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

[gonzosgirrl]

People wonder why Dean/Jensen fans get frustrated. Tweets about last night's episode ( at least the ones about actual Winchesters). 

Sam. (Dean is through the door right behind him).

Sam. (Dean is desparate and actively working toward  sacrificing his life, but yeah, it's all about Sammy.)

There was one tweet about Dean: he's made his decision  

[ILoveReading]

I see double standards are alive and well.

When Sam wants to lock himself away with an arch angel, he's brave and sacrificing himself to save the world.  Dean has no choice he has to accept it or he's being controlling, sees Sam as a baby or doesn't trust him.  Every body wets themselves over how amazing this plan is and how Dean better get on board because they're too hard on Sam and he's a big boy and its time for Dean to accept it.  Dean does even if he doesn't like it.

Dean wants to lock himself away with an arch angel, he's dumb, suicidal, how will poor Sammy handle this, its a stupid idea. 

Basically the exact opposite of how everyone supported Sam, Dean has zero support. 

I fully believe there is a rule in the writers room that Sam must always be braver, smarter, stronger, suffer the most, be the one to sacrifice for the world, etc.

Given Dabb's love of SuperSam, and  weak cowardly, killer, sloppy, messy Dean, whose only allowed to sacrifice himself for Sam, I still smell major bait and switch.

[Aeryn13]

Quote

I see double standards are alive and well.

When Sam wants to lock himself away with an arch angel, he's brave and sacrificing himself to save the world.  Dean has no choice he has to accept it or he's being controlling, sees Sam as a baby or doesn't trust him.  Every body wets themselves over how amazing this plan is and how Dean better get on board because they're too hard on Sam and he's a big boy and its time for Dean to accept it.  Dean does even if he doesn't like it.

Dean wants to lock himself away with an arch angel, he's dumb, suicidal, how will poor Sammy handle this, its a stupid idea. 

Basically the exact opposite of how everyone supported Sam, Dean has zero support. 

It`s because they already introduced the box thing so early, that is mid-point of the Season. If it was in or close to the Finale, it would be presented with more gravitas, like when he was supposed to be the soul bomb for Amara and you know, he would go in as the Season Finale cliffhanger - that would be lamely resolved in the next Season Opener. 

[Myrelle]

4 hours ago, gonzosgirrl said:

Sam. (Dean is desparate and actively working toward  sacrificing his life, but yeah, it's all about Sammy.)

I absolutely hated that part of the BM, but it has become so typical of them to me now that I just try to block them out and focus on the Ackting, at this point.

And those tweets tell me why it keeps happening, tbh.

[ILoveReading]

I see Dean is taking a beating among the Cas fans for not saying goodbye to Cas (and ignoring that once again Cas left).  It looks like Dabb is getting what he wants in trying to make everyone hate Dean.

I just hope they can figure out a way to keep Dean out of the coffin without making him look like he chickened out.  Yes, there is nothing wrong with being afarid and not wanting to be buried alive for eternity, but since this is a show it will bring out the inevitable comparisons between him and Sam.

[gonzosgirrl]

Too funny, I was just looking at the latest @ cw tweet and the comments, and thinking hmmm, guess who was not on the goodbye tour? Honestly, at this point I don't care what Destiel people think about Dean. They (and I'm sure there are shippers who are not this way, but they sure ain't tweeting about it) only give a shit about Dean as an extension of Cas - and he is absolutely damned if he does and  if he doesn't.

I sincerely hope that Jensen would put his foot down before letting them portray Dean as any kind of coward. I'm gonna have to see that before I believe it. But as a guy who has already woken up once buried alive and crawled out of his own grave, I'd think some panic-inducing flashbacks wouldn't be out of the question. I think if it actually came to pass, they'd give him some kind of drug to knock himself out once he's inside - one that lasts long enough that he doesn't regain consciousness before he suffocates to death. 

[AwesomO4000]

Dang it, I wasn't going to post here today... this is what I get for taking a peak...

4 hours ago, ILoveReading said:

I fully believe there is a rule in the writers room that Sam must always be braver, smarter, stronger, suffer the most, be the one to sacrifice for the world, etc.

I disagree. The difference with the finale in season 3 / premiere in season 4 and the finale season 5 / premier of season 6 is a good example.

In season 3 / 4 there was barely any focus on how it affected Sam. We ended on Dean in hell and opened season 4 without showing any immediate affects on Sam. There was no burying of Dean, no immediate aftereffect (beyond his original screaming when Dean died.) When Sam died in season 2, it became more about Dean than Sam dying. Was the fact that Sam died even mentioned again in reference to anything it might have done to Sam (beyond "did Sam come back wrong" - which imo was presented as more about Dean?) We never even got a scene of Sam talking about how awful or scary it was for Sam to die.

When Sam died in season 2, it was about Dean and we saw how Dean felt and what Dean did. When Dean died in season 3, it was still about Dean. The writers entirely skipped over Sam's reaction. They did the same thing in season 8.

At the end of season 5, we barely see a second of Sam falling in the hole and the aftermath, and we're over to Dean and his feelings about Sam dying with long lingering shots on Dean and an entire inner monologue about how Dean feels about Sam being dead... And then Sam's back and looking normal and leaving poor Dean in his misery. It is again framed in how Sam's death affected Dean. It wasn't until later when we find out that Sam is "wrong" that it turns more into being about Sam, and that season (season 6) does a good job - in my opinion - of still having Dean's POV shown also.

So if they want to frame this one as being a bit about Sam's reaction this time for once... I think I'm okay with that.

2 hours ago, Aeryn13 said:

It`s because they already introduced the box thing so early, that is mid-point of the Season. If it was in or close to the Finale, it would be presented with more gravitas, like when he was supposed to be the soul bomb for Amara and you know, he would go in as the Season Finale cliffhanger - that would be lamely resolved in the next Season Opener. 

And there's this also. I agree.

[Aeryn13]

Quote

Too funny, I was just looking at the latest @ cw tweet and the comments, and thinking hmmm, guess who was not on the goodbye tour? Honestly, at this point I don't care what Destiel people think about Dean. They (and I'm sure there are shippers who are not this way, but they sure ain't tweeting about it) only give a shit about Dean as an extension of Cas - and he is absolutely damned if he does and  if he doesn't.

At least in this case the Wincest fans defend him because of shipper feuds. Same in reverse. Both groups cease to care once it`s not about who he should revolve around but about him. Eh.

Btw, Jack also wasn`t on the goodbye tour. Big whoop. I`m actually quite sure Dean cares more for at least Cas than he does Donna. But she randomely got a goodbye because she was around.   

Quote

I sincerely hope that Jensen would put his foot down before letting them portray Dean as any kind of coward. I'm gonna have to see that before I believe it. But as a guy who has already woken up once buried alive and crawled out of his own grave, I'd think some panic-inducing flashbacks wouldn't be out of the question. I think if it actually came to pass, they'd give him some kind of drug to knock himself out once he's inside - one that lasts long enough that he doesn't regain consciousness before he suffocates to death. 

I hope so. Cowardice is the one thing that is near impossible to redeem narratively. Axe-murderers of puppies and toddlers are easier than real cowards.    

[gonzosgirrl]

8 minutes ago, Aeryn13 said:

I hope so. Cowardice is the one thing that is near impossible to redeem narratively. Axe-murderers of puppies and toddlers are easier than real cowards.   

And given the physical torture, grievous wounds, and other myriad afflictions we've seen Dean (and Sam for that matter) deal with over the years, not to mention being in an abundance of tight spaces, having him freak out to the point of begging to be let out, would be totally out of character. I hope whatever that scene is, it was in his mind.

[Aeryn13]

Quote

And given the physical torture, grievous wounds, and other myriad afflictions we've seen Dean (and Sam for that matter) deal with over the years, not to mention being in an abundance of tight spaces, having him freak out to the point of begging to be let out, would be totally out of character. I hope whatever that scene is, it was in his mind.

Not to mention they were all "poor little thing" about Gabriel and his what 7 years? of torture. 

If they attempted to make Dean look bad/weak, this would be the most dickish of dick moves. After Yockey was doing Chuck`s work in finally celebrating Dean`s strength for a change. 

[ahrtee]

18 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

And given the physical torture, grievous wounds, and other myriad afflictions we've seen Dean (and Sam for that matter) deal with over the years, not to mention being in an abundance of tight spaces, having him freak out to the point of begging to be let out, would be totally out of character. I hope whatever that scene is, it was in his mind.

Except that six weeks in the super-secret government lockup (with meals, amenities and people around, so it was just boring)  had him making a deal with Billie to get out because "it was worse than hell."  *sigh*  I wouldn't put anything past them.  

[gonzosgirrl]

27 minutes ago, ahrtee said:

Except that six weeks in the super-secret government lockup (with meals, amenities and people around, so it was just boring)  had him making a deal with Billie to get out because "it was worse than hell."  *sigh*  I wouldn't put anything past them.  

That is one of the few things I never took at face value. I thought 'worse than hell' was hyperbole to explain/justify their plan to get out. And it wasn't just Dean in this case. I'm certain they knew or at least believed that the gov't wasn't going to keep them alive forever waiting for answers.

[Aeryn13]

I hope it won`t be a case of vision of it and then Dean changing his mind because he is oh-so-scared. I`m okay if he changes his mind, just not for that reason. 

