 hours ago, BabySpinach said:

Sam didn't just make a single mistake, he made countless consecutive ones that were shifty/wrong on their own. He ignored everyone and their mom telling him to stop. He treated his Hell-traumatized brother like garbage. He drank DEMON BLOOD. He drained a possessed nurse dry. He refused to entertain the possibility that Ruby was a manipulative, traitorous asshole, which was a hell of a lot more plausible than Dean foreseeing that his deal would force him to jumpstart the apocalypse. 

One brother yielded because he couldn't bear the pain anymore. The other brother yielded because he bought into a demon's bullshit, compromised his morality, and trusted her above everyone else in his life, including the brother who sold his soul for him. I think it's perfectly reasonable to put more blame on one brother over the other, since only one of them was in full control of his free will and was never forcefully coerced, yet still made the wrong choice every single time. 

Dean, who was desperate and grieving and filled with self-hate for "failing" his brother, had far more sympathetic motives for his mistake than Sam, who called his traumatized brother weak and whiny and ate up Ruby's ego-stroking with a spoon.

Bottom line: it's not so much the mistake itself, it's the journey that led to that mistake where I feel the blame truly lies. It's the difference between killing someone for the hell of it and killing someone in self-defense. Both deeds are the same, but the circumstances and choices leading up to it make all the difference and drastically affect the sentencing for the crime. 

Again - almost everyone and their mom was lying.

And I disagree that Sam wasn't being manipulated. The angels were constantly throwing situations at Sam and Dean where Sam would need to use his powers to save people. Then they feigned horror at Sam using his powers. Their true purpose was to get Sam and Dean to be at odds with each other - which they did - in order to better manipulate Dean.

And Dean making the deal in the first place was of his own free will. And just as Sam should have known Ruby was a lying liar who lies... Dean should have known that making a deal with a demon was wrong. He knew how it made him feel when John did it for him, and Dean knew Sam wouldn't want him to do it for him, but he did it anyway. No one forced him to do so.

And I would argue that Sam was also filled with self-hate and grieving for failing his brother when he started down his dark path. When Ruby gave him something to grab onto to where he maybe wouldn't feel useless and a failure, yup, Sam took the bait. I, myself, don't find that unsympathetic or much unlike Dean deciding that by making the deal that would somehow make him not a failure in his job to look after Sam.

And yes, Sam calling Dean weak was crappy... Dean leaving Sam alone with the knowledge that his brother was burning in hell on his behalf was also, in my opinion, crappy.

As for "He drank DEMON BLOOD" okay yes. And Dean considered sacrificing MILLIONS OF PEOPLE. So yeah, they both don't always make the best choices. And I will call them both out for it, not just one.

[Reganne]

7 hours ago, catrox14 said:

He's not perfect but the characters around Sam, who speak to himm and about him to others make excuses for him, or outright absolve him of his mistakes, and they often end apologizing for ever criticizing him. It's the narrative pushing that Sam is not to be questioned on anything.  I don't think that works but that is what IMO Dabb is doing to Sam. He's putting him on a pedestal and I will eat all the hats if he ever knocks him off of it. 

IMO, when Dean makes a mistake, the narrative quickly changes to make Sam the wrong doer.  Ex after Gadreel giving Sam that speech in the purge to show the audience poor Dean.  And with the first seal.  Its ignored when Sam breaks the last one.  ts almost like they're saying.... but Sam's worse so let's all just overlook what Dean does.  Not to mention the lack of consequences when Dean makes mistakes.

[DeeDee79]

It’s amazing that there’s such a lack of empathy for Dean that he gets blamed for making Sam suffer for him burning in hell as if being in hell isn’t a worse punishment. I can imagine the outrage if it was constantly stated that Sam was equally selfish for making Dean suffer when he jumped into the cage. Although I’m sure it’s vastly different since Dean is a selfish bastard for his actions while Sam is amazing and selfless. *sigh*

[ILoveReading]

No spoilers.

So, Jensen is playing a brand new character asks Dabb to help to find Michael's motivations.  Dabb blows him him off.  No help.

Yet, Jared has been playing Sam for 14 years and Dabb will repeatedly discuss his character.   Jared said he talked to Dabb at the start of the season, and Gen confirms he was on the phone again recently. 

[DeeDee79]

7 minutes ago, ILoveReading said:

 

No spoilers.

So, Jensen is playing a brand new character asks Dabb to help to find Michael's motivations.  Dabb blows him him off.  No help.

Yet, Jared has been playing Sam for 14 years and Dabb will repeatedly discuss his character.   Jared said he talked to Dabb at the start of the season, and Gen confirms he was on the phone again recently. 

Yeah there’s no bias there! I do have to wonder if Dean’s limited role vs Sam’s ever expanding role is the result of all of those conversations. Not saying that Jared is trying to screw Jensen over but it just makes me curious.

Edited November 22, 2018 by DeeDee79

[Res]

1 minute ago, DeeDee79 said:

Yeah there’s no bias there! I do have to wonder if Dean’s limited role vs Sam’s ever expanding role is the result of all of those conversations.

You know it is. And it's only going to get worse. 

[ILoveReading]

1 minute ago, DeeDee79 said:

Yeah there’s no bias there! I do have to wonder if Dean’s limited role vs Sam’s ever expanding role is the result of all of those conversations.

There can't be any other reason for it. 

If I didn't know watch the show or know anything about Jensen, I'd be thinking that blind item was screaming his name.  Reduced role, reduced screen time, stripping of character traits, etc.  But everything I know about Jensen says it not. 

[DeeDee79]

3 minutes ago, Res said:

You know it is. And it's only going to get worse. 

I’m certainly dreading it.

[mertensia]

5 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:

 

And I disagree that Sam wasn't being manipulated. The angels were constantly throwing situations at Sam and Dean where Sam would need to use his powers to save people. Then they feigned horror at Sam using his powers. Their true purpose was to get Sam and Dean to be at odds with each other - which they did .

.

Both characters were being so manipulated that if Dean hasn't made the deal they'd've tried bodily chucking him into Hell or something. Had Sam gotten an inkling and thus refused to kill Lilith someone-probably Ruby- would have tied him up with the knife duct-taped to his hand and pushed Lilith onto it.

They were doomed no matter what.

[BlueSapphire]

Is “Blame Jared”  the new norm now when one hates Dean’s storylines or doesn’t feel they live up to potential?

[gonzosgirrl]

6 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:

As for "He drank DEMON BLOOD" okay yes. And Dean considered sacrificing MILLIONS OF PEOPLE. So yeah, they both don't always make the best choices. And I will call them both out for it, not just one.

Dean considered it and didn't go through with it. Sam did it. Then promised to stop. Then did it again. 

7 minutes ago, BlueSapphire said:

Is “Blame Jared”  the new norm now when one hates Dean’s storylines or doesn’t feel they live up to potential?

I think it's more 'blame Dabb', but as in any situation when one person is perceived to be favored over another, that person is going to be included in the conversation. Human nature.

[DeeDee79]

I didn’t see any “blame Jared” posts here. I’m not sure how that came out of anything that’s being discussed here but whatever. 

[BlueSapphire]

It was certainly implied in some posts above.

[ILoveReading]

Just now, BlueSapphire said:

It was certainly implied in some posts above.

The blame was on the conversations, not Jared.  Dabb obviously cares about Sam and his storyline and wants to help Jared tell it. 

Dean he keeps demonstrating he doesn't give a crap out.  As Jensen said, he's an island unto himself. 

For me, its couldn't be more obvious that Dabb will put time and effort in when its Sam/Jared but not Dean/Jensen. 

[DeeDee79]

6 minutes ago, BlueSapphire said:

It was certainly implied in some posts above.