[ahrtee]

Moved from Damaged Goods thread, just because.

53 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

Except except for Lenore - who in the end also went "bad" - Sam is usually wrong about these things.

It can't really be "right" for Sam to give them a chance when he turns out to be wrong about doing so, whereas Dean's judgement is usually correct, so being "judgemental" isn't usually show as Dean being wrong, in my opinion.  

...

Sam being too compassionate concerning the monsters is hardly ever framed as a positive in terms of his being a hunter... just as it wasn't here either. (And ironically, the one time it's shown that Sam should have definitely been compassionate about a monster - Benny - suddenly he isn't.)

I am saying I would have liked it better if Sam had finally come to the conclusion that he shouldn't have been so forgiving / compassionate with Nick without having to get an "I told you so" beforehand.

To be fair, Lenore didn't "go bad."  She was forced to feed by outside influences she couldn't control (almost like being possessed?), and felt so guilty about it that she asked the boys to kill her.

But there's also Magda (who didn't get a chance to go bad, of course...)  Or Maritza the pishtaco (who was also the cause for Sam's berating Dean for lacking compassion).  Kate the werewolf.  All of Garth's pack (except the evil mother-in-law).  Alex.  The Trickster/Gabriel.  And, of course, Jack.   

Even working with Mick and Ketch turned out all right, because they both ended up as good guys who helped them (and Ketch is now working with/for them.)  The only BMoL who was completely bad was the Evil Headmistress, who was appropriately killed.  

Compassion is not a usual (or useful) trait in hunting, which is why it set Sam up as "different" from the other hunters (including Dean.)  And it was his seeing shades of gray that supposedly made Dean "better" in the early days, though that seems to have disappeared over the years.  But now they tend to be making it into black-and-white again, with "compassionate" Sam vs. "hard/killer" Dean, and neither one is always right (or always wrong.)  

But IA about Benny.  The only reason I could see for him being so adamantly against him would be jealousy, which is definitely a negative.

About Sam coming to conclusions himself--how many times has he said, "you know, you were right," to Dean on his own, and how many fans have complained about that, too?

[AwesomO4000]

1 hour ago, Aeryn13 said:

I hope so. Cowardice is the one thing that is near impossible to redeem narratively. Axe-murderers of puppies and toddlers are easier than real cowards.  

I don't know. There are exceptions for me - but I'm a weirdo. One example: "Platoon." I know I was probably supposed to look down on that guy who hid underneath the dead person during the big battle in order to stay alive - even though I think one of the main guys in the movie had earlier said that staying alive was their main job, I still got that impression - but nope. I thought "Smart. Good for him." I actually felt bad for him when he later got promoted instead of getting to go home. Although I thought Charlie Sheen's character was interesting and honorable in other ways, his gung ho, going crazy, isn't this killing everybody amazing? thing wasn't it. I was with the hide behind the dead guy guy on that one all the way.

[Aeryn13]

Quote

I don't know. There are exceptions for me - but I'm a weirdo. One example: "Platoon." I know I was probably supposed to look down on that guy who hid underneath the dead person during the big battle in order to stay alive - even though I think one of the main guys in the movie had earlier said that staying alive was their main job, I still got that impression - but nope. I thought "Smart. Good for him." I actually felt bad for him when he later got promoted instead of getting to go home. Although I thought Charlie Sheen's character was interesting and honorable in other ways, his gung ho, going crazy, isn't this killing everybody amazing? thing wasn't it. I was with the hide behind the dead guy guy on that one all the way.

For me it`s part and parcel of being weak aka the worst. 

[AwesomO4000]

13 minutes ago, ahrtee said:

About Sam coming to conclusions himself--how many times has he said, "you know, you were right," to Dean on his own, and how many fans have complained about that, too?

I don't know, because I only come here, and that's not me. Generally I'm complaining when it appears that Sam isn't given credit for saying that Dean is right. Then I disagree and given examples of when Sam does tell Dean he is right.

I guess maybe for me it's the set up. Sometimes when Sam tells Dean that he is right, it's because they have a difference of opinion, and Sam sees Dean's side, but it doesn't mean that Sam's opinion was  entirely wrong" per se, Just different or uninformed. The show used to be good at that.

Or there are other cases where Sam learns it on his own without Dean saying anything. A good example being Sam criticizing Dean for following John's orders which he later learned through circumstance why Dean did that and apologized and told Dean he now understood. Interestingly Dean also learned that sometimes he shouldn't just do what John says also - as I said, the show used to be good at doing that. I didn't even mind Sam telling Dean that he was right in terms of Amy Pond... my beef was more Dean getting to call Sam a bitch and being validated for it, when I personally thought Sam wasn't being that bad. ...and the situation also validating Dean lying about it - which is a separate thing, in my opinion. But that was a rare time in the Gamble era when I thought the situation wasn't as balanced as it often was, so minor thing over all.

The reason why this case is more annoying for me is first that it seems - to me anyway - that it was set up exactly so that Sam would be wrong... not just a different point of view or maybe Sam had a good point to begin with but it just went bad, but set up so that he'd be totally wrong. There was no way Nick was going to do anything good here or in any way deserve the chance Sam was giving him... never mind that it was just risky to do to begin with. Just logically, thinking that Nick wasn't a risk to begin with was pretty much on the verge of being entirely naive. It was just stupid, and it seemed to be set up just to make Sam look more stupid than compassionate. And then - if I'm remembering correctly - we even had to get an "I told you so" to go along with Sam being proven wrong. And to add insult to that injury, of course innocent people had to die because Sam made that stupid, wrong decision. (Which generally only happens when Sam (or Castiel) makes a stupid, wrong decision.)

For me, I make a distinction on situations where I can see why a character makes a wrong decision but there was a reason why they had a flaw in their logic or came to the wrong conclusion versus situations that just appear to be set up so that the character will be wrong and their reason for being wrong makes very little sense. Season 4, even though Sam was very, very wrong and made really bad decisions, I can at least see how and why Sam made those decisions. Sam joining the BMoL is an example of the opposite. Not even within that episode did Sam joining up make any sense at all. It seemed to be done solely for the purpose that Sam would be wrong for making that decision and so therefore learn a "very special lesson" even though it made no sense for him to make that decision or even learn that lesson to being with (in my opinion, anyway).

My annoyance is that this situation seems to be more like the latter rather than the former, so the least they could have done was leave the "I told you so" out of it.

But this goes back to what I said at the beginning of the season... No matter what "leadership" arc or whatever they say they are trying to do with Sam's character or say they are going to show, many of these writers are generally going to go back to this kind of thing when it comes to Sam, because they can't help themselves. They have been doing it since season 8, and it's a quick way to have "drama" and "conflict," and so if it means having Sam make a decision that makes no sense or is just stupid in order for that to happen... ehn no matter, it's good drama (in their opinion) so why not?

[Aeryn13]

Quote

For me, I make a distinction on situations where I can see why a character makes a wrong decision but there was a reason why they had a flaw in their logic or came to the wrong conclusion versus situations that just appear to be set up so that the character will be wrong and their reason for being wrong makes very little sense. Season 4, even though Sam was very, very wrong and made really bad decisions, I can at least see how and why Sam made those decisions. Sam joining the BMoL is an example of the opposite. Not even within that episode did Sam joining up make any sense at all. It seemed to be done solely for the purpose that Sam would be wrong for making that decision and so therefore learn a "very special lesson" even though it made no sense for him to make that decision or even learn that lesson to being with (in my opinion, anyway).

My annoyance is that this situation seems to be more like the latter rather than the former, so the least they could have done was leave the "I told you so" out of it.

But this goes back to what I said at the beginning of the season... No matter what "leadership" arc or whatever they say they are trying to do with Sam's character or say they are going to show, many of these writers are generally going to go back to this kind of thing when it comes to Sam, because they can't help themselves. They have been doing it since season 8, and it's a quick way to have "drama" and "conflict," and so if it means having Sam make a decision that makes no sense or is just stupid in order for that to happen... ehn no matter, it's good drama (in their opinion) so why not?

I don`t think this specific episode was set up to present Sam as wrong. He was supposed to be the compassionate one during their car convo whereas Dean was clearly talking about himself with the "walk away if you can`t save them". And then he was supposed to be the one you cheer for when he tells Nick to take a hike basically. The show is very unsubtle when it wants the blame game and this wasn`t it.

With Dean, it was kinda on the edge because he was clearly supposed to be wrong with the secrecy and everything but the motivation was more "oh, angsty" and not too much into "dick needs to learn a lesson" like usually.   

[SueB]

From @BabySpinach in the Dean winchester Thread:

Quote

Dean Winchester - the Righteous Man, the Michael Sword, the Firewall between Light and Darkness, the Cosmic Mediator, Slayer of Satan, the Archangel Cage, Death's Bestie, Devourer of Pies...

He's got so many official and unofficial titles that he should have a herald to announce his presence everywhere he goes. 

You forgot ‘Bearer of the Mark’, ‘Executioner of Cain’, and ‘Final Solution for Hitler’  

These things are all true.  Which is why I think the writers LOVE the character and I don’t buy into the theory that they dislike him or want him gone.  

[AwesomO4000]

1 hour ago, Aeryn13 said:

For me it`s part and parcel of being weak aka the worst. 