I didn’t see it. I see show runner blaming which is not Jared blaming. I guess it’s all up to interpretation like everything else seems to be.

[catrox14]

16 minutes ago, BlueSapphire said:

It was certainly implied in some posts above.

Which posts? Because all of the posts about Dabb conversing with Jared were about Dabb's showrunning, not Jared. We know that Jensen said he talked to Dabb about Michael and getting a handle on it and Dabb wasn't helpful to that endeavor.  It almost seemed that Dabb just never intended for Michael!Dean to be anything for Dean/Jensen short of the cliffhanger and 10 minutes.  IMO, he left it to Jensen to figure it out, because in the long run it turns out assuming Dabb is not lying about Michael being out of Dean, that was the extent of it WRT to Jensen.  

I think Dabb is focused on Sam's storyline and the WS.   I am kind of curious why Jared would need to get help with Sam character motivation.   It really makes me wonder if Jared has been speaking with him about the Leader Sam thing and that it isn't really in Sam's personality, so why do it?  And even that hasn't been adequately addressed and mostly left to viewers headcanon how it all came about other than Dean being out of the room.  

[Pondlass1]

You can argue which brother did the most damage until the cows come home.  Thing is - they're both screw ups.  They're not men in tights flying in to save the day.  They do their best and along the way people are saved and people sometimes die.  It's something different and the reason the show has lived this long.  There's not another series like it.  These lead characters made grim mistakes and there was always this sense of repressed violence and danger swirling about them. Episodes had me on the edge of my seat or brought me to tears.

Or that's the way it used to be. Now it's an afternoon soap.

Dabb lacks the gumption to tackle the disturbing elements of humanity's unchecked nature in a supernatural world.   It could be dark and gritty like in the old days.  These aren't complex brothers making flawed decisions anymore.  Sam's the Chief and Dean... well, Dean's childish, messy and not so smart.  The biggest crime of all - simplistic characterization.  

Stories go nowhere.  It's all padded out to create drama and plot points that are soon forgotten.  Supernatural powers come and go without rhyme or reason. 

The show has lost its impact.  I can't be bothered to argue which brother gets the best storyline, because I don't care.  I don't want a win for my favourite brother.  I just want good writing.  Stories I can invest in.  Stories that actually involve Dean and Sam.  

Sadly it has become something of a slog to watch now. Twice this season I've recorded and not viewed live. That would've been unheard of years ago when everyone knew I'd be incommunicado for an hour and in full control of the remote and don't you even dare think about phoning me.

[BabySpinach]

9 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:

But it's only Sam who is labeled as the "bad  brother." I guess in the show's mind, it's worse to be mean to your brother and potentially sacrifice your relationship with your brother - and an innocent nurse - to try to save the world than it is to consider letting millions of people die to save the world. I disagree. I think they are both bad... and arrogant.

Actually, YES. You hit it right on the head. I could have put up with EVERYTHING that Sam did in season 4 if only he wasn't a complete petty dickhole to Dean. THAT was personal, and permanently damaged his likability for me. That's what I was getting at in my previous posts. Sam and Dean made the same mistake, but one was a much more unlikable ass while doing it. 

It's why most people hate Umbridge over Voldemort. She was a small person in the big scheme of things, but her petty, vicious sadism hit the fans much harder than Voldemort's big, bad, MUAHAHA evil. Characters are what ground me to fiction, not the "big" things they do that affect masses of nameless, undeveloped fictional people. I don't care that Sam started the apocalypse, I really don't. It's how he treated his traumatized brother, how he personally and directly compromised his own morality, how far up his own ass he got that really pissed me off about him in season 4.

Same with The Purge. Objectively, he only said mean things to his brother and didn't do anything physically bad/harmful to loads of people. But it was another nail in the coffin for my already-limited appreciation of Sam, given how needlessly, personally cruel he was. (Yes, I know it was out-of-character to make Sam say that in the first place, but I'm talking about canon and what ultimately made it to the screen.)

Once again, it all comes back down to Dean being more sympathetic and less of an unnecessarily bitchy, arrogant, cruel asshole. The closest he ever got was in 5.18, when he said mean things specifically to provoke Sam and co. into getting mad enough to let him go. That was hard to watch, but also kind of satisfying and needed, just to show us how things would be if Dean wasn't the one holding everyone together. He just couldn't muster up the energy to be the supportive pep-talking one anymore. And after the things that Sam said to him in season 4, the harshness of Dean's statements didn't come out of nowhere.

Besides, Dean wasn't trying to save the world. He was picking the lesser of two evils, with no notions of naive heroics. He thought that there were only two options: all of humanity dead or half of humanity dead, with him objectively being the key to that choice. It wasn't just bad guys telling him that, it was his own future self in 5.04. Sam was not faced with this seemingly binary choice, nor did he have any real reason to believe that Dean was weak and inadequate. No one told/showed him that if he didn't drink demon blood, the entire human race would die as a direct result of his inaction. He thought he was destined to save the world, alone, just because a demon (and literally NO ONE ELSE) said so.

Edited November 22, 2018 by BabySpinach

[Reganne]

3 hours ago, DeeDee79 said:

Yeah there’s no bias there! I do have to wonder if Dean’s limited role vs Sam’s ever expanding role is the result of all of those conversations. Not saying that Jared is trying to screw Jensen over but it just makes me curious

I think this quote could be interpreted as what people are reffering to with blaming Jared.  Yes I know it says "I'm not saying...." but everything else is almost speculating that it could be happening that way.  Maybe that wasnt the intention  but that is how it comes across to me.  It's the same thing with Dabb.  Everything people say about his motivations are mere speculation.

As far as the favouring Sam thing.  I still dont see it.  The series still focuses on more of Dean's emotional point of view etc.  They still dont write these types of scenes for Sam.  Not to mention, we still dont get to see what kind of things Sam likes.  It's always Dean.  Whether its Scooby doo or horror movies.  It always revolves around Dean's interests.  Sure Sam is getting to lead some AU hunters.  I like the fact that he is more competent than last season but these AU are nameless.  We dont know them.  We actually dont see Sam interacting with them all that much.  It's not like Dabb is actually putting a lot of effort into it.  The AU hunters at this point are quite irrelevant.  

[7kstar]

3 hours ago, BlueSapphire said:

Is “Blame Jared”  the new norm now when one hates Dean’s storylines or doesn’t feel they live up to potential?

No, you have many that are upset with how both brothers are being written.  The shows writing is the major complaint.  Even with the stupid Leadership role for Sam I still like him more than I did in Season 4.  Where in Season 4, I WAS upset with the writing I kept hoping they would go in a different direction but they didn't.  I didn't like the manipulation and I still don't.

The lack of multidimensional characters is the complaint.  The bait and switch tactics that Michael is the big bad when it is a major bust for this season.  Dabb has some really good eps so my question is why is it NOT working now?  There will always be some fans that are only interested in their character but I was drawn to this show by fanfiction showing the loving bond with ups and downs and to be honest this is the ONLY horror show I will ever watch.  But I'm getting tired of it.  So for me, that is the major problem.  I won't speak for everyone but the one constant I have seen in reading the posts is the lack of good writing or real conflict that has value.  I don't expect much from soaps, but every once in a while they will tell a really strong well-written story.  I just don't want Supernatural to become the show I fast forward through because nothing is grabbing me and so far this season is the worst in that regard.  You can agree to disagree with me...but I want strong stories for Both SAM and DEAN.

Edited November 22, 2018 by 7kstar

[ahrtee]

12 minutes ago, 7kstar said:

but I want strong stories for Both SAM and DEAN.

And not at the expense of the other.  They're equally important/heroic.