I guess for me, I think there are worse things to be... a traitor. An unrepentant killer. A rapist. A demagogue who exploits people for his/her own gain. A person who uses racism, classism, or heritage to kill, torture, imprison, or brutally repress other people.

I guess it depends on if the character's being weak hurts others vs just themselves. If it just hurts themselves, then for me that's not nearly as bad as someone who hurts others specifically for their own pleasure or gain. Not even close.

I'm not saying that being weak is a good thing by any means, but to me it's at least more understandable - to me anyway - than say a lack of any compassion or being a stone-cold killer. I could understand someone being weak in a moment than someone who just decided to torture and kill someone just to watch them die. So I guess I should say from the "Platoon" example more that I understood the guy for hiding behind the dead person... but then again I also understood Charlie Sheen's character going crazy too. They were both ways of coping with too much. I just understood the guy who hid more. (My favorite character was actually Elias, but we all know what happened to him.)

But that's just my opinion, and having different opinions is what makes the world go 'round. (so to speak... not actually, because that's science.)

8 minutes ago, Aeryn13 said:

I don`t think this specific episode was set up to present Sam as wrong. He was supposed to be the compassionate one during their car convo whereas Dean was clearly talking about himself with the "walk away if you can`t save them". And then he was supposed to be the one you cheer for when he tells Nick to take a hike basically. The show is very unsubtle when it wants the blame game and this wasn`t it.

Except that by Sam saying that Nick should burn in hell and that he didn't feel sorry for him, but for his victims was Dean's "walk away if you can't save them" point, so if we're supposed to be cheering Sam, then we're also supposed to be seeing Dean as having been right and Sam finally seeing that. I don't see how it can be both ways myself.

14 minutes ago, Aeryn13 said:

With Dean, it was kinda on the edge because he was clearly supposed to be wrong with the secrecy and everything but the motivation was more "oh, angsty" and not too much into "dick needs to learn a lesson" like usually. 

I think the show is very unsubtle when it comes to the "Character A shouldn't have lied to character B" thing, so I'm not sure this is much on the edge. But then again I think the show isn't as even-handed about the lying as others do. I think it tends to fall on the side of "Big brother's prerogative" and/or "Lying for Sam's own good" is okay. When "lying is bad" there are consequences: Lucifer is raised, leviathan's escape, people die, and apocalypses happen.

It's generally not subtle. This was way too subtle and Dean gave his very good reason for lying... he couldn't let Sam talk him out of it because then he couldn't sacrifice himself to save the world. Very noble reasoning.

The only consequences here (dead innocent people, threatened mother) were from Sam's decision to let Nick go.

[Aeryn13]

Quote

I guess for me, I think there are worse things to be... a traitor. An unrepentant killer. A rapist. A demagogue who exploits people for his/her own gain. A person who uses racism, classism, or heritage to kill, torture, imprison, or brutally repress other people.

I guess it depends on if the character's being weak hurts others vs just themselves. If it just hurts themselves, then for me that's not nearly as bad as someone who hurts others specifically for their own pleasure or gain. Not even close.

For me there is a big distinction between reality and fiction in that regard. In the real world, murderers, rapists etc are undoubtedly worse, no contest. But in fictional stories cowards and weakling are the worst or at least second-worst to me, only behind Mary Sues. They hold no enjoyment factor to me when consuming a story which defeats the entire point of entertainment. 

[AwesomO4000]

4 minutes ago, Aeryn13 said:

For me there is a big distinction between reality and fiction in that regard. In the real world, murderers, rapists etc are undoubtedly worse, no contest. But in fictional stories cowards and weakling are the worst or at least second-worst to me, only behind Mary Sues. They hold no enjoyment factor to me when consuming a story which defeats the entire point of entertainment. 

Ah, okay... got it. Not sure where to put the rest of my thoughts here... um I guess "Small Talk..."

 

3 hours ago, ahrtee said:

To be fair, Lenore didn't "go bad."  She was forced to feed by outside influences she couldn't control (almost like being possessed?), and felt so guilty about it that she asked the boys to kill her.

But there's also Magda (who didn't get a chance to go bad, of course...)  Or Maritza the pishtaco (who was also the cause for Sam's berating Dean for lacking compassion).  Kate the werewolf.  All of Garth's pack (except the evil mother-in-law).  Alex.  The Trickster/Gabriel.  And, of course, Jack.   

Even working with Mick and Ketch turned out all right, because they both ended up as good guys who helped them (and Ketch is now working with/for them.)  The only BMoL who was completely bad was the Evil Headmistress, who was appropriately killed.  

Compassion is not a usual (or useful) trait in hunting, which is why it set Sam up as "different" from the other hunters (including Dean.)  And it was his seeing shades of gray that supposedly made Dean "better" in the early days, though that seems to have disappeared over the years.  But now they tend to be making it into black-and-white again, with "compassionate" Sam vs. "hard/killer" Dean, and neither one is always right (or always wrong.) 

Ahrtee: I'm not intentionally ignoring all of this... I do have some thoughts on it - especially Lenore - but I'm gonna mull it over a bit and get back to you when I have more time. : )

[AwesomO4000]

6 hours ago, ahrtee said:

No, Dean's original plan was to keep the mark and be sent to another planet or somewhere.  It was Death who insisted on having him kill Sam, not to prevent him from transferring the mark but to prevent Sam from rescuing him.  Chuck (I think) even said that the world would go on with DemonDean in it.  It was removing the mark and releasing Amara that caused the problem, and that wasn't on Dean.  

9 hours ago, Aeryn13 said:

Dean didn't know he would be releasing Amara. He knew nothing of Sam's currently ongoing spell. Which wouldn't have been stopped by Sam's death either. And killing death had nothing whatsoever to do with releasing Amara. It bugs me when that gets put on Dean. So no, it wouldn't at all be the same to me now.  

Yes, removing the mark was the thing that released Amara and caused a problem, but in my opinion - and I think what may have been one of the points that @MysteryGuest was trying to make (and I apologize if I'm wrong on that) wasn't that Dean had a part in causing Amara, but that Dean's decision to kill Death and save Sam rather than take the more sure thing of killing Sam so he could be put in limbo to keep the world safe was in itself a decision that could have put the world at risk. As Aeryn13 said, Dean didn't know Sam's plan to get rid of the mark, so killing Death meant that his one avenue to be sent away where he couldn't cause any problems was for the moment gone. In other words, Dean put the world at risk in order to save Sam by leaving himself there with the mark and no way to be sent away. The world might theoretically go on with Dean in it, but what kind of world would that end up being and how many people might eventually be killed in that world if Dean went full on Cain? As Castiel told Dean, it might not happen in Sam's lifetime, but it would potentially happen in his, so Dean could have been risking short term gain - time with Sam until Sam died naturally (or if Dean turned into a demon again, until maybe he killed Sam, so potentially an even shorter gain) - for long term potential damage.

In my opinion, just because the writers decided that Sam doing something risky to save Dean would have huge consequences while Dean doing something similarly risky wouldn't have any consequences, doesn't to me mean that Sam is the "bad guy" here. To me it means that Dean is lucky and/or the writers don't give him the same consequences for doing that kind of thing as they do for Sam. (And killing Death isn't the only example of Dean being "lucky," in my opinion.)

For me, implying that Sam is the "weak" and "immoral" brother just because of the consequences isn't quite a fair assessment. To me, it would be like saying that if one person robbed a bank while another robbed a restaurant, but only one the one who robbed the bank got caught and went to jail, that only the bank robber is guilty of robbery. They're both guilty of robbery, it's just that only one suffered consequences for it.

[Res]

6 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:

Yes, removing the mark was the thing that released Amara and caused a problem, but in my opinion - and I think what may have been one of the points that @MysteryGuest was trying to make (and I apologize if I'm wrong on that) wasn't that Dean had a part in causing Amara, but that Dean's decision to kill Death and save Sam rather than take the more sure thing of killing Sam so he could be put in limbo to keep the world safe was in itself a decision that could have put the world at risk. As Aeryn13 said, Dean didn't know Sam's plan to get rid of the mark, so killing Death meant that his one avenue to be sent away where he couldn't cause any problems was for the moment gone. In other words, Dean put the world at risk in order to save Sam by leaving himself there with the mark and no way to be sent away. The world might theoretically go on with Dean in it, but what kind of world would that end up being and how many people might eventually be killed in that world if Dean went full on Cain? As Castiel told Dean, it might not happen in Sam's lifetime, but it would potentially happen in his, so Dean could have been risking short term gain - time with Sam until Sam died naturally (or if Dean turned into a demon again, until maybe he killed Sam, so potentially an even shorter gain) - for long term potential damage.

I completely agree with this which is why I said it diminishes their legacy as any kind of heroes. IMO of course. If you add up the number of people saved vs. the number of people put at risk, if not killed, I'm pretty sure the brothers would be in the negatives, especially in these later seasons.

As for the rest, I disagree completely.

[BabySpinach]

8 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:

Yes, removing the mark was the thing that released Amara and caused a problem, but in my opinion - and I think what may have been one of the points that @MysteryGuest was trying to make (and I apologize if I'm wrong on that) wasn't that Dean had a part in causing Amara, but that Dean's decision to kill Death and save Sam rather than take the more sure thing of killing Sam so he could be put in limbo to keep the world safe was in itself a decision that could have put the world at risk. As Aeryn13 said, Dean didn't know Sam's plan to get rid of the mark, so killing Death meant that his one avenue to be sent away where he couldn't cause any problems was for the moment gone. In other words, Dean put the world at risk in order to save Sam by leaving himself there with the mark and no way to be sent away. The world might theoretically go on with Dean in it, but what kind of world would that end up being and how many people might eventually be killed in that world if Dean went full on Cain? As Castiel told Dean, it might not happen in Sam's lifetime, but it would potentially happen in his, so Dean could have been risking short term gain - time with Sam until Sam died naturally (or if Dean turned into a demon again, until maybe he killed Sam, so potentially an even shorter gain) - for long term potential damage.

In my opinion, just because the writers decided that Sam doing something risky to save Dean would have huge consequences while Dean doing something similarly risky wouldn't have any consequences, doesn't to me mean that Sam is the "bad guy" here. To me it means that Dean is lucky and/or the writers don't give him the same consequences for doing that kind of thing as they do for Sam. (And killing Death isn't the only example of Dean being "lucky," in my opinion.)

For me, implying that Sam is the "weak" and "immoral" brother just because of the consequences isn't quite a fair assessment. To me, it would be like saying that if one person robbed a bank while another robbed a restaurant, but only one the one who robbed the bank got caught and went to jail, that only the bank robber is guilty of robbery. They're both guilty of robbery, it's just that only one suffered consequences for it.

Dean deciding not to get launched into space and continue as things had already been for over a year is not the same as what Sam did. Seriously. Even Dean with the MoC at his very worst, when he was a demon, didn't kill any innocents. Cain had lived in peace for centuries, and Dean could have very conceivably done the same. I seriously don't see how the brothers' actions compare in any way. 

With Dean, you're talking in hypotheticals and what-ifs. Sure, he MAY have turned into a rampaging killing machine, because that's within the realm of possibility, but none of what we'd seen in season 10 supported that. NOTHING was there to suggest, based on Dean's character and his actions even as a demon, that he would have been any particular danger to the world. I'd argue that a big reason for why Dean felt like a monster was because of Sam and Cas' reactions to him. They knew that the MoC needed kills to be sated, yet they clutched their pearls every time Dean dared to blow off steam that way or acted even slightly more manic than usual. They never tried to support Dean in the internal struggle that he was coping fairly well with. Rather, they talked and worked behind his back for a solution that he emphatically refused and then lay it at his feet as justification for their actions. 

Dean didn't know that Death would ask him to kill Sam when he summoned him. That particular surprise, for all the plot-stupidity of it, was sprung on him, so it's no shock that he couldn't go through with it. Not killing his own brother and choosing to continue fighting the MoC as he was already doing was not the same as Sam's relentless quest to cure it at all costs in spite of the multiple innocent casualties, the cosmic consequences, and the fact that it was not even a particularly urgent problem in the first place.

The act of killing Death, on its own and regardless of the potential consequences that could/should have arisen, was not an action that hurt any innocents or sacrificed anyone. It was also a single split-second decision, whereas Sam made many long-term, thought-out ones that directly hurt otherwise uninvolved individuals. Suzie was an unintended consequence, but Oskar was a deliberate sacrifice that Sam was totally OK with. He was also totally OK with the Darkness being released and decimating the world, wreaking havoc with far more certainty and devastation than MoC Dean would have. Without bringing in the writers' intent or their purported bias against Sam, it's still pretty clear that even the brothers' actions alone were still not equal in any way.  

So no, they're not both "bank robbers". One robbed a bank, the other maybe stole a snack from a vending machine without paying.

[Aeryn13]

Quote

Yes, removing the mark was the thing that released Amara and caused a problem, but in my opinion - and I think what may have been one of the points that @MYSTERYGUEST was trying to make (and I apologize if I'm wrong on that) wasn't that Dean had a part in causing Amara, but that Dean's decision to kill Death and save Sam rather than take the more sure thing of killing Sam so he could be put in limbo to keep the world safe was in itself a decision that could have put the world at risk. As Aeryn13 said, Dean didn't know Sam's plan to get rid of the mark, so killing Death meant that his one avenue to be sent away where he couldn't cause any problems was for the moment gone. In other words, Dean put the world at risk in order to save Sam by leaving himself there with the mark and no way to be sent away. The world might theoretically go on with Dean in it, but what kind of world would that end up being and how many people might eventually be killed in that world if Dean went full on Cain? As Castiel told Dean, it might not happen in Sam's lifetime, but it would potentially happen in his, so Dean could have been risking short term gain - time with Sam until Sam died naturally (or if Dean turned into a demon again, until maybe he killed Sam, so potentially an even shorter gain) - for long term potential damage.

In my opinion, just because the writers decided that Sam doing something risky to save Dean would have huge consequences while Dean doing something similarly risky wouldn't have any consequences, doesn't to me mean that Sam is the "bad guy" here. To me it means that Dean is lucky and/or the writers don't give him the same consequences for doing that kind of thing as they do for Sam. (And killing Death isn't the only example of Dean being "lucky," in my opinion.)

For me, implying that Sam is the "weak" and "immoral" brother just because of the consequences isn't quite a fair assessment. To me, it would be like saying that if one person robbed a bank while another robbed a restaurant, but only one the one who robbed the bank got caught and went to jail, that only the bank robber is guilty of robbery. They're both guilty of robbery, it's just that only one suffered consequences for it.

I`m not at all saying this is something only Sam does. Nor that Dean killing Death wasn`t incredibly stupid and potentially super-risky in terms of far-reaching consequences. Obviously, Dean has made selfish and dumb calls in terms of "the good of family" vs. "the good of the world". Saying yes to Michael was already borderline - and the show keeps forgetting the only redeeming reason. Yes, I know he did it (mostly) for family but at least the world was at stake, too, which is THE single reason that makes it halfway acceptable. 

What I was arguing against was that Dean knowingly released Amara or relased Amara period by killing Death.

And therefore it wouldn`t serve as any kind of excuse to me if Dean now knowingly doomed the world. He is the one holding Michael, he knows the threat, Billie made the threat clear. There are no excuses this time. And the situations aren`t comparable, least of all that I would handwave this now. 

[AwesomO4000]

6 hours ago, Res said:

As for the rest, I disagree completely.

I can understand this.

My main reason for saying that Dean was lucky in this scenario was because killing Death didn't result in anything cosmically bad happening, but that was in no way guaranteed when Dean did it. As far as Dean knew, Death was a very old, important cosmic player in the universe ....powerful enough to potentially reap God one day, so in my opinion killing an entity like that and not having anything bad happen like the world go out of whack was lucky.

4 hours ago, BabySpinach said:

Dean deciding not to get launched into space and continue as things had already been for over a year is not the same as what Sam did. Seriously. Even Dean with the MoC at his very worst, when he was a demon, didn't kill any innocents. Cain had lived in peace for centuries, and Dean could have very conceivably done the same. I seriously don't see how the brothers' actions compare in any way. 

Cain lived in peace for centuries - by a chance meeting with a woman he fell in love with no less - after he killed thousands and thousand of people first and wreaked who knew what kind of havoc on the world. Castiel told Dean that there were risks to his staying with the mark of Cain. Dean, too was warned... maybe not as often as Sam was, but he had warnings, too. and again - in my opinion - that Demon Dean didn't kill any innocents was lucky (or writer preference). Based on everything we knew about demons on this show ever, that shouldn't have happened.

4 hours ago, BabySpinach said:

With Dean, you're talking in hypotheticals and what-ifs. Sure, he MAY have turned into a rampaging killing machine, because that's within the realm of possibility, but none of what we'd seen in season 10 supported that. NOTHING was there to suggest, based on Dean's character and his actions even as a demon, that he would have been any particular danger to the world. I'd argue that a big reason for why Dean felt like a monster was because of Sam and Cas' reactions to him. They knew that the MoC needed kills to be sated, yet they clutched their pearls every time Dean dared to blow off steam that way or acted even slightly more manic than usual. They never tried to support Dean in the internal struggle that he was coping fairly well with. Rather, they talked and worked behind his back for a solution that he emphatically refused and then lay it at his feet as justification for their actions. 

So Dean's becoming unstable was Sam and Castiel's fault for not supporting him entirely 100% all of the time and being worried that he had a dark power inside of him that had previously made Cain go crazy and kill a ton of people rather than Dean's fault for taking on the mark of Cain in the first place. Okay got it

...I guess it's perfectly okay for Dean not to "support" Sam in working with Ruby and working with dark powers in season 4 (which by the way, it was, in my opinion, because Sam should not have been working with Ruby or drinking demon blood), but when Dean ends up listening to Crowley and getting dark powers, now Sam is supposed to support him 100% (and Sam did support Dean quite a bit) even though he knows Dean might become a demon again, and Sam is not supposed to try to do anything to help or prevent it. That sounds a bit like a double standard to me. I'm not going to say that well maybe Sam acted like a monster while drinking demon blood, because Dean looked at him weirdly and didn't support what he was doing and trying to accomplish, because Sam acted that way because he drank demon blood and had a dark power inside him. It had nothing to do with Dean. Dean needed to kill people and had his behavior affected because he took on the mark of Cain. Sam gave Dean a chance to fight it with few objections in season 9 and Dean ended up being a demon. I'm not going to fault Sam - or Castiel - for being concerned it might happen again. Sam of all people knows how difficult it is to fight dark powers. Castiel, too.