[gonzosgirrl]

10 minutes ago, ahrtee said:

And not at the expense of the other.  They're equally important/heroic.

I quite agree (believe it or not lol). If the show would adhere to this premise, I'd be thrilled. 

There are plenty of side characters to throw under the bus if absolutely necessary (coughcoughwaywardsuesandnickifer). Lay off Dean for a while.

[Aeryn13]

Quote

Sure Sam is getting to lead some AU hunters.  I like the fact that he is more competent than last season but these AU are nameless.  We dont know them.  We actually dont see Sam interacting with them all that much.  It's not like Dabb is actually putting a lot of effort into it.  The AU hunters at this point are quite irrelevant.  

It`s not supposed to be an emotional story IMO, it`s supposed to show how Sam is a great leader. So they gave him a larger group that defers to him with monikers like "Sir" and "Chief". They have lots of other characters tell Sam and the audience how Sam is great at leadership. I might not be much but it`s still 98 % more than what Dean EVER got about leadership in the entirety of the show.

And, as strange as the storyline may play out, they found time to reference it in some way in every single episode so far. Even in the standalone hunt Mint Condition there was a scene where Sam gave orders to his troops on the phone. 

Meanwhile since Michael!Dean had his measly few scenes in the Premiere and the second episode - where they couldn`t even make the supposed main storyline a focus of either one episode as the Premiere focused on Leader!Sam and the second episode on Nickifer with a side-note of Jack - what did we get of the promised flashbacks? ONE. That was used to pimp a Wayward character. And we got one scene in another episode that might or might not go anywhere, just like Amara not taking out Dean`s soul. 

Compared to the absolute nothing they put into Dean`s storyline, Sam`s leadership arc is a banquet. So if you think it is just eh, imagine how the Dean-fans feel about his story now.

[DeeDee79]

1 hour ago, Reganne said:

I think this quote could be interpreted as what people are reffering to with blaming Jared.  Yes I know it says "I'm not saying...." but everything else is almost speculating that it could be happening that way.  Maybe that wasnt the intention  but that is how it comes across to me.  It's the same thing with Dabb.  Everything people say about his motivations are mere 

Whether or not  it was interpreted from my statement it’s not what I said. When I said that I wasn’t saying that Jared was to blame it was what I meant. I’m certainly not shy from stating it outright if I decided to.

[catrox14]

1 hour ago, Reganne said:

As far as the favouring Sam thing.  I still dont see it.  The series still focuses on more of Dean's emotional point of view etc.  They still dont write these types of scenes for Sam.

Because Sam gets big storylines and we are shown how what he does affercts others to continually keep Sam on his cycle of fall and redemption. We have to see it through Dean because Dean is the audience avatar. That's not plot. I think that is why I mostly like Carver in s10. We saw Sam POV of Dean experience and Dean had the plot. The worked in Sam redemption as well. And now it's all Sam plot, back to faux Dean plot with Dean being the POV for Sam's new plot.

[ahrtee]

From Eric Kripke's IMDb page (personal quotes):

I like to tell stories that have beginnings, middles and ends.

 

I'm not a fan of endless mystery in storytelling - I like to know where the mythology's going; I like to get there in an exciting, fast-paced way - enough that there's a really clear, aggressive direction to where it's going, to pay off mystery and reward the audiences loyalty.

 

People pitch me the crazy mystery mind-blowing thing all the time. My response is, 'Great, but how do the characters feel about it, and how do we reveal new facets and new dimensions of who they are?'

 

*sigh*  I miss storytelling.  And characters.  And "rewarding the audience's loyalty."  Or even acknowledging it.

Edited November 22, 2018 by ahrtee

[gonzosgirrl]

1 hour ago, ahrtee said:

From Eric Kripke's IMDb page (personal quotes):

I like to tell stories that have beginnings, middles and ends.