And in terms of "what-ifs" what might happen with Dean keeping the mark and staying around that way, in my opinion, pales in comparison to what could have happened when he killed Death. There was no guarantee whatsoever that that wouldn't have huge consequences.

Quote

Dean didn't know that Death would ask him to kill Sam when he summoned him. That particular surprise, for all the plot-stupidity of it, was sprung on him, so it's no shock that he couldn't go through with it. Not killing his own brother and choosing to continue fighting the MoC as he was already doing was not the same as Sam's relentless quest to cure it at all costs in spite of the multiple innocent casualties, the cosmic consequences, and the fact that it was not even a particularly urgent problem in the first place.

What cosmic consequences was Sam sure of? Sam was warned, but it was vague as Sam had argued. I really don't see that big of a difference in Sam's taking a chance on vague cosmic consequences on trying to cure Dean's mark - which while not now doing anything might have consequences later - versus Dean taking a chance on vague cosmic consequences by killing Death. The main differences were amount of time to make the decision (and Dean is known for making quick calculating decisions) and consequences. And that second one, in my opinion, was pure luck.

Quote

The act of killing Death, on its own and regardless of the potential consequences that could/should have arisen, was not an action that hurt any innocents or sacrificed anyone. It was also a single split-second decision, whereas Sam made many long-term, thought-out ones that directly hurt otherwise uninvolved individuals. Suzie was an unintended consequence, but Oskar was a deliberate sacrifice that Sam was totally OK with. He was also totally OK with the Darkness being released and decimating the world, wreaking havoc with far more certainty and devastation than MoC Dean would have. Without bringing in the writers' intent or their purported bias against Sam, it's still pretty clear that even the brothers' actions alone were still not equal in any way. 

I disagree entirely. This was my point from above: that, in my opinion, consequences don't determine whether or not someone did something. In my opinion, the opposite could have happened. Sam curing the mark could have ended up with almost nothing happening (a la Gaknar - the tiny little fear demon in Buffy... "Biiiiig overture, liiiittle show") whereas Dean killing Death could've ended up with - who knows, everyone in the world "undying" and raising from their graves. Would that then mean that what Sam did was okay while what Dean did wasn't? In my opinion, nope, because both were risky and maybe shouldn't have been done, but that's not going to happen on this show (the not doing it that is).

As for Oskar, Sam had no way at all of knowing that Oskar would be sacrificed. The last he heard was that Oskar was a boy that Rowena cared for 300 years ago... so logically dead. Sam did tell Castiel before he left to do whatever it took, but he had no way to know that there was actually a human being alive - or any person alive - that Rowena loved and so therefore had to be sacrificed. For all Sam knew, it could have been her favorite spell book or tea pot. And Sam didn't know that the darkness would be released.

It's bad that Sam said that he was glad that Dean was safe and that they would deal with the consequences, but I can't say that Dean wouldn't have said / thought the same thing if something bad had happened when he killed Death - or he wouldn't have done it in the first place.

So no I can't say for certainty that it's clear - especially under Carver's reign (just look at the season 8 finale - ugh) - that the actions were that unequal. For me, it was mainly the consequences that were.

[AwesomO4000]

4 hours ago, Aeryn13 said:

I`m not at all saying this is something only Sam does. Nor that Dean killing Death wasn`t incredibly stupid and potentially super-risky in terms of far-reaching consequences. Obviously, Dean has made selfish and dumb calls in terms of "the good of family" vs. "the good of the world". Saying yes to Michael was already borderline - and the show keeps forgetting the only redeeming reason. Yes, I know he did it (mostly) for family but at least the world was at stake, too, which is THE single reason that makes it halfway acceptable. 

What I was arguing against was that Dean knowingly released Amara or relased Amara period by killing Death.

And therefore it wouldn`t serve as any kind of excuse to me if Dean now knowingly doomed the world. He is the one holding Michael, he knows the threat, Billie made the threat clear. There are no excuses this time. And the situations aren`t comparable, least of all that I would handwave this now. 

Got it...

The original thoughts were on another thread, and I got confused... it was someone else who had been talking about being cowardly and immoral and I tied that all up with Sam and Amara (so Sam causing Amara meaning he was the only one who did something questionable.) Sorry about that.

And I am actually one who doesn't think that Dean saying yes to Michael was borderline... I  think under the circumstances he had no choice. And of course the show is going to emphasize the "saving family" aspect, because I think that's what they actually think is important (again see the end of season 8 - or don't as I wish I could say I didn't.)

And I agree with you about Amara... and I don't think MysteryGuest was talking about Amara either, since killing Death and the MoC was mentioned specifically.

My point was just because nothing bad happened by Dean killing Death or his deciding not to go through with having himself banished to the ether, didn't mean that it wasn't a risky thing to do or was somehow not a suspect decision. Which I think was also the point that MysteryGuest was trying to make.

And I also agree that the stakes are higher and more known now ...as long as Billie is telling the truth that is, and that this isn't just some kind of test that she's conducting to see if Dean can be trusted to make the right decision in the future.

And for what it's worth, I don't think Dean will be shown in any way to wimp out... If anyone "wimps out" I think it will be Sam. I just hope it somehow doesn't end up causing some kind of problem so that Sam gets blamed for the fallout. (As in Sam tried to leave Dean an "out" somehow and in so doing lets Michael out. I will be annoyed if this all gets somehow turned onto Sam and only Sam again. (a la season 5 and season 10.))

Maybe if it is a test and Sam does something to mess it up, Sam will end up on Billie's shitlist and that somehow

Spoiler

leads to his being altered?

[ILoveReading]

From @AwesomO4000 in the bitter spoiler.  No spoilers in the quote.

Quote

But a lot of people thought the same thing after the promotional shots and descriptions of the midseason opener, and that very much turned out to be a Dean-heavy episode.

Sure this was a nice suprise but given the follow up, where Sam came in at the end of the episode and made it all about Sam. 

Spoiler

I feel like that episode is just another set up for Dean to fail.  He'll either give into Sam/Cas and won't go through with the plan putting the world at risk, or he will and he'll panic so bad he needs to be pulled out.  

 

Can't give the impression that he's too strong or that he cares about anyone but Sam.

I have no idea how Yockey got that script past Dabb.

[trudysmom]

On 1/19/2019 at 11:42 AM, Myrelle said:

I'm not sure if he truly believes that he and Dean are alike, but he definitely wants Dean to believe it.

And if in doing so he can also get Sam, Cas, and Jack to believe it, so much the better.  The sooner they all give up, the better for him.

[juppschmitz]

10 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:

Sam will end up on Billie's shitlist

lol I don't think Billie has any fond feelings for Sam as is, going by their very first interaction. She did seem quite disdainful of him that time. ("...no offense, but you ain't my type...")

Not that she particularly LIKES Dean, but there is definitely a certain ~intrigued fascination~ there, and she does keep having significant encounters with him.

[Pondlass1]

6 hours ago, juppschmitz said:

Not that she particularly LIKES Dean, but there is definitely a certain ~intrigued fascination~ there, and she does keep having significant encounters with him.

It was the same with Julian's Death too.  Maybe it's Dean's handsome good looks and charisma? It's an intriguing relationship that the writers dangle in front of us but don't seem much bothered to explore .

I wish there'd been some fallout from Dean killing Death.  In the scheme of things it was a pretty darn colossal happening yet ... nothing, nada.  And I don't think Julian had another gig.  He was the perfect Death, although Billie has grown on me.

[tessathereaper]

Quote

So Dean's becoming unstable was Sam and Castiel's fault for not supporting him entirely 100% all of the time and being worried that he had a dark power inside of him that had previously made Cain go crazy and kill a ton of people rather than Dean's fault for taking on the mark of Cain in the first place. Okay got it

What's good for the goose, etc, etc.  That's what is said of Dean when Dean doesn't completely 100 percent all the time support anything and everything Sam and Cas do.  It's his fault for what Sam did in Season 4, it's his fault for what Cas did in Season 6, etc, etc.

And frankly IMO Sam and Cas had much much less of an excuse for not supporting Dean.  They never supported him, they went immediately to "Dean's doing bad stuff" even though if anything THEY were doing as bad or worse.  Dean kills a bunch of sickos who were going to kill HIM and it's "you had to do it right, right!!!!!!!!!!"  Dean's losing it!!!!! ARGH!!!!!!.   

ETA:  Regarding Cain and his woman, Dean should have already been ahead of the game, he didn't need to find "a woman", someone to support and believe in him, he already HAD Sam and Cas, whom he loves and who supposedly loved him, who unfortunately did not show him the support a woman who initially wouldn't even have known Cain except as what he was, showed Cain.

Dean's whole time with the MoC barely qualified as "instability", a little bit more ruthlessness than usual but really he was handling himself and the Mark pretty darn well as I recall, considering what it was, except for Sam and Cas grasping their pearls every 2 seconds about how Dean was losing it, while not doing anything particularly worse than anyone else.  Maybe if instead of grasping their pearls, making it clear to him they didn't believe in him or trust him and going behind his back to "save" him, they'd been a little more "you're strong, but if you need support I'm here and I won't think any worse of you for it(ie won't treat you like you're weak, losing it, etc,etc",) things would have been a little different.