 

I'm not a fan of endless mystery in storytelling - I like to know where the mythology's going; I like to get there in an exciting, fast-paced way - enough that there's a really clear, aggressive direction to where it's going, to pay off mystery and reward the audiences loyalty.

 

People pitch me the crazy mystery mind-blowing thing all the time. My response is, 'Great, but how do the characters feel about it, and how do we reveal new facets and new dimensions of who they are?'

 

*sigh*  I miss storytelling.  And characters.  And "rewarding the audience's loyalty."  Or even acknowledging it.

I know it's hated by many (most?) but I watched SPN up through S9 without any spoilers or social media interaction, and I will always say that, save the last 30 seconds or so, if Supernatural had ended at 5x22, I would have felt I was told a complete and eminently satisfying story.  Sure, there would always be a few unanswered questions, but tell me one good/great story that doesn't leave at least a few threads dangling. With SPN 1-5, there was a story that was introduced in the opening of the pilot, and culminated in the last episode of S5 (no spoilers here). I give Kripke credit for that.

[gonzosgirrl]

2 hours ago, Aeryn13 said:

Meanwhile since Michael!Dean had his measly few scenes in the Premiere and the second episode - where they couldn`t even make the supposed main storyline a focus of either one episode as the Premiere focused on Leader!Sam and the second episode on Nickifer with a side-note of Jack - what did we get of the promised flashbacks? ONE. That was used to pimp a Wayward character. And we got one scene in another episode that might or might not go anywhere, just like Amara not taking out Dean`s soul. 

I'm mostly convinced the flashbacks and longer-than-we-think Michael story is because they repeat the same couple seconds of him in each and every "Then".

[Aeryn13]

I would have hated the 5.22 ending, absolutely hated it. Now if that episode had been the Series Finale, I do believe it would have gone another way, no Adam would have been brought in and both would have jumped in the cage. In that case, I would have been okay with the ending. Going out with a bang. Sad but okay. 

Now I would be sad to lose the odd episode and the MOC-arc. So if they had done a better ending for the Amara story, both brothers saving the universe, that would have been a cool ending, too. 

In Dabbernatural, there is nothing really that would be terrible to lose.

Edited November 22, 2018 by Aeryn13

[devlin]

2 hours ago, DeeDee79 said:

Whether or not  it was interpreted from my statement it’s not what I said. When I said that I wasn’t saying that Jared was to blame it was what I meant. I’m certainly not shy from stating it outright if I decided to.

What I took from your statement was that it was interesting that dabb bothered to speak to Jared about sam while he couldn’t be bothered to bring himself to discuss with Jensen the new character he was playing. I saw no Jared blame 

[DeeDee79]

14 minutes ago, devlin said:

What I took from your statement was that it was interesting that dabb bothered to speak to Jared about sam while he couldn’t be bothered to bring himself to discuss with Jensen the new character he was playing. I saw no Jared blame 

Thank you! 

[AwesomO4000]

2 hours ago, catrox14 said:

The worked in Sam redemption as well.

What Sam redemption? I'm not being snide here. I'm seriously asking. Sure Sam was shown to be doing whatever he could to find Dean and then save him from being a demon, but that was painted in a mostly negative light with the tone asking "who is the real demon?" and implying in more than one instance that Sam's behavior was worse than demon Dean's. And then with the mark of Cain, it was pointed out at almost ever instance possible that what Sam was doing was bad, and that bad things would happen if Sam tried to get the mark removed from Dean. They made sure to emphasize how Sam was lying to Dean. And then to cap the whole thing off, Sam starts another apocalypse because he dared to save Dean through lying about it... meanwhile Dean kills Death to save Sam again with no negative consequences at all.

And then when things starting looking more positive for Sam, the writers couldn't help but make sure even Chuck pointed out how Sam is the screw up brother while Dean is the one he entrusts the care of the universe to.