That's always how the show's been, it's such a double standard it goes back to season 2 even - Dean just killed a vampire in a particularly icky way "oh dear Dean's losing it, darkness, he's going to fall to the darkside, etc, etc".  Meanwhile Sam or Cas can kill and torture people and it's just like "hey all in a day's work".

Edited January 29, 2019 by tessathereaper

[Myrelle]

On 1/22/2019 at 4:14 PM, AwesomO4000 said:

So my main point is that even with your added contingencies, I still stand by my assessment that there really wasn't all that much difference in seasons 1-7 in terms of Jared and Jensen playing "other" characters*** which had an impact on the storyline. I still don't see a large discrepancy there.

Sorry about not responding to this sooner, but sadly, RL sometimes has to trump on-line fun for me.

The only storylines that I feel fully fit the parameters that I mentioned as qualifying as that were, for Sam-the Lucifer and Gadreel storylines; for Cas-the Godstiel and Lucifer storylines; and for Dean the s13 Michael storyline.

The Demon Dean storyline was borderline to me as he wasn't possessed by another entity, but IA that if that one counts than so too would Soulless Sam.

In any case, JA wasn't given a substantial "other" storyline( again, wherein he was gifted with the opportunity to actually play and portray the "other" entity as part and parcel of the storyline that it was actually centered around) until the end of S13, and arguably, maybe until S10, with neither happening before S7.

The short and brief glimpses we got of him doing that-and I can admit and agree that all 3 characters and actors have had these type of acting opportunities through out the series(if anyone was afforded more than the others, it's MC, IMO-he was introduced as an angel and as such his human storylines can even be classified as playing "other" in a sense to me, too-or even, his actual and usual role on the show, for that matter)-only whet the appetites of those in this fandom who had been longing to see JA involved in a storyline in that way/manner for years, but that wasn't truly delivered on for him until again S13, for sure, for me.

But yes, as always, we can just agree to disagree again, on this aspect of the writing and storytelling of the show.

Edited January 29, 2019 by Myrelle

[gonzosgirrl]

3 hours ago, tessathereaper said:

Dean's whole time with the MoC barely qualified as "instability", a little bit more ruthlessness than usual but really he was handling himself and the Mark pretty darn well as I recall, considering what it was, except for Sam and Cas grasping their pearls every 2 seconds about how Dean was losing it, while not doing anything particularly worse than anyone else.

The most egregious example of this was when Dean roughed up the guy who went after Claire in Angel Heart. IMO Cas took him there for specifically that purpose, to be the henchman, and then, as you say, clutched his pearls when Dean did exactly what was expected of him. Oooh, I wanted to smack both Cas and Sam so hard when they decided he was too dangerous to go along with them after that. Arrrgh.

[Aeryn13]

Quote

The most egregious example of this was when Dean roughed up the guy who went after Claire in Angel Heart. IMO Cas took him there for specifically that purpose, to be the henchman, and then, as you say, clutched his pearls when Dean did exactly what was expected of him. Oooh, I wanted to smack both Cas and Sam so hard when they decided he was too dangerous to go along with them after that. Arrrgh.

To me the worst was when they freed Claire from the rapist. Yes, pearl-clutching amped up after that event but both Sam and Cas basically promised to be vigilant before. So why then leave Dean alone with 6 or 7 angry dudes? You wouldn`t do that even if you didn`t think someone was a ticking time bomb. The situation was not secured. It`s not like those guys were standing around meekly and admitted their fault. One person, Cas maybe, is enough to escort Claire out. Two should have remained behind and left together. This was a powder keg.

And it`s not even like one of them shoved Dean, he freaked out and unleashed on them. He was on the ground, they were kicking him in the head. Yes, they were ultimately no match for him and got heavy karma for it but Sam and Cas sit there in the car like logs, hear screaming from the house - you think something bad could have happened the way you left it, guys? - and ran back in to dissolve into horrified "ZOMG, what happened here?" Dudes, you didn`t leave him at a knitting groupd with little old ladies. 

This "tell me you had to do this" just made me roll my eyes so hard. Seriously? Like, what were you doing in the car 2 minutes ago? That was one of the most painfully stupid set-ups for pearl-clutching I`ve seen in my life. Only a recent Flash episode gave me more WTF-feelings.  

[tessathereaper]

56 minutes ago, Aeryn13 said:

To me the worst was when they freed Claire from the rapist. Yes, pearl-clutching amped up after that event but both Sam and Cas basically promised to be vigilant before. So why then leave Dean alone with 6 or 7 angry dudes? You wouldn`t do that even if you didn`t think someone was a ticking time bomb. The situation was not secured. It`s not like those guys were standing around meekly and admitted their fault. One person, Cas maybe, is enough to escort Claire out. Two should have remained behind and left together. This was a powder keg.

And it`s not even like one of them shoved Dean, he freaked out and unleashed on them. He was on the ground, they were kicking him in the head. Yes, they were ultimately no match for him and got heavy karma for it but Sam and Cas sit there in the car like logs, hear screaming from the house - you think something bad could have happened the way you left it, guys? - and ran back in to dissolve into horrified "ZOMG, what happened here?" Dudes, you didn`t leave him at a knitting groupd with little old ladies. 

This "tell me you had to do this" just made me roll my eyes so hard. Seriously? Like, what were you doing in the car 2 minutes ago? That was one of the most painfully stupid set-ups for pearl-clutching I`ve seen in my life. Only a recent Flash episode gave me more WTF-feelings.  

That's the scene I was talking about, I mean HELLLOOOOO Rapists?  These were BEYOND not "nice" people, they clearly were ready to kill Dean, they were beating and kicking him in the head, under normal circumstanced you expect if a bunch of people do that, the person will eventually die from being kicked in the head repeatedly.  That is what was in their minds.   His life was threatened.  

Sam and Cas' reactions were so ridiculous and OTT under the circumstances, what the hell did they expect him to do, let himself get killed?  They needed killing, they got killed.  Now they aren't out there trying to rape any other teenagers or killing anyone who might try to help them.

[gonzosgirrl]

Oh, I totally agree the circumstances and aftermath of The Things We Left Behind were worse, but at least Dean actually did something questionable here - scumbags and would-be rapists who attacked him first, despite his warnings, and who got what they deserved (IMO) for sure, but he did brutally kill 4? 5? people in a matter of moments. All he did in Angel Heart was rough up a dirtbag for information - information Cas took him there to get. That's what I found egregious.

[tessathereaper]

10 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

Oh, I totally agree the circumstances and aftermath of The Things We Left Behind were worse, but at least Dean actually did something questionable here - scumbags and would-be rapists who attacked him first, despite his warnings, and who got what they deserved (IMO) for sure, but he did brutally kill 4? 5? people in a matter of moments. All he did in Angel Heart was rough up a dirtbag for information - information Cas took him there to get. That's what I found egregious.

That's the thing, I don't really see why the "how"(supposedly "brutal") of it makes a difference.  They are dead either way.  These people were willing to kill(and rape) and got killed instead.  Is there some method of killing them(for self-defense and defense of others) that would have somehow been "better" for Sam and Cas, that wouldn't have had them clutching their pearls? Dean did it quickly and efficiently, if bloodily.  Was there some "less brutal" method that would have been more acceptable to Sam and Cas?  

[gonzosgirrl]

11 minutes ago, tessathereaper said:

That's the thing, I don't really see why the "how"(supposedly "brutal") of it makes a difference.  They are dead either way.  These people were willing to kill(and rape) and got killed instead.  Is there some method of killing them(for self-defense and defense of others) that would have somehow been "better" for Sam and Cas, that wouldn't have had them clutching their pearls? Dean did it quickly and efficiently, if bloodily.  Was there some "less brutal" method that would have been more acceptable to Sam and Cas?  

I do think there is a distinction - the 'frenzied' look of stabbing four or five grown men to death supposedly showing a lack of control that say, calmly shooting them all in the head would not. All I was saying is walking in on that would at least give someone pause to question, where Dean smacking around a dirtbag for some information was more a day in the life than OMG Dean has snapped!!

[AwesomO4000]

1 hour ago, Aeryn13 said:

To me the worst was when they freed Claire from the rapist. Yes, pearl-clutching amped up after that event but both Sam and Cas basically promised to be vigilant before. So why then leave Dean alone with 6 or 7 angry dudes? You wouldn`t do that even if you didn`t think someone was a ticking time bomb. The situation was not secured. It`s not like those guys were standing around meekly and admitted their fault. One person, Cas maybe, is enough to escort Claire out. Two should have remained behind and left together. This was a powder keg.

And it`s not even like one of them shoved Dean, he freaked out and unleashed on them. He was on the ground, they were kicking him in the head. Yes, they were ultimately no match for him and got heavy karma for it but Sam and Cas sit there in the car like logs, hear screaming from the house - you think something bad could have happened the way you left it, guys? - and ran back in to dissolve into horrified "ZOMG, what happened here?" Dudes, you didn`t leave him at a knitting groupd with little old ladies. 

This "tell me you had to do this" just made me roll my eyes so hard. Seriously? Like, what were you doing in the car 2 minutes ago? That was one of the most painfully stupid set-ups for pearl-clutching I`ve seen in my life. Only a recent Flash episode gave me more WTF-feelings.  