I mean, yeah, I felt some redemption for Sam, because Sam was actually behaving like Sam again, in my opinion, but for me that was in spite of what the narrative was trying to tell and show me, not because of it.

And it was bad enough that Sam even needed that "redemption" in the first place, because, for me, if Carver hadn't had Sam act so out of character - in my opinion - to begin with in season 8 and 9, Sam wouldn't have even needed that "redemption" later on.

2 hours ago, catrox14 said:

Because Sam gets big storylines and we are shown how what he does affercts others to continually keep Sam on his cycle of fall and redemption.

I'm fairly clear on the "fall" (or just as often "fail") parts. The redemption part is much more fuzzy in my opinion. Truthfully I haven't see much of any attempt to redeem Sam since the start of season 8. Much of the redemption I see is due mostly to the emotion Jared puts into the character. The writers more appear to be trying to fit Sam him into whatever angst, plot, or character beat that strikes their fancy whether it makes sense for Sam or not or it makes Sam look badly or not. And even when they do appear to give him a "win" they do so reluctantly and while making sure that win is tainted with yet another usually worse mistake.

[Reganne]

8 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

What Sam redemption? I'm not being snide here. I'm seriously asking. Sure Sam was shown to be doing whatever he could to find Dean and then save him from being a demon, but that was painted in a mostly negative light with the tone asking "who is the real demon?" and implying in more than one instance that Sam's behavior was worse than demon Dean.

I agree.  I saw no redemption for Sam in season 10.  The whole season ended with him being the frontrunner in starting another apacalypse.  That's not a redemption in the slightest.  He gets crapped on for not looking for Dean in purgatory.  Then when he does everything in season 10 to save Dean, he gets crapped on for Charlie's death and starting another apacalypse.  Honestly for Sam's character, its damned if he does... damned if he doesnt. 

[Aeryn13]

But he is in top of the world now, as far as the show is concerned. Does anyone seriously believe he will ever lose that status again? Or that Dean will ever regain anything? Both are incredibly far-fetched.

It's a Lot more likely that by Season's end Sam will defeat Michael and be the leader of the entire US hunting conmunity while no hunter could give a crap about or has the slightest respect for Dean.

They kinda announced it at Comic Con: Dean will never return.

So IMO Sam-fans can at least look forward to the character ending the show on top. Dean-fans get the reverse experience. 

[AwesomO4000]

10 hours ago, DeeDee79 said:

It’s amazing that there’s such a lack of empathy for Dean that he gets blamed for making Sam suffer for him burning in hell as if being in hell isn’t a worse punishment. I can imagine the outrage if it was constantly stated that Sam was equally selfish for making Dean suffer when he jumped into the cage.

I never said that I didn't have empathy for Dean. He made a mistake and paid for it with consequences which I thought were way out of proportion for his mistake. My main point is that I also have empathy for Sam. I understand the guilt that lead to him making those bad choices, just as I understand Dean's. I see both sides.

How would Dean have felt if it had been Sam who made a deal to save Dean and then Sam got dragged to hell? Dean would feel guilty and useless, and I doubt that many would question a downward spiral for Dean after that. In my opinion, I feel similarly about Sam... especially after "Mystery Spot." Mystery Spot to me showed that Dean dying was not going to lead to a Sam who could cope or to carry on. Sam knew Dean's sacrifice was for him (Sam), it wasn't like Sam's to save the world. Dean had no reason to feel personally guilty for Sam being in hell, but Sam did... and for me there's a difference.

As for lack of empathy, I have sometimes seen Dean's going to hell blamed on Sam, because he failed to save Dean like he promised to, as if Sam himself chose to have Dean make that decision. And/or that Sam purposely chose to side with Ruby just to stick it to Dean. Sam's called selfish just for not forgiving Dean right away for doing crappy things to him. And Sam is also called selfish and crappy for not supporting Dean's plan to say "yes" to Michael and for daring to suggest that he, himself should jump into the cage and stop the mess he started without considering letting Dean also be a hero somehow. So in some ways that kind of thing already happens in my opinion... often.