Carver-era, Man... We need "the drama" and brotherly conflict. Who cares if we have to make the characters act like idiots in order to get it?

I mean sure we had instances of dumbing the characters down before - usually so that some Person-of-the-Week could be the hero of the moment - but for me this was the first era where it appeared to be a long-term strategy to get the result they wanted. It started in season 8 and continued all the way through season 10. The only thing that saved season 10 for me (season 8 and 9 were a wash for me), was the interesting storyline and we got some relevant POV for Sam that season.*** It wasn't an always a POV supported by the narrative - in that the show/action didn't always match the tell - but at least it was relevant to the story. I'll take what I can get in the Carver era.

I also didn't think that it helped that Dean's characterization was a bit all over the place in season 10. In season 9, it was more obvious that Dean was going under.

This scene for example... How did we get from Dean Smash! (understandably) all the bad rapists, to meek "oh, noes, what have I done?" Dean in a matter of seconds? It would have made much more sense (to me - anyway) if after Sam had asked "Please tell me you had to do this," Dean was "Ah, hello? Rapists? You left me defenseless and alone with them and they were trying to kill me. What did you expect me to do?" because 1) true 2) would have made more sense if Dean was in MoC mode, and 3) might have made Sam and Cas's continued pearl clutching - rather than just a momentary shock due to the brutality - a bit more understandable. (because Dean wouldn't have appeared to be as remorseful and obviously in "this wasn't like me" mode.) After Dean killed Abadon, for example, he wasn't all "so sorry Sam, I shouldn't have tricked you." No, he was "Dude, I got the job done, you would have been a liability, deal with it or not, let's go..."

But I think the writers wanted to have it both ways - concerned Sam and Castiel without getting Dean's hands dirty or making him look like he was actually unstable and in need of help... and I think the overall narrative suffered for it. I think there was an agenda the way they did it, but it didn't make for a consistent tone or narrative.

***Sam did get some POV in season 8... it just turned out to be irrelevant and had nothing to do with the rest of the story. As in I thought it belonged in an entirely different show of an entirely different genre - a much more boring show of the kind I avoid like the plague. Sam also got some POV for a hot minute in season 9, but that again turned out to be fairly irrelevant as it was dropped early on and either never addressed again or retconned into something completely different from what actually happened, because the retconning served the narrative better than what had actually happened.

Edited January 29, 2019 by AwesomO4000

[AwesomO4000]

3 hours ago, Myrelle said:

Sorry about not responding to this sooner, but sadly, RL sometimes has to trump on-line fun for me.

No problem. Thank you for your thoughtful response.

[ILoveReading]

"You're certainly willing to do the sacrificing as long as your not the one being hurt."

Screw you show for writing this line.  The writers of the ep talked about how Sam was coming from a place of honestly. 

No one wants to spend eternity in a bad place, but they once again have to clean up a mess they made.  I'm sure Sam didn't want to spend eternity in the cage but he jumped anyway.  If Dean changes his mind because he just decides he's too sacred or that he just doesn't want to die it will make that above statement true and really make it come across that he really will only sacrifice himself for Sam.

Not exactly the legacy I'm sure Jensen wants to leave Dean with.  That when it truly counted he couldn't hack it.

Yes this would be the exact thing Dabb would do in his disdain for Dean.   They love to set Dean up to fail.  When he went to hell, he broke.  When he took on the mark he eventually succumbed.  With Amara he had to talk about how he was too weak, and they needed to dilute his moment with Amara by having random pidgeon lady soften him up.   Shows how few truly long term arcs Dean had.

As for comparing Sam and Dean there is no worse culprit of Sam vs Dean then the show.  Right form season one, when Sam says "how could you possible know how I feel," like Dean can't relate to losing someone he cared about because he was only four.  And Sam's lose was so much worse. 

When Sam went to hell, the show had zero problems making Dean disparage his own time in hell.  Both Jared and Sera Gamble gleefully both had to make statements that Sam had it so much worse. 

The show has repeatedly, mocked, (Yellow Fever, Scorpion and the The Frog) betlittled (Bobby's boo hoo princess speech, Who We are) or downright ignored Dean's traumas (that ep where they went to hell to rescue Sam).  According to the show Dean thrives on trauma, or he has antibodies so they don't really have to deal with it.   Or the speeches at the end of Trial and Error.  They were very thinly veiled. Sam's strong, Dean's weak speeches wrapped up in a shiny silver BM. 

So yes, comparing the two situations is something the show wouldn't hesitate any chance they got, especially at the end of the season if a sacrifice is required.  Then they have a perfect excuse to hand this story to Sam and can gleefully exclaim Sam is the real firewall.

Dabb has demonstrated a clear disdain for Dean and he loves SuperSam.  So Im not feel especially confidant Dean is going to come out of this scenario looking good.

Edited January 30, 2019 by ILoveReading

[gonzosgirrl]

3 hours ago, ILoveReading said:

"You're certainly willing to do the sacrificing as long as your not the one being hurt."

Screw you show for writing this line.  The writers of the ep talked about how Sam was coming from a place of honestly. 

They did, but everything we saw and know about Dean contradicted it. And I refuse to believe Jensen would agree to perform them having Dean chicken out. Not that Dabb wouldn't try it - but I really think that would be a line in the sand for Jensen. If I'm wrong, then... I just don't know. I don't think I could go on watching the show.

[FlickChick]

3 hours ago, gonzosgirrl said:

They did, but everything we saw and know about Dean contradicted it. And I refuse to believe Jensen would agree to perform them having Dean chicken out. Not that Dabb wouldn't try it - but I really think that would be a line in the sand for Jensen. If I'm wrong, then... I just don't know. I don't think I could go on watching the show.

I hope you're right about Jensen not allowing Dean's character being trashed in that manner if Dabb tried to do it. I'm not sure that Jensen has the authority to refuse to follow script in a main plot point and not just a line of dialog. And if they do succeed in showing Dean in that light, I'm with you there too. It's probably the end for me as well except to see if Jensen gets some good scenes.

[BabySpinach]

Quote

BabySpinach, I liked what you said in the Writers thread about how the idea of Chuck the Divine Writer creating alternate worlds as rough drafts -- and then unfeelingly abandoning them as failures -- "has again re-contextualized, expanded, and deepened the world of the show". Again, it is an idea that actually makes sense in terms of what we have seen of Chuck, (although I'm sure Chuck would deny it), and it makes Michael's mission, while not forgivable, at least much more compelling to watch.

@Bergamot Thanks! This marrying together of two long-established canon elements-- Chuck being a writer, the existence of alternate universes-- was frankly ingenious, especially in comparison to the shallow, feelsy drivel we're often fed nowadays. Fourteen years in, and we're still learning new things about the world of SPN (when the writers actually decide to give a damn).

The show used to care a lot more about large-scale, high-impact worldbuilding. We didn't know that all demons were tortured human souls until season 3, or that angels even existed until season 4, or that Sam and Dean's lives, choices, and personalities roughly mirrored Lucifer and Michael's (hence the apocalypse "destiny") until season 5. And these developments felt organic and planned out, which made the show feel more cohesive.

Now Chuck abandoning his many AU drafts was almost certainly a clever and lucky connection that Yockey happened to make, but it has the same feeling of "rightness" about it. I like that big ideas and themes are being explored again, even if they're not to the same extent as before. After season 12's total black hole of narrative substance, with season 13 a marginal improvement in that regard, I find this a welcome return to form.

I almost wish that the show no longer had occasional flashes of brilliance like Nihilism. It's vexing to me that SPN STILL has the potential to be so engaging, funny, creative, and badass, because it just confirms that I'll never truly be free of my investment until it actually ends. It would have been so much easier for me to wrap my head around an over-aged, relentlessly mediocre genre show that could never again recreate its glory days, one that I would've gradually weaned myself off of to find greener pastures elsewhere. But alas, I'll likely be here till the bitter end. Jensen/Dean (and Yockey), it's all your fault! 

The occasional great episode also contrasts frustratingly with the much higher amount of meh-to-shitty ones. The writers could be doing so much better, as demonstrated gorgeously in 14.10, yet they choose to mostly squander these wonderful worlds and characters instead. No other show has jerked me around so much over the years, but no other single-continuity/same leads genre show has lasted this long, either. I genuinely don't think I'll ever find an equivalent replacement after it finally ends (in 2050, probably). 

[AwesomO4000]

Brought over from the Bitter Spoilers thread. No spoilers (or if so, will be tagged):

7 hours ago, ILoveReading said:

The problem is that dropping the Demon Dean story is that it was never given time and effort from the writers to actually develop it.  It's like they came up with it to give Jensen something to do for a couple of eps.  Because demon Dean just wanted to have fun at the start, doesn't mean that if the writers decided to tell the story it had to stay that way.  Demon Dean could have gotten darker.  I was actually hoping we would see Dean's darker side explored more.  I find the contrast between Dean's dark and light side fascinating. 

I loved how ruthless and uncompromising Dean was in The Prisoner.  I'd would have loved and episode like the Dark/Light Charlie for Dean.

So far for me the Michael storyline is a big dud.  Jensen is killing it in the acting department, but aside from one episode there really wasn't much focus on him.  I think Demon Dean got more focus in those 3 eps then Michael's gotten in 2/3 of the season so far. 