[catrox14]

28 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

What Sam redemption

The redemption for him never looking for Dean in s8 and doing all that he could to save Dean in s10 despite what he said in the Purge in s9.  Sam's character took a big hit over those two  things.  And IMO regardless of the cost, which IMO, Sam didn't know and he even told Cas in the finale that no one could tell him what would be the consequences....and I actually agreed with Sam from his perspective.  He had grown concerned that Dean was going to turn back into a demon and he was willing to do what it took to make sure that didn't happen.  IMO, that was redemption.

And if the series had ended with Brother's Keeper without a need for s11, the Amara thing wouldn't have been a thing.  So just like with s5, they needed to figure out something upon Carver's departure which IMO was basically over at the end of s10.  I don't see any of Carver's fingerprints after that no matter if his name was on the s11 premiere or not.  JMO.  

8 minutes ago, Aeryn13 said:

They kinda announced it at Comic Con: Dean will never return

That still really bugs me, that Dabb made that "joke" and Jensen's reaction which didn't seem like he was amused by it.  I felt there was more truth to that anyone wants to admit.

[AwesomO4000]

1 minute ago, Aeryn13 said:

So IMO Sam-fans can at least look forward to the character ending the show on top. Dean-fans get the reverse experience. 

If it happens as you suggest, a character may end up on top - though truthfully the writing still can't help showing Sam making bad decisions and Dean actually doing things better - but for me it won't really be Sam. It will be some characterization that Dabb wants who he'll twist Sam into. For me, it is Sam who won't really return.

For me the best case scenario would be to get real Sam back, but likely in order for that to happen, I'll have to endure some other huge mess up from Sam or some lesson or something he has to learn just to get back to real Sam... after we've been told that Sam as he was was just some lazy person who wasn't living up to his potential.

Truthfully I'm trying to look forward to something, but your scenario ain't it. I don't want Robo-leader Sam. I want Sam.

[DeeDee79]

11 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

I never said that I didn't have empathy for Dean. He made a mistake and paid for it with consequences which I thought were way out of proportion for his mistake. My main point is that I also have empathy for Sam.

I don’t remember saying that it was you in particular; it was just a general statement based on overall discussion in fandom and these boards. If I was referring to you I would have directly quoted you. I guess it was another “interpretation” from one of my posts.

[AwesomO4000]

4 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

The redemption for him never looking for Dean in s8 and doing all that he could to save Dean in s10 despite what he said in the Purge in s9.  Sam's character took a big hit over those two  things.  And IMO regardless of the cost, which IMO, Sam didn't know and he even told Cas in the finale that no one could tell him what would be the consequences....and I actually agreed with Sam from his perspective.  He had grown concerned that Dean was going to turn back into a demon and he was willing to do what it took to make sure that didn't happen.  IMO, that was redemption.

As I said, the "redemption" Sam needed for season 8 and 9, was for things that in my opinion, were out of character to begin with. So Carver has Sam do crappy stuff he needs redemption for in season 8 and 9, and then gives him a redemption that he gives grudgingly and while pointing out along the way through every character and his dog that bad things would happen if Sam did this... still had Sam do it, and then had him start an apocalypse.

For me redemption for Sam would have included no horrible Charlie death blamed on Sam and nothing bad happening for removing the mark. The narrative sure didn't mind doing that kind of thing for Dean sometimes, so why did they have to include it for Sam?

[catrox14]

19 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

Dean would feel guilty and useless, and I doubt that many would question a downward spiral for Dean after that.

I don't think Dean would have tried to get vengeance on Lilith thus not drinking demon blood because he wouldn't have benefitted from it.  I think he would have made a deal to get into Hell and try to pull Sam out himself. And I would have watched the hell out of a few episodes of Dean in Hell trying to save Sam from Hell. That would have been amazing. .