They have the perfect opportunity to let Jensen play Michael for the rest of the season.  But is Dabb going to be smart enough to take advantage of it?

I disagree that the writers didn't put in the effort to develop the Demon Dean storyline or that it was just to give Jensen something to do for a few episodes. I think they/Carver told the story that they/he wanted to tell. It was a continuation of the theme Carver had been "exploring" since season 8... "Who's the real monster?" They started it off with Benny - who was good - and then continued it with Gadreel - who turned out not to be the "monster" after all - and finally with Demon Dean, who the world would have been just fine with him being in it (according to Chuck) and who the narrative took great pains to show was not as bad / dangerous / monstrous as Sam's efforts to get him back. (It might even be argued in the end that Amara was yet another example, being that was she really the "monster" in the end after all was said and done? And even Metatron was redeemed in a way in the end.) Compare these to the "monsters" of the previous years: Azazel, Zachariah, Crowley (when he was more of a bad guy), Lucifer, Dick Roman... unquestionably the bad guys. Little middle ground "who's the real monster" factor with any of them.

So in my opinion, Demon Dean was never going to go very dark or do anything really awful for two big reasons: the Angelus factor*** and it wouldn't entirely fit the narrative of "Who is the real monster?" If Demon Dean went too dark, then the answer to that question would have been obviously the demon, but I don't think that's what the narrative wanted us to see, so that's not what they gave us. They gave us a "monster" - Demon Dean - who perhaps wasn't really hurting anything and a human - Sam - who was maybe doing more damage than Demon Dean. For me, it wasn't that they didn't develop or give time to the Demon Dean story. I think they considered their story and message quite a bit. It was just that I didn't much care for the direction or message of the story that they were giving me or even find it very original, especially since the "human" they most often (but not always) used as their cautionary tale was Sam, and in my opinion, they had him behave out of character / over the top in order to do it.

***(from Angel: the Series. For those unfamiliar: despite Angelus being a rapist, murder and torturer without his soul, the series writers had the temporarily desouled and locked up Angelus talking about all of the awful things he was going to do when he got out, but as soon as he did get out... nothing happened. Instead of heading on out of town and getting his destruction on, Angelus headed to a bar and - if I remember correctly - had a bar fight and beat some people up (ooh scary) and pretty much sat around complaining and waiting to get caught. In other words: the writers wimped out and were afraid to give us full on Angelus again. (We'd seen him originally in the mother series Buffy.)

4 hours ago, Myrelle said:

I would love to keep the Michael trapped in Dean's head storyline.

That being said, I don't see how Dean can go on hunts in that case. If he dies, Michael is out. And sometimes people die instantaneously. No time to get him into the box then. And can he even keep Michael trapped if he's just knocked unconscious? Do we know if he's slept since it happened because how is he keeping him trapped while he sleeps if doing that centers around the strength of his will. If I were Michael, I'd be trying to figure out Dean's waking and sleeping cycles even now.

Theoretically in season 10 if Dean "died" on a case, he would have become a demon again, but they still went on cases and didn't even take any extra precautions that I remember. Not that what you are saying doesn't make sense... I just don't think that it would stop the writers or that they would really bother to address it if it would be inconvenient to do so. I think this Michael in deep freeze in Dean's head was devised just so they could do stuff like this - and I gotta admit it was clever - so I don't see why they wouldn't milk that cow now that they hatched it. (mixing my metaphoric farm animals there ; ) )

Quote

 

But the immediate writing problem remains how are they going to make Dean change his mind about going into the box immediately-because his arguments are very valid and yes, he is the one keeping Michael in, so no one knows better than him how close to breaking out the archangel is.

We know that we're getting that Dean in the box scene tonight. And we know Dean is going to panic in there, at some point( and yes, IA, who wouldn't), but that can't be the only reason that he decides not to go through with it, IMO-not if they want to maintain the integrity of the character, that is. Unfortunately, I don't think that Dabb cares that much at all about maintaining Dean's integrity as a character and that's why tonight's episode will be yet another turning point for many in the Dean fandom as regards continuing to watch the show.

IOW, the reason that Dean changes his mind has to be more than just and only that he's scared of the manner of his death. After all, and as has been pointed out by others-this is a man who's faced horrific deaths many times before, including being buried alive once before, and torn to shreds by hellhounds(and he knew very well, what that would entail). This is a man who apparently "thrives" on trauma, so fear being the big reason that he changes his mind would only amount to character assassination(IMO) precisely because it would be so completely OOC for Dean.

 

I understand your concern here, because needless to say, it's pretty much how I felt about season 8 (and then 9). In my opinion, it was pretty out of character for Sam not only to not look for Dean - which was bad enough and we had how many examples of Sam doing exactly everything he could to get Dean back, starting way back in "Faith?" - but abandoning Kevin and saying that ehn, what difference did it make if he didn't hunt any more, someone else would do it. Apparently either Carver didn't bother to watch "The French Mistake" (or most of season 6.5 - 7) or he chose to deliberately ignore the canon there from the several episodes where Sam talked about how he and Dean hunted because they made a difference and that it was well worth it. But Carver wanted Sam and Dean at odds and he wanted his "who's the real monster" theme, so in came perfect woobie Benny... who of course Sam had to be jealous of and hate immediately rather than give a chance to like so many other monsters ever on this show. Again not in character in my opinion. (And no, I don't think that Sam couldn't "relate" to Benny and / or he was jealous because Benny saved Dean when he hadn't was an excuse for having Sam behave that way... Sam didn't hate Castiel immediately and never did, even when Castiel criticized him and later tried to kill him.)

So I understand. My sympathies can only go so far however, since after years of often being told - (paraphrase) "well it did happen, so it's canon, so maybe you're wrong and that's just the way Sam is after all" (concerning season 8 and 9), I can't really get worked up over what I see as something that's more understandable and - for me - would be less damaging to Dean than what was done to Sam several times in my opinion. ...And that I don't even think is going to happen anyway.

If something completely out of character is written for Dean after all, then I'll reconsider, but I don't see it happening myself.

Quote

My worst feelings spring from the thought that this is going to become more about how they're going to go about remedying Dean's abandonment issues with Sam than it will be about any concern for how the Dean character will come off afterwards-and the reasons for this belong more in the B vs J thread(as do my feelings as to why I think  Dean's/JA's storylines are too often cut short and/or dropped) than in this one, so I'll stop now, just to be safe.

One thing I have not felt from this show - maybe dropped / cut short storylines aside (I disagree) - was that Dean's character was ever severely changed for plot purposes (as in an ongoing more than one episode thing vs one episode writer "bias"). I've not asked "who is that person and what did you do with Dean?" on this show (I came close - in season 8, but comparatively, no contest). I don't think they'll start making me ask now, 14 seasons in.

[ILoveReading]

The problem with that end scene is that it was all about Sam.  How it effected him, how he felt Dean was quitting (he wasn't.  He's trying to stop the world from burning.)  How Dean had no faith in him.

I wish this show would let Dean stand up for himself and tell that that.  It was Sacrifice all over again where Sam put all the burden and guilt on Dean.

What was it Nick said to Sam.  "it's not about you." 

It seems that didn't take. 

I'm going to start calling him samME because he really can't seem to think of anyones feelings but his own. 

[trudysmom]

I see your take ILoveReading, but I didn't see it that way.  (I may change my mind on rewatch.)  I got from Sam that he was saying Dean didn't believe in them, as a team.  I do wish he would stop and consider what having Michael banging around in his head is doing to Dean.  Dean may be dead set on the box as the answer, but it may not be only because of what Billie said, it may be getting worse for him. 

This was also the first episode in a long time that it felt balanced for both brothers.  They both got some good hits in on the baddie, good depth of feeling.  No one  got the drop on one of them so the other had to save him.  

[tessathereaper]

3 hours ago, ILoveReading said:

The problem with that end scene is that it was all about Sam.  How it effected him, how he felt Dean was quitting (he wasn't.  He's trying to stop the world from burning.)  How Dean had no faith in him.

I wish this show would let Dean stand up for himself and tell that that.  It was Sacrifice all over again where Sam put all the burden and guilt on Dean.

What was it Nick said to Sam.  "it's not about you." 

It seems that didn't take. 

I'm going to start calling him samME because he really can't seem to think of anyones feelings but his own. 

Totally agree.  Somehow Sam always makes it about him.

DEAN is the one suffering trying to cage an archangel in his head, Dean is the one dealing with this yet somehow Sam manages to make it about not trusting him(and IMO "not trusting the team" is the same thing, it still comes down to Sam making it about anyone and everyone BUT Dean and basically the show doing the same thing, because clearly Sam is supposed to be in the right here).  It has nothing to do with trusting them, Dean isn't doing this because he's suicidal or he's selfish.  So Dean not only has to deal with this, he has to deal with being sensitive to Sam's feelings about what DEAN is going through?  Yet Sam shows zero acknowledgement of what Dean is going through.  Given how he only barely managed to get control of Lucifer long enough to jump into the pit, you'd think he'd have a little more sympathy for trying to control an archangel in your brain.

Dean started mentioning his father sending him about and yet again Sam made it about himself.  Memememememe, Sam's like a damn opera singer. :)